Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

A proximal DC approach for quadratic assignment problem

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes an exact rank-constrained doubly nonnegative reformulation of the quadratic assignment problem and gives a proximal difference-of-convex algorithm that reaches the global optimum on most tested instances.

desk verdict A useful DCA-for-QAP paper whose numerical results outrun its theory: the rank-one feasibility claim rests on an unproven dual-bound uniformity and a sign slip. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04522 v1 pith:P6GMAID7 submitted 2019-08-13 math.OC

Zhuoxuan Jiang , Xinyuan Zhao , Chao Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C2290C2590C2690C27
keywords quadraticassignmentproblemdoublynonnegativeprogrammingrankconstraintdifferenceofconvexfunctionsDCexactpenaltyaugmentedLagrangianmethodsemidefiniterelaxation
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

The paper claims that the quadratic assignment problem (QAP) — the NP-hard task of placing $n$ facilities on $n$ locations while minimizing flow times distance — can be restated exactly as a rank-constrained doubly nonnegative (DNN) program. It then replaces the rank-one condition by a penalty equal to the difference between the nuclear norm and the spectral norm, $\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2$, which is zero exactly for rank-one matrices, turning the problem into a difference-of-convex (DC) program. A proximal DC algorithm is proposed, with inner subproblems solved by a majorized semismooth Newton augmented Lagrangian method, and the paper proves that its iterates converge to a stationary point that is feasible for the rank-constrained problem whenever the penalty parameter is large enough. In experiments on 107 QAPLIB and “dre” instances, the algorithm finds the global optimum for 69 instances, obtains a solution within 4% of the optimum for 32 more, and stays above 4% on only 6. If the claims hold, a single nonconvex relaxation can produce upper bounds that often match the best-known solutions obtained elsewhere by branch-and-bound or by combining many relaxations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rank-one constraint written as a DC penalty: for symmetric matrices, rank at most one is equivalent to $\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2=0$, where the nuclear norm is the sum of the singular values and the spectral norm is the largest singular value. The paper embeds this in the abstract problem (12), with $\Omega=\{Y\in S_+^q\cap N^q : \mathcal{A}(Y)=b\}$ and $R=\{Y : \operatorname{rank}(Y)\le 1\}$, then minimizes $f_\rho(Y)=\langle C,Y\rangle+\rho(\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2)$ over $\Omega$. The proximal DC algorithm linearizes the concave term $-\rho\|Y\|_2$ at each iterate and solves a strongly convex nuclear-norm-regularized subproblem through a dual semidefinite program with an additional nonnegativity cone constraint; the KL property (a local descent condition satisfied by semialgebraic functions) supplies global convergence, and rank-one feasibility of the limit follows from an eigenvalue argument on the dual multiplier. The same $\Omega$ / $R$ template covers the standard quadratic program and the minimum-cut graph tri-partitioning problem.

