A column generation approach to exact experimental design

Jacek Gondzio; Selin Ahipasaoglu; Stefano Cipolla

arxiv: 2507.03210 · v2 · pith:ETP5Y7KVnew · submitted 2025-07-03 · 🧮 math.OC

A column generation approach to exact experimental design

Selin Ahipasaoglu , Stefano Cipolla , Jacek Gondzio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 00:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC

keywords D-optimal designexperimental designcolumn generationsemidefinite programmingsupport identificationinteger programming

0 comments

The pith

Column generation solves the continuous D-optimal relaxation to identify the support and construct near-optimal exact designs.

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

The paper develops a column generation algorithm to solve the exact D-optimal experimental design problem. It rapidly finds the support of the optimal solution to the continuous relaxation by repeatedly solving restricted master problems with a primal-dual interior-point semidefinite programming solver. Once the support is known, the method builds a feasible exact design that is guaranteed to be close to optimal. This strategy is shown to work especially well when the number of candidate regression points greatly exceeds the number of experiments. In those large-scale cases the approach runs faster and returns higher-quality solutions than standard branch-and-bound methods.

Core claim

A column generation procedure solves the continuous relaxation of the D-optimal experimental design problem, identifies the exact support of the optimal solution, and uses that support to construct a feasible exact design provably close to optimality; the method outperforms existing branch-and-bound algorithms on large instances where the number of regression points far exceeds the number of experiments.

What carries the argument

Column generation framework that solves the continuous D-optimal relaxation, with each restricted master problem handled by a primal-dual interior-point semidefinite programming solver to detect the design support.

If this is right

The method scales to instances with far more candidate points than experiments.
The resulting exact designs are both feasible and provably close to optimal.
Computation time and solution quality improve over branch-and-bound on large-scale problems.
The identified support directly yields a practical integer design without exhaustive search.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar column-generation ideas could be tested on other optimality criteria such as A- or E-optimality.
The support-identification step might be reused as a preprocessing heuristic in related combinatorial design problems.

Load-bearing premise

That the column generation procedure reliably and rapidly identifies the exact support of the optimal solution to the continuous D-optimal relaxation even when the number of candidate points is very large.

What would settle it

A large instance in which column generation either fails to identify the correct support quickly or produces an exact design whose objective value deviates substantially from the known optimal value of the continuous relaxation.

read the original abstract

In this work, we address the exact D-optimal experimental design problem by proposing an efficient algorithm that rapidly identifies the support of its continuous relaxation. Our method leverages a column generation framework to solve such a continuous relaxation, where each restricted master problem is tackled using a Primal-Dual Interior-Point-based Semidefinite Programming solver. This enables fast and reliable detection of the design's support. The identified support is subsequently used to construct a feasible exact design that is provably close to optimal. We show that, for large-scale instances in which the number of regression points exceeds by far the number of experiments, our approach achieves superior performance compared to existing branch-and-bound-based algorithms in both computational efficiency and solution quality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper pairs column generation with primal-dual interior-point SDP solvers to locate the support of the continuous D-optimal relaxation and then rounds to a nearby exact design, with reported gains on large candidate sets.

read the letter

The main thing to take away is that the authors apply column generation to the continuous relaxation of exact D-optimal design, solving each restricted master with a primal-dual interior-point SDP method so they can identify the support quickly and then produce a feasible exact design from it. They focus on cases where the number of regression points greatly exceeds the number of experiments, and they claim better run times and solution quality than branch-and-bound codes on those instances. That combination looks like the concrete new piece rather than a restatement of earlier column-generation work on design problems. The approach makes sense on paper because it keeps the SDP size manageable by adding columns only as needed instead of loading every candidate point upfront. If the experiments show clear speed-ups without sacrificing much optimality, that would be a practical step forward for people who actually need to solve these problems at scale. The motivation from statistics is straightforward and the algorithmic description seems clean. On the weaker side, the abstract talks about a provably close exact design but does not spell out the error bounds or how they behave when the candidate set grows to tens of thousands. The pricing oracle still has to scan the remaining points at each iteration, so the claimed efficiency could erode if the number of generated columns stays larger than expected or if the interior-point solver hits conditioning trouble on the master problem. I would want to see whether the recovered support is reliably exact enough for the rounding step to deliver the stated guarantee. This is aimed at researchers who work on computational optimal design or large-scale convex relaxations in operations research. Someone who needs a working solver for exact D-optimal problems with big candidate pools would get the most out of the performance numbers and the implementation choices. It is worth sending to a serious referee because the problem is real, the method is a reasonable extension of known tools, and the claims are specific enough to be checked.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a column generation algorithm to solve the continuous relaxation of the exact D-optimal experimental design problem. Restricted master problems are solved via a primal-dual interior-point SDP solver to identify the support of the optimal continuous design; this support is then used to construct a feasible exact (integer) design asserted to be provably close to optimal. The central claim is that the method outperforms existing branch-and-bound algorithms in both speed and solution quality on large-scale instances where the number of candidate regression points greatly exceeds the number of experiments.

