Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

On the Practical Implementation of a Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm for Nonconvex Sum-of-squares Problems

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-16 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A filter line search algorithm solves sequences of quadratic subproblems to handle nonconvex sum-of-squares optimization more efficiently.

desk verdict The paper gives a filter line search SQP for nonconvex SOS and claims clear speedups, but the benchmark evidence is too thin to judge how general those gains are. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.02394 v2 submitted 2026-02-02 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Jan Olucak , Torbj{o}rn Cunis This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY
keywords sum-of-squaresoptimizationnonconvexproblemssequentialquadraticprogrammingfilterlinesearchpolynomialnonnegativitynumericalbenchmarkscontrolengineering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Sum-of-squares optimization certifies polynomial nonnegativity and reduces to semidefinite programs when the instance is convex. Nonconvex cases require iterative procedures, yet efficient and reliable solvers remain scarce. The paper introduces a filter line search method that repeatedly solves quadratic subproblems derived from the original formulation. Benchmarks on nonconvex instances show markedly fewer iterations and lower total computation time than established approaches. This matters for control engineering and related fields where nonconvex SOS problems arise in stability and robustness analysis.

What carries the argument

The filter line search algorithm applied to a transcribed sequence of quadratic subproblems.

What would settle it

A standard nonconvex SOS benchmark from control theory on which the algorithm either diverges or requires more iterations and time than current solvers would falsify the performance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes a filter line search algorithm that solves a sequence of quadratic subproblems for nonconvex sum-of-squares optimization. Numerical benchmarks demonstrate that the algorithm can significantly reduce the number of iterations, resulting in a substantial decrease in computation time compared to established methods for nonconvex SOS programs.

Load-bearing premise

The filter line search and quadratic subproblem sequence remain reliable and convergent for the full range of nonconvex SOS instances encountered in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonconvex SOS problems become solvable with substantially fewer iterations in the tested cases.
  • Overall computation time for certifying polynomial nonnegativity drops compared with prior iterative solvers.
  • Tractable solutions open for nonconvex instances in control engineering that previously exceeded practical limits.
  • The method supplies a concrete implementation route for sequential quadratic programming on SOS constraints.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same quadratic-subproblem structure might extend to other classes of nonconvex polynomial programs that admit SOS relaxations.
  • Warm-starting the quadratic solves from previous iterates could produce further speed gains not explored in the benchmarks.
  • Convergence radius might be characterized by examining how the filter parameters interact with the degree of the polynomials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a filter line search SQP algorithm for nonconvex sum-of-squares (SOS) optimization problems. It formulates the nonconvex SOS task as a sequence of quadratic subproblems solved iteratively, with a filter mechanism to enforce progress and convergence. Numerical benchmarks are presented to claim that the method substantially reduces iteration counts and runtime relative to existing solvers for nonconvex SOS programs.

Significance. If the performance claims are substantiated across representative instances, the work could supply a practical, convergent solver for nonconvex SOS problems that arise in control synthesis and polynomial optimization, where current methods remain limited.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5 / abstract] Numerical benchmarks (abstract and §5): the central performance claim—that the filter line search SQP reduces iterations and computation time versus established methods—lacks any description of the test set (problem sizes, polynomial degrees, degree of nonconvexity), baseline solvers, or statistical controls (e.g., multiple random instances, failure rates). Without this information it is impossible to determine whether the observed speedups are general or artifacts of a narrow, specially structured test collection.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by a single sentence indicating the classes of test problems (e.g., control Lyapunov functions of degree 4–6) used to obtain the reported speedups.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comment on the numerical benchmarks. We address the concern below and will revise the manuscript to provide the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5 / abstract] Numerical benchmarks (abstract and §5): the central performance claim—that the filter line search SQP reduces iterations and computation time versus established methods—lacks any description of the test set (problem sizes, polynomial degrees, degree of nonconvexity), baseline solvers, or statistical controls (e.g., multiple random instances, failure rates). Without this information it is impossible to determine whether the observed speedups are general or artifacts of a narrow, specially structured test collection.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation of the numerical results in Section 5 does not provide sufficient detail on the test problems to allow readers to fully assess the generality of the reported speedups. In the revised manuscript we will expand Section 5 to include: (i) explicit characterization of the test set by problem dimension (number of variables), polynomial degree, and degree of nonconvexity (e.g., number of nonconvex terms and/or the spectrum of the Hessian at the computed solution); (ii) precise identification of all baseline solvers employed for comparison; and (iii) statistical controls consisting of averages and standard deviations computed over multiple randomly generated instances together with observed failure rates. These additions will make clear that the performance improvements are not limited to a narrow or specially structured collection of instances. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: algorithmic proposal and empirical benchmarks are self-contained with no derivation chain reducing to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper proposes a filter line search SQP method for nonconvex sum-of-squares problems and supports its claims exclusively through numerical benchmarks comparing iteration counts and runtime against established solvers. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citations appear in the abstract or described content that could create a self-definitional loop, a prediction forced by a prior fit, or an ansatz smuggled via citation. The central performance claims rest on external empirical evidence rather than any reduction of outputs to the algorithm's own inputs by construction. This is the expected honest outcome for an implementation-focused paper whose load-bearing steps are algorithmic description plus benchmarking, not mathematical derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The method implicitly relies on standard assumptions of SQP convergence and SOS feasibility that are not detailed here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Practical Implementation of a Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm for Nonconvex Sum-of-squares Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2602.02394