What would settle it

Choose a QAP instance with $n\ge 30$, solve the penalized problem (19) for an increasing sequence of penalty parameters $\rho$, and record the ranks of the iterates produced by Algorithm 1. If for arbitrarily large $\rho$ the limit point is stationary for (19) but has rank at least two while its objective value is strictly better than the best feasible permutation value, then Proposition 5 is false. A more direct check targets Proposition 2: search the DNN feasible set $\Omega$ for points where $\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2$ is tiny but the distance from $Y$ to $\Omega\cap R$ is comparatively large; such a point would disprove the error-bound identity that carries the exact-penalty argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: a matrix $Y$ in the doubly nonnegative cone that satisfies the three linear constraints of problem (6) and has $\operatorname{rank}(Y)\le 1$ is exactly of the form $\operatorname{vec}(X)\operatorname{vec}(X)^T$ for a unique permutation matrix $X$, so the rank-constrained DNN problem (6) and the standard trace formulation (2) share their feasible points and their optimal values. Since $\operatorname{rank}(Y)\le 1$ is equivalent to $\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2=0$, the authors study the penalized DC problem (19). Under a calmness assumption on the set-valued map $\Gamma(w)=\{Y\in\Omega : \|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2=w\}$ at $w=0$, Proposition 2 asserts that for large enough $\rho$ the penalized problem and the rank-constrained problem have the same global optima, and Proposition 5 asserts that the iterates of the proximal DC algorithm eventually have rank at most one. The convergence proof combines the error-bound inequality $\operatorname{dist}(Y,\Omega\cap R)\le \tau(\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2)$ with the KL property of the semialgebraic objective to show that every accumulation point is a stationary point of (19).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the exact-penalty equivalence of Proposition 2: the paper assumes that the set-valued map $\Gamma(w)=\{Y\in\Omega : \|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2=w\}$ is calm at $w=0$, and it uses the identity $\operatorname{dist}(Y,R)=\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2$ without stating that the distance is measured in the nuclear norm; if that calmness fails, or if the distance identity is used in the wrong norm, the penalized problem (19) need not have the same optimal solutions as the rank-constrained problem (12).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any QAP instance whose DNN feasible set is nonempty and bounded, choosing the penalty parameter $\rho$ large enough makes every global solution of the penalized DC problem rank-one, hence recoverable as a permutation matrix.
  • The proximal DC iterates converge to a stationary point of the penalized problem from any starting point in $\Omega$, with monotonically decreasing objective values.
  • The same rank-constrained DNN reformulation applies to the standard quadratic program and to the minimum-cut graph tri-partitioning problem, so the DCA pipeline carries over to those NP-hard problems.
  • On 107 QAPLIB and “dre” instances the method finds the global optimum for 69 and a feasible permutation within 4% for 32 more, so the algorithm can serve as an upper-bound generator without branch-and-bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calmness condition in Proposition 2 turns out to hold generically on QAP's DNN feasible sets, the same exact-penalty construction offers a uniform way to certify optimality for instances of moderate size from a single relaxation, rather than assembling many SDP lower bounds.
  • A concrete numerical check of the error-bound identity $\operatorname{dist}(Y,\Omega\cap R)\le\tau(\|Y\|_*-\|Y\|_2)$ on hard instances such as the “dre” set would separate the theorem from the empirical 69/107 success rate; the paper does not report such a check.
  • Because the DC penalty relies only on the eigenvalues of $Y$, the approach could be transferred to other rank-constrained DNN models, for example densest-$k$-subgraph or max-cut variants, whenever the linear constraints define a bounded feasible set.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates the quadratic assignment problem (QAP) as an equivalent rank-constrained doubly nonnegative (DNN) problem, with analogous reformulations for the standard quadratic problem and the minimum-cut graph tri-partitioning problem. It then proposes a proximal difference-of-convex (DC) algorithm whose subproblems are solved by a semi-proximal augmented Lagrangian method, establishes convergence to stationary points of a penalized DC problem, and claims that for sufficiently large penalty the iterates eventually satisfy the rank-one constraint and are feasible for the rank-constrained DNN problem. Numerical experiments on 107 QAPLIB and 'dre' instances are reported, finding exact optimal values for 69 instances and feasible solutions within 4% for 32 additional instances.