Significance. If the support-identification step is reliable and the closeness guarantee holds, the approach would offer a practical, scalable route to exact D-optimal designs for instances that are currently intractable. The combination of column generation with primal-dual IPM SDP solvers is a technically interesting specialization that could transfer to other support-identification problems in combinatorial optimization. The explicit focus on the regime #points ≫ #experiments and the direct comparison to branch-and-bound are strengths.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (column-generation framework): the claim that the identified support yields a 'provably close' feasible exact design is load-bearing for the solution-quality superiority assertion, yet no explicit error bound, rounding theorem, or derivation of the closeness guarantee appears in the high-level description. Without this, the subsequent rounding step's performance cannot be assessed.
[§4 and §5] §4 (pricing subproblem) and §5 (numerical results): when the candidate set reaches 10^4–10^5 points the pricing oracle must still scan all remaining candidates at each iteration. The manuscript should quantify the number of columns generated, the number of pricing sweeps, and the final reduced-cost tolerance for the largest instances; otherwise the claim that column generation 'rapidly identifies the exact support' remains unverified for the regime where the performance advantage is asserted.
[§5] §5 (computational experiments): the reported superiority over branch-and-bound must be accompanied by the optimality gap of the recovered support relative to the true continuous optimum (or a certified bound) and by wall-clock breakdowns separating master solves from pricing. Without these, it is impossible to confirm that numerical ill-conditioning or early termination in the IPM does not degrade the support quality on the largest test cases.

minor comments (2)

[Throughout] Notation for the information matrix and design weights should be introduced once and used consistently; several passages mix w and ξ without explicit redefinition.
[Figures in §5] Figure captions should state the model dimension m, the number of candidate points, and the target number of experiments so that the scale of each instance is immediately clear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which will help improve the clarity and verifiability of our results. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we plan to incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (column-generation framework): the claim that the identified support yields a 'provably close' feasible exact design is load-bearing for the solution-quality superiority assertion, yet no explicit error bound, rounding theorem, or derivation of the closeness guarantee appears in the high-level description. Without this, the subsequent rounding step's performance cannot be assessed.

Authors: We agree that the high-level presentation would benefit from greater explicitness. The closeness guarantee and associated rounding analysis are derived in Section 3.3, but we will revise the abstract and the opening of Section 3 to include a concise statement of the error bound and a brief outline of the rounding procedure, thereby making the claim self-contained at the high level. revision: yes
Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (pricing subproblem) and §5 (numerical results): when the candidate set reaches 10^4–10^5 points the pricing oracle must still scan all remaining candidates at each iteration. The manuscript should quantify the number of columns generated, the number of pricing sweeps, and the final reduced-cost tolerance for the largest instances; otherwise the claim that column generation 'rapidly identifies the exact support' remains unverified for the regime where the performance advantage is asserted.

Authors: We concur that these metrics are necessary to substantiate the efficiency claims in the large-scale regime. In the revised Section 5 we will add a summary table (or inline text) reporting, for every instance with 10^4 or more points, the total number of columns generated, the number of pricing iterations performed, and the final reduced-cost tolerance at termination. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (computational experiments): the reported superiority over branch-and-bound must be accompanied by the optimality gap of the recovered support relative to the true continuous optimum (or a certified bound) and by wall-clock breakdowns separating master solves from pricing. Without these, it is impossible to confirm that numerical ill-conditioning or early termination in the IPM does not degrade the support quality on the largest test cases.