@misc{pith2026260202394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Practical Implementation of a Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm for Nonconvex Sum-of-squares Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2602.02394}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.02394}
}
read the original abstract

Sum-of-squares (SOS) optimization provides a computationally tractable framework for certifying polynomial nonnegativity. If the considered problem is convex, the SOS problem can be transcribed into and solved by semi-definite programs. However, in case of nonconvex problems iterative procedures are needed. Yet tractable and efficient solution methods are still lacking, limiting their application, for instance, in control engineering. To address this gap, we propose a filter line search algorithm that solves a sequence of quadratic subproblems. Numerical benchmarks demonstrate that the algorithm can significantly reduce the number of iterations, resulting in a substantial decrease in computation time compared to established methods for nonconvex SOS programs

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data-driven discovery of polynomial ODEs with provably bounded solutions

    math.DS 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SILAS jointly optimizes polynomial ODE vector fields and polynomial Lyapunov functions from data to produce models with provably bounded trajectories via compact absorbing sets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , month = mar, year =

    P.A. Parillo, Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems, Math. Program., Series B96(2), 293 (2003). DOI 10.1007/s10107-003-0387-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-003-0387-5 2003

  2. [2]

    Blekherman, P.A

    G. Blekherman, P.A. Parrilo, R.R. Thomas (eds.),Semidefinite Optimization and Con- vex Algebraic Geometry. MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization (SIAM)

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bertsimas, D.A

    D. Bertsimas, D.A. Iancu, P.A. Parrilo, A Hierarchy of Near-Optimal Policies for Mul- tistage Adaptive Optimization,56(12), 2809. DOI 10.1109/TAC.2011.2162878

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2011.2162878 2011

  4. [4]

    Magnani, S

    A. Magnani, S. Lall, S. Boyd, Tractable fitting with convex polynomials via sum-of- squares, inIEEE 44th Conf. Decis. Control. pp. 1672–1677. DOI 10.1109/CDC.2005. 1582399

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2005 2005

  5. [5]

    Ambainis, Y

    B. Barak, J.A. Kelner, D. Steurer, Dictionary Learning and Tensor Decomposition via the Sum-of-Squares Method, inProc. 47th Annu. ACM Symp. Theory Comput.(As- sociation for Computing Machinery), STOC ’15, pp. 143–151. DOI 10.1145/2746539. 2746605

    work page doi:10.1145/2746539

  6. [7]

    Jarvis-Wloszek, R

    Z. Jarvis-Wloszek, R. Feeley, W. Tan, K. Sun, A. Packard, inPositive Polynomials in Control, ed. by D. Henrion, A. Garulli, Lect. Notes Control Inf. Sci. (Springer), pp. 3–22. DOI 10.1007/10997703 1

    work page doi:10.1007/10997703

  7. [8]

    M. ApS. The mosek optimization toolbox for matlab. version 11.0.30 (2025). URL https://docs.mosek.com/latest/toolbox/index.html

    work page 2025

  8. [9]

    Goulart and Yuwen Chen

    P.J. Goulart, Y. Chen. Clarabel: An interior-point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives (2024). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12762

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [10]

    O’Donoghue, E

    B. O’Donoghue, E. Chu, N. Parikh, S. Boyd. SCS: Splitting conic solver, version 3.2.9. https://github.com/cvxgrp/scs(2023)

    2023

  2. [11]

    D. Ge, Q. Huangfu, Z. Wang, J. Wu, Y. Ye, Cardinal optimizer (copt) user guide, (2026). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2208.14314

    2026

  3. [12]

    Q. Han, Z. Lin, H. Liu, C. Chen, Q. Deng, D. Ge, Y. Ye. Accelerating Low-Rank Factorization-Based Semidefinite Programming Algorithms on GPU (2024). DOI 10. 48550/arXiv.2407.15049. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15049