Significance. If the theoretical claims hold, the paper offers a principled DC-penalty route to the QAP that combines an exact rank-constrained DNN reformulation with an implementable semi-proximal DCA and the mature SDPNAL+ solver. The equivalence theorems in Sections 2 and 3 are elementary and correct, and the numerical study is substantial: 107 instances with 69 solved exactly is a useful empirical result. The convergence-to-stationarity results follow from standard DC and Kurdyka-\L{}ojasiewicz machinery. However, the headline theoretical assertion that the generated sequence is eventually feasible for the rank-constrained DNN problem rests on Proposition 5, whose proof contains a uniformity gap and a sign inconsistency; the exact-penalty Proposition 2 also relies on an unverified calmness condition and an unstated norm in the distance identity. These issues do not invalidate the numerical evidence, but they mean the central feasibility guarantee is not established as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Proposition 5, Eqs. (28)-(29)] The proof of eventual rank-one feasibility asserts that there is a finite constant η, independent of the penalty parameter ρ, such that λ1(−C−A^*y_{k+1}−Z_{k+1}) ≤ η for all large k. This is justified only by boundedness of the dual level set from Assumption 2, but the dual objective in Eq. (22) contains the data term C + ρ(I + W_k). For a fixed ρ, Assumption 2 bounds the dual optimal set, yet the bound can depend on ρ; no argument is given for uniformity in ρ. Consequently the condition ρ > η + ζ/σ may be unsatisfiable when η grows with ρ, and the chain leading to λ2(S_{k+1}) < 0 and rank(Y_{k+1}) ≤ 1 collapses. A simple analogue is the dual of min_x (1/2)||x||^2 + ρ a^T x subject to x = 0, whose unique dual solution is y = −ρa; there the dual bound is O(ρ). The authors should either prove a uniform bound exploiting the specific structure of the QAP constraints or weaken the claim in the abstract and Proposition 5.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (22), (23), (27)] The same subproblem (20) is described inconsistently: the majorant objective in Eq. (21) has linear term C − ρW_k, the dual problem in Eq. (22) writes C + ρ(I + W_k), and the primal recovery formula (23) and the KKT system (27) write C + ρ(I − W_k). These expressions differ by 2ρW_k, so at least one of them is wrong. Since no dual derivation is provided, the reader cannot determine the correct form, and the inconsistency propagates directly into the eigenvalue estimate (28) used in Proposition 5. This needs to be corrected before the convergence and feasibility arguments can be checked.
  3. [Section 4, Proposition 2] The exact-penalty equivalence between the rank-constrained problem (12) and the penalized problem (19) is conditional on the calmness of Γ at 0, and this calmness is assumed but not verified for the QAP/DNN feasible set Ω. In addition, the proof uses the identity dist(Y, R) = ||Y||_* − ||Y||_2 without specifying the norm. This identity is valid for the nuclear-norm distance to the rank-one set, but the error bound dist(Y, Ω∩R) ≤ τ dist(Y, R) invoked from [6] is typically stated in the Euclidean/Frobenius norm, for which the identity is false (e.g., Y = diag(3,2,1) gives ||Y||_* − ||Y||_2 = 3 but Frobenius distance to rank-one is sqrt(5)). As written, the distance equality is not established, so the claim that (19) is an exact penalty reformulation of (12) is not fully supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, page 3] The paper states that A and B are symmetric as a standard assumption, but it should clarify whether this is without loss of generality for the QAP instances tested, since some QAPLIB data are not symmetric.
  2. [Table 1] The header line 'Problem set (No.) gap Problem0 ≤ 4% > 4%' is garbled; it should clearly separate the three columns, e.g., 'gap = 0', '0 < gap ≤ 4%', and 'gap > 4%'.
  3. [Assumption 2] The expression 'ApTN qprYqq' appears to be a typesetting error; it should presumably be A(T_{N^q}(Y)) or similar.
  4. [Section 4, Definition 1] The distance is defined as 'dist(x,Z)=min_{z∈Z} ||y−x||', but the variable y is not defined; this should be ||x−z||. Also, 'Kurdyka-ojaziewicz' should be 'Kurdyka–Łojasiewicz'.
  5. [Figure 1 and Section 5.1] The caption contains the typo 'paramenters' for 'parameters', and the figure axes are not described in enough detail to know what the left and right scales represent.
  6. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The phrase 'for most QAP instances' is supported by 69 exact solutions out of 107, but the threshold should be stated explicitly in the abstract or conclusions, especially because the theoretical claim on which it is based is currently unproven.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation is self-contained, load-bearing results are external or proven in the paper, and the numerical claims are benchmarked against external QAPLIB values.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The equivalence of QAP with the rank-constrained DNN problem (Theorem 1) is proven from Lemma 1 and the external Povh-Rendl feasible-set argument [29], and the rank-one DNN representation is independently established. The exact-penalty result (Proposition 2) is conditional on a calmness assumption and uses the external error-bound result [6]; the assumption is unverified and the norm mismatch is a correctness gap, not a circularity. Algorithm convergence (Theorem 5) invokes the external KL convergence framework of Liu et al. [25]; the stationarity proof in Proposition 3 is given in full. The rank-one feasibility guarantee in Proposition 5 has an unjustified uniform bound and a sign inconsistency, but those are mathematical errors, not reductions of the conclusion to the input. The numerical claims compare against QAPLIB optimal values and best-known solutions, which are external benchmarks; no parameter is fitted to the target optima and then reported as a prediction. Self-citations to SDPNAL+ are references to mature, publicly available software and its separate convergence analysis, not to the conclusions of this paper. There are therefore no circular steps under the definitions in the review instructions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithmic claims rest on standard DC and KL machinery plus two unverified regularity assumptions: the generalized Slater condition (Assumption 2) and the calmness of Γ in Proposition 2. The distance identity in Proposition 2 is stated without specifying the norm and is only valid in the nuclear norm, which is a gap in the exact penalty proof.