Authors: We acknowledge the value of these diagnostics. We will augment the computational results in Section 5 with (i) the optimality gap of the column-generation solution relative to the continuous optimum (or a certified dual bound) for each large instance and (ii) wall-clock time breakdowns that isolate the cumulative time spent on restricted-master solves from the time spent on pricing-oracle calls. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; algorithmic construction is self-contained

full rationale

The paper describes a column-generation algorithm that solves the continuous D-optimal design relaxation via repeated restricted master SDPs (using a primal-dual interior-point solver) and then rounds the recovered support to an integer design. All load-bearing steps invoke standard, externally validated components of column generation and SDP solvers; no equation or claim reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or renamed input. The performance comparison with branch-and-bound is presented as an empirical outcome rather than a derived identity. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of the paper's own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard mathematical programming results for column generation and semidefinite programming; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard convergence and optimality properties of column generation for convex relaxations hold for the D-optimal design formulation.
Invoked implicitly when claiming that the restricted master problems yield the support of the continuous relaxation.
standard math Primal-dual interior-point methods can reliably solve the SDP relaxations arising in each column-generation iteration.
Relies on existing SDP solver theory without new proof.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5642 in / 1274 out tokens · 38686 ms · 2026-05-22T00:46:36.787713+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Sagnol, G., Harman, R.: Computing exact D-optimal designs by mixed integer second-order cone programming. Ann. Statist. 43(5), 2198–2224 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1214/15-AOS1339 MR4307385

work page doi:10.1214/15-aos1339 2015
[2]

Ahipa¸ sao˘ glu, S.D.: A branch-and-bound algorithm for the exact optimal exper- imental design problem. Stat. Comput. 31(5), 65–11 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11222-021-10043-5 MR4774635

work page 2021
[3]

In: 22nd International Symposium on Experimental Algorithms

Hendrych, D., Besancon, M., Pokutta, S.: Solving the optimal experiment design problem with mixed-integer convex methods. In: 22nd International Symposium on Experimental Algorithms. LIPIcs. Leibniz Int. Proc. Inform., vol. 301 (2024). https://doi.org/10.4230/lipics.sea.2024.16 yao_wang_2021

work page doi:10.4230/lipics.sea.2024.16 2024
[4]

Journal of Data Science 19(1), 151–172 (2021) https://doi.org/10.6339/ 21-JDS999 MR2224698

Yao, Y., Wang, H.: A review on optimal subsampling methods for massive datasets. Journal of Data Science 19(1), 151–172 (2021) https://doi.org/10.6339/ 21-JDS999 MR2224698

work page 2021
[5]

Reprint of the 1993 original.https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719109 MR2376769

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA (2006). Reprint of the 1993 original.https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719109 MR2376769

work page doi:10.1137/1.9780898719109 2006
[6]

Ahipasaoglu, S.D., Sun, P., Todd, M.J.: Linear convergence of a modified Frank- Wolfe algorithm for computing minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids. Optim. Methods Softw. 23(1), 5–19 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1080/10556780701589669 29 MR2158428

work page doi:10.1080/10556780701589669 2008
[7]

Kumar, P., Yildirim, E.A.: Minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids and core sets. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 126(1), 1–21 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10957-005-2653-6 MR2348357

work page 2005
[8]

Discrete Appl

Todd, M.J., m, E.A.: On Khachiyan’s algorithm for the computation of minimum- volume enclosing ellipsoids. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(13), 1731–1744 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2007.02.013 MR2339022

work page doi:10.1016/j.dam.2007.02.013 2007
[9]

Harman, R., Ponzato, L.: Improvements on removing nonoptimal support points in D-optimum design algorithms. Statist. Probab. Lett.77(1), 90–94 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2006.05.014 ThesisAhi

work page doi:10.1016/j.spl.2006.05.014 2007
[10]

PhD thesis, Cornell University (2009) MR4387269

glu, S.D.: Solving ellipsoidal inclusion and optimal experimental design problems: Theory and algorithms. PhD thesis, Cornell University (2009) MR4387269

work page 2009
[11]

Rosa, S., Harman, R.: Computing minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids for large datasets. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 171, 107452–12 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.csda.2022.107452 MR2091768

work page arXiv 2022
[12]

Sun, P., Freund, R.M.: Computation of minimum-volume covering ellipsoids. Oper. Res. 52(5), 690–706 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0115 MR2061575

work page doi:10.1287/opre.1040.0115 2004
[13]

Boyd and L

Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804441 MR4655115

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804441 2004
[14]

Bowman, N., Heath, M.T.: Computing minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids. Math. Program. Comput. 15(4), 621–650 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12532-023-00242-8 MR462607

work page 2023
[15]

Murtagh, B.A., Saunders, M.A.: Large-Scale linearly constrained optimization. Math. Programming 14(1), 41–72 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588950 MR2323647

work page doi:10.1007/bf01588950 1978
[16]