    2024

  4. [13]

    D. Papp, S. Yıldız, Alfonso: Matlab Package for Nonsymmetric Conic Optimization, INFORMS J. Comput.34(1), 11 (2022). DOI 10.1287/ijoc.2021.1058

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    Ahmadi, A

    A.A. Ahmadi, A. Majumdar, DSOS and SDSOS Optimization: More Tractable Alterna- tives to Sum of Squares and Semidefinite Optimization, SIAM J. Appl. Algebra Geom. 3(2), 193 (2019). DOI 10.1137/18M118935X

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    Driggs, H

    D. Driggs, H. Fawzi, Anysos: An anytime algorithm for sos programming, in2019 IEEE 58th Conf. Decis. Control(2019), pp. 3012–3017. DOI 10.1109/CDC40024.2019. 9029387

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    D. Jagt, S. Shivakumar, P. Seiler, M. Peet, Efficient Data Structures for Representation of Polynomial Optimization Problems: Implementation in SOSTOOLS, IEEE Control Syst. Lett.6, 3493 (2022). DOI 10.1109/LCSYS.2022.3183650 Sequential Quadratic Programming for Nonconvex Sum-o...

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Legat, C

    B. Legat, C. Coey, R. Deits, J. Huchette, A. Perry. Sum-of-squares optimization in Julia (2017)

    2017

  9. [18]

    Cunis, Decomposed quasiconvex optimization with application to generalized cone problems, Opt

    T. Cunis, Decomposed quasiconvex optimization with application to generalized cone problems, Opt. Let.19(2), 267 (2025). DOI 10.1007/s11590-024-02174-1

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    L¨ ofberg, Pre- and Post-Processing Sum-of-Squares Programs in Practice, IEEE Trans

    J. L¨ ofberg, Pre- and Post-Processing Sum-of-Squares Programs in Practice, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control54(5), 1007 (2009). DOI 10.1109/TAC.2009.2017144

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    Ahmadi, G

    A.A. Ahmadi, G. Hall, A. Papachristodoulou, J. Saunderson, Y. Zheng, Improving Ef- ficiency and Scalability of Sum of Squares Optimization : Recent Advances and Lim- itations, in56th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control(Melbourne, 2017), pp. 453–462. DOI 10.1109/CDC.2017.8263706

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. Seiler, G.J. Balas, Nonlinear region of attraction analysis for flight control verification and validation, Control Eng. Pract.19(4), 335 (2011). DOI 10.1016/ j.conengprac.2010.12.001

    2011

  13. [22]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. Seiler, G.J. Balas, Susceptibility of F/A-18 Flight Controllers to the Falling-leaf Mode: Nonlinear Analysis, J. Guid. Control Dyn.34(2), 73 (2011). DOI 10.2514/1.50675

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    Iannelli, A

    A. Iannelli, A. Marcos, P. Seiler, An equilibrium-independent region of attraction for- mulation for systems with uncertainty-dependent equilibria, in2018 IEEE Conf. Decis. Control(2018), pp. 725–730. DOI 10.1109/CDC.2018.8619153

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    Seiler, G.J

    P. Seiler, G.J. Balas, Quasiconvex sum-of-squares programming, in49th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control(Atlanta, US, 2010), pp. 3337–3342. DOI 10.1109/CDC.2010.5717672

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    H. Yin, A. Packard, M. Arcak, P. Seiler, Finite horizon backward reachability analy- sis and control synthesis for uncertain nonlinear systems, inProc. Am. Control Conf. (Philadelphia, US, 2019), pp. 5020–5026. DOI 10.23919/ACC.2019.8814444

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    H. Yin, P. Seiler, M. Arcak, Backward Reachability Using Integral Quadratic Con- straints for Uncertain Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Control Syst. Lett.5(2), 707 (2021). DOI 10.1109/LCSYS.2020.3005315

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Jarvis-Wloszek, R

    Z. Jarvis-Wloszek, R. Feeley, W. Tan, K. Sun, A. Packard, Some Controls Applications of Sum of Squares Programming, inProc. of the IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, vol. 5 (Maui, US, 2003), vol. 5, pp. 4676–4681. DOI 10.1109/CDC.2003.1272309

    2003 doi

  19. [28]

    Cunis, I

    T. Cunis, I. Kolmanovsky, Viability, viscosity, and storage functions in model-predictive control with terminal constraints, Automatica131(109748) (2021). DOI 10.1016/j. automatica.2021.109748