free parameters (2)
  • penalty parameter rho = not tabulated, chosen via bisection per instance
    Appears in the penalized problem (19) as the weight on the rank penalty. Figure 1 shows sensitivity of gaps and ranks to rho, and Section 5.1 describes a bisection strategy. The central numerical results depend on this tuning.
  • proximal parameter sigma = not reported
    Controls the proximal term in the subproblem (20). Theorem 5 requires sigma <= 1/||C + rho I||. The paper does not specify how sigma is chosen in practice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The feasible set Ω defined by (13) is nonempty and bounded (Assumption 1).
    Used in Theorem 4 for exact penalty and in Proposition 3 for boundedness of iterates. For QAP the trace constraints imply boundedness, so this is reasonable.
  • domain assumption There exists Y in S^q_{++} ∩ int(N^q) such that A(T_N(Y)) = R^m (Assumption 2).
    Needed for the convergence of the inner MSNCG solver for the dual problem (22). The paper does not verify this condition for QAP instances.
  • ad hoc to paper The set-valued mapping Γ(w) = {Y in Ω : ||Y||_* - ||Y||_2 = w} is calm at 0 for each Y in Γ(0) (Proposition 2).
    Introduced to obtain the error bound dist(Y, Ω∩R) ≤ τ dist(Y,R). This calmness is not verified for the QAP feasible set and is a load-bearing premise for the exact penalty result.
  • ad hoc to paper The distance identity dist(Y, R) = ||Y||_* - ||Y||_2 holds.
    Used in Proposition 2. This equality is valid for the nuclear norm distance but not for the Frobenius distance typically used in error bounds; the paper does not specify the norm, which is a gap.
  • standard math The auxiliary function E in the proof of Theorem 5 is semialgebraic and thus has the KL property.
    Invoked via Proposition 4 and [25, Theorem 3.1] to establish global convergence of the sequence. Semialgebraicity is standard for sets defined by polynomial equalities and inequalities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A proximal DC approach for quadratic assignment problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6GMAID7

@misc{pith2026190804522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A proximal DC approach for quadratic assignment problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6GMAID7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04522}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we show that the quadratic assignment problem (QAP) can be reformulated to an equivalent rank constrained doubly nonnegative (DNN) problem. Under the framework of the difference of convex functions (DC) approach, a semi-proximal DC algorithm (DCA) is proposed for solving the relaxation of the rank constrained DNN problem whose subproblems can be solved by the semi-proximal augmented Lagrangian method (sPALM). We show that the generated sequence converges to a stationary point of the corresponding DC problem, which is feasible to the rank constrained DNN problem. Moreover, numerical experiments demonstrate that for most QAP instances, the proposed approach can find the global optimal solutions efficiently, and for others, the proposed algorithm is able to provide good feasible solutions in a reasonable time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04522 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effects of paramenters ρ on gaps and ranks of solutions and els19 problems can obtain the optimal solutions of the problem (12) since the gaps are zeroes. Although larger ρ can help the solutions satisfying the rank-one constraint in the problem (12) (Proposition 5), the parameter ρ should not be too large. In fact, as demonstrated by (c) had20 and (d) lipa30a in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Bi, S.J., Pan, S.H.: Error bounds for rank constrained optimization problems and applica- tions, Operations Research Letters 44, 336-341 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    An, L.T.H., Tao, P.D.: DC programming and DCA: thirty years of developments, Mathe- matical Programming 169, 5-68 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    An, L.T.H., Tao, P.D., Huynh, V.N.: Exact penalty and error bounds in DC programming, Journal of Global Optimization 52, 509-535 (2012) A proximal DC approach for quadratic assignment problem 23