Oxford Statistical Science Series, vol

Atkinson, A.C., Donev, A.N., Tobias, R.D.: Optimum Experimental Designs, with SAS. Oxford Statistical Science Series, vol. 34, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 511 (2007) MR403103

work page 2007
[17]

Probability and Mathematical Statistics, vol

Fedorov, V.V.: Theory of Optimal Experiments. Probability and Mathematical Statistics, vol. No. 12, Academic Press, New York-London, p. 292 (1972) MR653110

work page 1972
[18]

Technometrics24(1), 41–48 (1982) https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1267576 ponte2023branchandbounddoptimalityfastlocal

Welch, W.J.: Branch-and-bound search for experimental designs based on D- optimality and other criteria. Technometrics24(1), 41–48 (1982) https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1267576 ponte2023branchandbounddoptimalityfastlocal

work page doi:10.2307/1267576 1982
[19]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07386 MR4102952

Ponte, G., Fampa, M., Lee, J.: Branch-and-bound for D-Optimality with fast local search and variable-bound tightening (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07386 MR4102952

work page arXiv 2023
[20]

Filov´ a, L., Harman, R.: Ascent with quadratic assistance for the construction of exact experimental designs. Comput. Statist. 35(2), 775–801 (2020) https: 30 //doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00961-9 madan2019combinatorial

work page doi:10.1007/s00180-020-00961-9 2020
[21]

In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp

Madan, V., Singh, M., Tantipongpipat, U., Xie, W.: Combinatorial algorithms for optimal design. In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp. 2210–2258 (2019). PMLR MR4759553

work page 2019
[22]

Harman, R., Rosa, S.: Mixed-integer linear programming for computing optimal experimental designs. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 234, 106200–16 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2024.106200 MR1976479

work page doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2024.106200 2025
[23]

T¨ ut¨ unc¨ u, R.H., Toh, K.C., Todd, M.J.: Solving semidefinite-quadratic-linear programs using SDPT3. vol. 95, pp. 189–217 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10107-002-0347-5 . Computational semidefinite and second order cone program- ming: the state of the art. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-002-0347-5 MR3522166

work page doi:10.1007/s10107-002-0347-5 2003
[24]

Theory and algorithms

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA; Mathematical Optimization Society, Philadelphia, PA, ??? (2016). Theory and algorithms. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974386.ch1 MR2980569

work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611974386.ch1 2016
[25]

European J

Gondzio, J., Gonz´ alez-Brevis, P., Munari, P.: New developments in the primal- dual column generation technique. European J. Oper. Res. 224(1), 41–51 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.024 31

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.024 2013

[1] [1]

Sagnol, G., Harman, R.: Computing exact D-optimal designs by mixed integer second-order cone programming. Ann. Statist. 43(5), 2198–2224 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1214/15-AOS1339 MR4307385

work page doi:10.1214/15-aos1339 2015

[2] [2]

Ahipa¸ sao˘ glu, S.D.: A branch-and-bound algorithm for the exact optimal exper- imental design problem. Stat. Comput. 31(5), 65–11 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11222-021-10043-5 MR4774635

work page 2021

[3] [3]

In: 22nd International Symposium on Experimental Algorithms

Hendrych, D., Besancon, M., Pokutta, S.: Solving the optimal experiment design problem with mixed-integer convex methods. In: 22nd International Symposium on Experimental Algorithms. LIPIcs. Leibniz Int. Proc. Inform., vol. 301 (2024). https://doi.org/10.4230/lipics.sea.2024.16 yao_wang_2021

work page doi:10.4230/lipics.sea.2024.16 2024

[4] [4]

Journal of Data Science 19(1), 151–172 (2021) https://doi.org/10.6339/ 21-JDS999 MR2224698

Yao, Y., Wang, H.: A review on optimal subsampling methods for massive datasets. Journal of Data Science 19(1), 151–172 (2021) https://doi.org/10.6339/ 21-JDS999 MR2224698

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Reprint of the 1993 original.https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719109 MR2376769

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA (2006). Reprint of the 1993 original.https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719109 MR2376769

work page doi:10.1137/1.9780898719109 2006

[6] [6]

Ahipasaoglu, S.D., Sun, P., Todd, M.J.: Linear convergence of a modified Frank- Wolfe algorithm for computing minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids. Optim. Methods Softw. 23(1), 5–19 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1080/10556780701589669 29 MR2158428

work page doi:10.1080/10556780701589669 2008

[7] [7]

Kumar, P., Yildirim, E.A.: Minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids and core sets. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 126(1), 1–21 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10957-005-2653-6 MR2348357

work page 2005

[8] [8]