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Majumdar, A.A

    A. Majumdar, A.A. Ahmadi, R. Tedrake, Control Design Along Trajectories via Sum of Squares Optimization, in2013 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.(Karlsruhe, 2013), pp. 4039–4046. DOI 10.1109/ICRA.2013.6631149

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    W. Lin, Z. Yang, Z. Ding, Reachable Set Estimation and Safety Verification of Nonlinear Systems via Iterative Sums of Squares Programming, J. Syst. Sci. Complex35(3), 1154 (2022). DOI 10.1007/s11424-022-1121-9

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    Newton, Z

    M. Newton, Z. Xiong, H. Wang, A. Papachristodoulou. On the Design of Rational Polynomial State Feedback Controllers (2025). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2511.18988. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18988

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    A.D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, P. Tabuada, Control barrier functions: Theory and applications, in2019 18th Eur. Control Conf.(2019), pp. 3420–3431. DOI 10.23919/ECC.2019.8796030

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    Clark, Verification and Synthesis of Control Barrier Functions, in2021 60th IEEE Conf

    A. Clark, Verification and Synthesis of Control Barrier Functions, in2021 60th IEEE Conf. Decis. and Control(2021), pp. 6105–6112. DOI 10.1109/CDC45484.2021.9683520

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    Tan, Nonlinear Control Analysis and Synthesis using Sum-of-Squares Programming

    W. Tan, Nonlinear Control Analysis and Synthesis using Sum-of-Squares Programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, US (2006)

    2006

  26. [35]

    Schneeberger, F

    M. Schneeberger, F. D¨ orfler, S. Mastellone, SOS Construction of Compatible Control Lyapunov and Barrier Functions, IFAC-PapersOnLine56(2), 10428 (2023). DOI 10. 1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.1058

    2023

  27. [36]

    Loureiro, T

    R. Loureiro, T. Cunis, Estimating Robust Regions of Attraction with Uncertain Equi- librium Points, in2025 Am. Control Conf.(2025), pp. 1045–1050. DOI 10.23919/ ACC63710.2025.11107427

    2025

  28. [37]

    Fiala, M

    J. Fiala, M. Koˇ cvara, M. Stingl. PENLAB: A MATLAB solver for nonlinear semidefinite optimization (2013). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.1311.5240. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/ 1311.5240 30 Jan Olucak, Torbjørn Cunis

    2013 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    Cunis, B

    T. Cunis, B. Legat, Sequential sum-of-squares programming for analysis of nonlinear systems, in2023 Am. Control Conf.(San Diego, CA, 2023). DOI 10.23919/ACC55779. 2023.10156153

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    S. Boyd, L. Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization, 7th edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    2009

  31. [40]

    Betts,Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming, 2nd edn

    J.T. Betts,Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming, 2nd edn. (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2010). DOI 10.1137/1.9780898718577

    2010 doi

  32. [41]

    Nocedal, S.J

    J. Nocedal, S.J. Wright,Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer series in operations research (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  33. [42]

    Biegler,Nonlinear programming: concepts, algorithms, and applications to chem- ical processes(SIAM, 2010)

    L.T. Biegler,Nonlinear programming: concepts, algorithms, and applications to chem- ical processes(SIAM, 2010)

    2010

  34. [43]

    Fletcher, S

    R. Fletcher, S. Leyffer, Nonlinear programming without a penalty function, Math. Prog. 91(2), 239 (2002). DOI 10.1007/s101070100244

    2002 doi

  35. [44]

    W¨ achter, L.T

    A. W¨ achter, L.T. Biegler, Line search filter methods for nonlinear programming: Mo- tivation and global convergence, SIAM J. Optim.16(1), 1 (2005). DOI 10.1137/ S1052623403426556

    2005

  36. [45]

    W¨ achter, L.T

    A. W¨ achter, L.T. Biegler, On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming, Mathematical Programming106(1), 25 (2006). DOI 10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y

    2006 doi

  37. [46]

    Cunis, J

    T. Cunis, J. Olucak, CaΣoS: A nonlinear sum-of-squares optimization suite, in2025 Am. Control Conf.(Denver, CO), pp. 1659–1666. DOI 10.23919/ACC63710.2025.11107794

    2025 doi

  38. [47]

    Lasserre, Global Optimization with Polynomials and the Problem of Moments, SIAM J

    J.B. Lasserre, Global Optimization with Polynomials and the Problem of Moments, SIAM J. Optim.11(3), 796 (2001)

    2001

  39. [48]