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Anstreicher, K.: Recent advances in the solution of quadratic assignment problems, Math- ematical Programming 97, 27-42 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    Anstreicher, K., Wolkowicz, H.: On Lagrangian relaxation of quadratic matrix constraints, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 22, 41-55 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    Attouch, H., Bolte, J.: On the convergence of the proximal algorithm for nonsmooth func- tions involving analytic features, Mathematical Programming, 116, 5-16 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    SIAM Journal on Optimiza- tion 17, 1205-1223 (2007)

    Bolte, J., Daniilidis, A., Lewis, A.S.: The ojasiewicz inequality for nonsmooth subanalytic functions with applications to subgradient dynamical systems. SIAM Journal on Optimiza- tion 17, 1205-1223 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 18, 556-572 (2007)

    Bolte, J., Daniilidis, A., Lewis, A.S., Shiota, M.: Clarke subgradients of stratifiable func- tions. SIAM Journal on Optimization 18, 556-572 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Bolte, J., Pauwels, E.: Majorization-minimization procedures and convergence of SQP meth- ods for semi-algebraic and tame programs, Mathematics of Operations Research, 41, 442-465 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bolte, J., Sabach, S., Teboulle, M.: Proximal alternating linearized minimization for non- convex and nonsmooth problems, Mathematical Programming, 146, 459-494 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Burer, S.: On the copositive representation of binary and continuous nonconvex quadratic programs, Mathematical Programming 120, 479-495 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    (ed.), 2741-2814, Springer, New York (2013)

    Burkard, P.: Quadratic assignment problems, in Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization, Pardalos, P.M., Du, D.Z., Graham, R.L. (ed.), 2741-2814, Springer, New York (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    S., Shallit, J.O.: The computational complexity of some problems of linear algebra, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 58, 572-596 (1999)

    Buss, F., Frandsen, G. S., Shallit, J.O.: The computational complexity of some problems of linear algebra, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 58, 572-596 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Drezner, Z.: The quadratic assignment problem, Location Science, 345-363, Springer, New York (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Drezner, Z., Hahn, P., Taillard, ´E.D.: Recent advances for the quadratic assignment prob- lem with special emphasis on instances that are difficult for meta-heuristic methods, Oper- ation Research 139, 65-94 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Fu, T., Ge, D., Ye, Y.: On doubly positive semidefinite programming relaxations, Journal of Computational Mathematics 36, 391-403 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Gao, Y.: Structured Low Rank Matrix Optimization Problems: A Penalized Approach, PhD thesis, National University of Singapore (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Gao, Y., Sun, D.F.: A majorized penalty approach for calibrating rank constrained corre- lation matrix problems, Preprint available athttp://www.mypolyuweb.hk/~dfsun/MajorPen_ May5.pdf (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    seas.upenn.edu/qaplib

    Hahn, P., Anjos, M.: QAPLIB - a quadratic assignment problem library, http://www. seas.upenn.edu/qaplib

  12. [20]

    Horn, R.A., Johnson, C.R.: Matrix Analysis, Cambridge Univeristy Press, New York (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Kim, S., Kojima, M., Toh, K.C.: A Lagrangian-DNN relaxation: a fast method for com- puting tight lower bounds for a class of quadratic optimization problems, Mathematical Programming 156, 161-187 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Koopmans, T.C., Beckmann, M.J.: Assignment problems and the location of economics activities, Econometrica 25, 53-76 (1957)