Discrete Appl

Todd, M.J., m, E.A.: On Khachiyan’s algorithm for the computation of minimum- volume enclosing ellipsoids. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(13), 1731–1744 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2007.02.013 MR2339022

work page doi:10.1016/j.dam.2007.02.013 2007

[9] [9]

Harman, R., Ponzato, L.: Improvements on removing nonoptimal support points in D-optimum design algorithms. Statist. Probab. Lett.77(1), 90–94 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2006.05.014 ThesisAhi

work page doi:10.1016/j.spl.2006.05.014 2007

[10] [10]

PhD thesis, Cornell University (2009) MR4387269

glu, S.D.: Solving ellipsoidal inclusion and optimal experimental design problems: Theory and algorithms. PhD thesis, Cornell University (2009) MR4387269

work page 2009

[11] [11]

Rosa, S., Harman, R.: Computing minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids for large datasets. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 171, 107452–12 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.csda.2022.107452 MR2091768

work page arXiv 2022

[12] [12]

Sun, P., Freund, R.M.: Computation of minimum-volume covering ellipsoids. Oper. Res. 52(5), 690–706 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0115 MR2061575

work page doi:10.1287/opre.1040.0115 2004

[13] [13]

Boyd and L

Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804441 MR4655115

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804441 2004

[14] [14]

Bowman, N., Heath, M.T.: Computing minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids. Math. Program. Comput. 15(4), 621–650 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12532-023-00242-8 MR462607

work page 2023

[15] [15]

Murtagh, B.A., Saunders, M.A.: Large-Scale linearly constrained optimization. Math. Programming 14(1), 41–72 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588950 MR2323647

work page doi:10.1007/bf01588950 1978

[16] [16]

Oxford Statistical Science Series, vol

Atkinson, A.C., Donev, A.N., Tobias, R.D.: Optimum Experimental Designs, with SAS. Oxford Statistical Science Series, vol. 34, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 511 (2007) MR403103

work page 2007

[17] [17]

Probability and Mathematical Statistics, vol

Fedorov, V.V.: Theory of Optimal Experiments. Probability and Mathematical Statistics, vol. No. 12, Academic Press, New York-London, p. 292 (1972) MR653110

work page 1972

[18] [18]

Technometrics24(1), 41–48 (1982) https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1267576 ponte2023branchandbounddoptimalityfastlocal

Welch, W.J.: Branch-and-bound search for experimental designs based on D- optimality and other criteria. Technometrics24(1), 41–48 (1982) https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1267576 ponte2023branchandbounddoptimalityfastlocal

work page doi:10.2307/1267576 1982

[19] [19]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07386 MR4102952

Ponte, G., Fampa, M., Lee, J.: Branch-and-bound for D-Optimality with fast local search and variable-bound tightening (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07386 MR4102952

work page arXiv 2023

[20] [20]

Filov´ a, L., Harman, R.: Ascent with quadratic assistance for the construction of exact experimental designs. Comput. Statist. 35(2), 775–801 (2020) https: 30 //doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00961-9 madan2019combinatorial

work page doi:10.1007/s00180-020-00961-9 2020

[21] [21]

In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp

Madan, V., Singh, M., Tantipongpipat, U., Xie, W.: Combinatorial algorithms for optimal design. In: Conference on Learning Theory, pp. 2210–2258 (2019). PMLR MR4759553

work page 2019

[22] [22]

Harman, R., Rosa, S.: Mixed-integer linear programming for computing optimal experimental designs. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 234, 106200–16 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2024.106200 MR1976479

work page doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2024.106200 2025

[23] [23]

T¨ ut¨ unc¨ u, R.H., Toh, K.C., Todd, M.J.: Solving semidefinite-quadratic-linear programs using SDPT3. vol. 95, pp. 189–217 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10107-002-0347-5 . Computational semidefinite and second order cone program- ming: the state of the art. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-002-0347-5 MR3522166

work page doi:10.1007/s10107-002-0347-5 2003

[24] [24]

Theory and algorithms

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA; Mathematical Optimization Society, Philadelphia, PA, ??? (2016). Theory and algorithms. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974386.ch1 MR2980569

work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611974386.ch1 2016

[25] [25]

European J

Gondzio, J., Gonz´ alez-Brevis, P., Munari, P.: New developments in the primal- dual column generation technique. European J. Oper. Res. 224(1), 41–51 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.024 31

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.07.024 2013