    Ebenbauer, F

    C. Ebenbauer, F. Allg¨ ower, Analysis and design of polynomial control systems using dissipation inequalities and sum of squares, Computers and Chemical Engineering30, 1590 (2006). DOI 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2006.05.014

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    Izmailov, M.V

    A.F. Izmailov, M.V. Solodov,Newton-Type Methods for Optimization and Varia- tional Problems(Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014). DOI 10.1007/ 978-3-319-04247-3

    2014

  41. [50]

    Dokov, A.L

    S.P. Dokov, A.L. Dontchev, inOptimal Control: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, ed. by W.H. Hager, P.M. Pardalos (Springer, New York, NY, 1998), pp. 116–129. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-6095-8{\ }6

    1998 doi

  42. [51]

    Dontchev, R.T

    A.L. Dontchev, R.T. Rockafellar, Convergence of inexact newton methods for gen- eralized equations, Mathematical Programming139(1-2), 115 (2013). DOI 10.1007/ s10107-013-0664-x

    2013

  43. [52]

    Mordukhovich, M.E

    B.S. Mordukhovich, M.E. Sarabi, Generalized Newton Algorithms for Tilt-Stable Min- imizers in Nonsmooth Optimization, SIAM J. Optim.31(2), 1184 (2021). DOI 10.1137/20M1329937. URLhttps://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/20M1329937

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    Louzeiro, G.N

    M.S. Louzeiro, G.N. Silva, J. Yuan, Inexact Newton Methods for Solving Generalized Equations on Riemannian Manifolds, pp. 1–34 (2023)

    2023

  45. [54]

    Q.T. Dinh, M. Diehl, inRecent Advances in Optimization and its Applications in En- gineering, ed. by M. Diehl, F. Glineur, E. Jarlebring, W. Michiels (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010), pp. 93–102. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-12598-0{\ }9

    2010 doi

  46. [55]

    Dontchev,Lectures on Variational Analysis

    A.L. Dontchev,Lectures on Variational Analysis. No. 205 in Appl. Math. Sci. (Springer, Cham, 2021). DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-79911-3

    2021 doi

  47. [56]

    Andersson, J

    J.A.E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J.B. Rawlings, M. Diehl, CasADi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control, Math. Program. Comput. 11(1), 1 (2019). DOI 10.1007/s12532-018-0139-4

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    A.A. Khan, C. Tammer, C. Z˘ alinescu,Set-valued Optimization(Springer, Berlin, 2015). DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-54265-7

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    On the Practical Imple- mentation of a Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm for Nonconvex Sum-of- squares Problems

    J. Olucak, T. Cunis. Supplementary Material for the paper “On the Practical Imple- mentation of a Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm for Nonconvex Sum-of- squares Problems” (2026). DOI 10.18419/DARUS-5677. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 18419/DARUS-5677

    2026 doi

  50. [59]

    Ulbrich, S

    M. Ulbrich, S. Ulbrich, L.N. Vicente, A globally convergent primal-dual interior-point filter method for nonlinear programming, Math. Program., Ser. A100(2), 379 (2004). DOI 10.1007/s10107-003-0477-4 Sequential Quadratic Programming for Nonconvex Sum-of-squares Problems 31

    2004 doi

  51. [60]

    Quirynen, B

    R. Quirynen, B. Houska, M. Vallerio, D. Telen, F. Logist, J. Van Impe, M. Diehl, Symmetric algorithmic differentiation based exact hessian SQP method and software for economic MPC, in53rd IEEE Conf. Decis. Control(2014), pp. 2752–2757. DOI 10.1109/CDC.2014.7039811

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

    Rauˇ ski, Limited memory BFGS method for sparse and large-scale nonlinear opti- mization

    S. Rauˇ ski, Limited memory BFGS method for sparse and large-scale nonlinear opti- mization. Ph.d. dissertation, University of Bremen (2014)

    2014

  53. [62]

    Nikolayzik, Korrekturverfahren zur numerischen l¨ osung nichtlinearer opti- mierungsprobleme mittels methoden der parametrischen sensitivit¨ atsanalyse (german)

    T. Nikolayzik, Korrekturverfahren zur numerischen l¨ osung nichtlinearer opti- mierungsprobleme mittels methoden der parametrischen sensitivit¨ atsanalyse (german). Ph.d. dissertation, University of Bremen (2012)

    2012

  54. [63]

    Nurre, J.P

    G.S. Nurre, J.P. Sharkey, J.D. Nelson, A.J. Bradley, Preservicing mission - on-orbit modifications to hubble space telescope pointing control system, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 18(2), 222 (1995). DOI 10.2514/3.21373

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.