    1957

  15. [23]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 21, 1641-1666 (2011)

    Li, Q., Qi, H.-D.: A Sequential Semismooth Newton Method for the Nearest Low-rank Correlation Matrix Problem. SIAM Journal on Optimization 21, 1641-1666 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Technical report, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, (1997)

    Lin, C.-J., Saigal, R.: On solving large-scale semidefinite programming problems a case study of quadratic assignment problem. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    Computational Optimization Applications 73, 69-100 (2019)

    Liu, T., Pong, T.K., Takeda, A.: A refined convergence analysis of with applications to si- multaneous sparse recovery and outlier detection. Computational Optimization Applications 73, 69-100 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Motzkin, T.S., Straus, E.G.: Maxima for graphs and a new proof of a theorem of Turan, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 17, 533-540 (1965)

    1965

  19. [27]

    Murty, K.G., Kabadi, S.N.: Some NP-complete problems in quadratic and nonlinear pro- gramming, Mathematical Programming 39, 117-129 (1987)

    1987

  20. [28]

    Povh, J., Rendl, F.: A copositive programming approach to graph partitioning, SIAM Journal on Optimization 18, 223-241 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Povh, J., Rendl, F.: Copositive and semidefinite relaxations of the quadratic assignment problem, Discrete Optimization 6, 231-241 (2009) 24 Zhuoxuan Jiang et al

    2009

  22. [30]

    Ramana, M., Tun¸ cel, L., Wolkowicz, H.: Strong duality for semidefinite programming, SIAM Journal on Optimization 7, 641-662 (1997)

    1997

  23. [31]

    Rendl, F., Sotirov, R.: Bounds for the quadratic assignment problem using the bundle method, Mathematical Programming 109, 505-524 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex Analyis, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1970)

    1970

  25. [33]

    SIAM (1974)

    Rockafellar, R.T.: Conjugate Duality and Optimization. SIAM (1974)

    1974

  26. [34]

    Sahni, S., Gonzalez, T.: P-complete approximation problems, Journal of the ACM 23, 555-565 (1976)

    1976

  27. [35]

    Sun, D.F., Toh, K.C., Yuan, Y.C., Zhao, X.Y.: SDPNAL+: A Matlab software for semidefi- nite programming with bound constraints (version 1.0), Optimization Methods and Software, in print (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Acta Numerica

    Todd, M.J.: Semidefinite optimization. Acta Numerica. 10, 515-560 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Vandenberghe, L., Boyd, S.: Semidefinite programming, SIAM Review 38, 49-75 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    Wen, Z.W., Goldfarb, D., Yin, W.T.: Alternating direction augmented Lagrangian meth- ods for semidefinite programming, Mathematical Programming Computation 2, 203-230 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Weyl, H.: Das asymptotische verteilungsgesetz der eigenwerte linearer partieller differen- tialgleichungen (mit einer anwendung auf die theorie der hohlraumstrahlung, Mathematische Annalen 71, 441-479 (1912)

    1912

  32. [40]

    Yang, L.Q., Sun, D.F., Toh, K.C.: SDPNAL+: A majorized semismooth Newton-CG augmented lagrangian method for semidefinite programming with nonnegative constraints, Mathematical Programming Computation 7, 331-366 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Yoshise, A., Matsukawa, Y.: On optimization over the doubly nonnegative cone, Proceed- ings of 2010 IEEE Multi-conference on Systems and Control, 13-19 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Zhao, Q., Karisch, S.E., Rendl, F., Wolkowicz, H.: Semidefinite programming relaxations for the quadratic assignment problem, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 2, 71-109 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    Zhao, X.Y., Sun, D.F., Toh, K.C.: A Newton-CG augmented lagrangian method for semidefinite programming, SIAM Journal on Optimization 20, 1737-1765 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.