The Boosted DC Algorithm for linearly constrained DC programming

Francisco J. Arag\'on Artacho; Phan T. Vuong; Rub\'en Campoy

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

The Boosted DC Algorithm for linearly constrained DC programming

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 proves that a boosted version of the DC algorithm converges to KKT points for linearly constrained difference-of-convex programs, with geometric convergence when the objective is quadratic.

desk verdict A clean extension of BDCA to linearly constrained DC programs, but Theorem 3.1's limit passage is genuinely incomplete and needs a repaired assumption before the main convergence claim can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01138 v4 pith:QNEUPY2G submitted 2019-08-03 math.OC

Francisco J. Aragón Artacho , Rubén Campoy , Phan T. Vuong This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 90C2690C30

keywords differenceofconvexfunctionsboostedalgorithmglobalconvergenceconstrainedDCprogramscopositivityproblemtrustregionsubproblemR-linear

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 gives a version of the Boosted DC Algorithm (BDCA) that handles linear inequality constraints by inserting a line-search extrapolation between classical DCA steps. It claims that from any feasible starting point, either the algorithm stops at a Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) point or every cluster point of the infinite sequence is a KKT point, provided the feasible set has a Slater point. When the objective is quadratic and a solution exists, the iterates are bounded and converge geometrically to a KKT point. Numerical tests on copositivity detection and $\ell_\infty$-trust-region subproblems show the boosted variant is often several times faster than plain DCA and can reach lower objective values. If the claims hold, BDCA can replace DCA in constrained DC programming with at least the same guarantees and better practical speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the active-set feasibility check plus the line-search boost inside DCA. After the DCA subproblem gives $y_k$, the inclusion $I(y_k)\subseteq I(x_k)$ is shown equivalent to $d_k=y_k-x_k$ being a feasible direction at $y_k$; only then is a backtracking line search along $d_k$ allowed, which prevents infinite loops when $y_k$ lies on the boundary of the feasible set. The descent inequality produced by the strong convexity of $g$ and $h$ yields monotone decrease of $\varphi$ and $\|d_k\|\to 0$, and a standard local error bound for the projected-gradient residual $\|x-P_F(x-\sigma^{-1}(Qx+q))\|$ converts that decrease into a geometric rate for quadratic objectives.

What would settle it

Inspect the limiting step where the multipliers in the subproblem KKT system are passed to the limit: if the feasible set has no Slater point, those multipliers need not converge, and a cluster point obtained this way may fail the KKT conditions. A concrete search is to run Algorithm 1 on a feasible set with empty interior, such as $F=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^2: x_1\le 0,\ -x_1\le 0,\ x_2\le 1\}$, with a DC objective whose subproblem multipliers diverge along the generated sequence; any convergent run whose limit is not a KKT point would refute Theorem 3.1 as stated in the body.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the accelerated DCA idea survives the addition of polyhedral constraints. Algorithm 1 solves at each iteration the strongly convex subproblem $\min_{x\in F} g(x) - \langle u_k,x\rangle$ with $u_k\in\partial h(x_k)$, producing $y_k$, then checks whether the active set at $y_k$ is contained in the active set at $x_k$; if so, it performs a backtracking line search along $d_k=y_k-x_k$. The proof shows $\varphi(x_{k+1})\le \varphi(y_k)-\alpha\lambda_k^2\|d_k\|^2 \le \varphi(x_k)-(\alpha\lambda_k^2+\rho)\|d_k\|^2$, so the objective decreases monotonically and $\|d_k\|\to 0$. Under the Slater condition, the KKT multipliers of the subproblems stay controlled, and taking limits in the subproblem KKT conditions identifies every cluster point as a KKT point of the original problem. For quadratic objectives the iterates are shown to be a Cauchy sequence via a local error bound, giving R-linear (geometric) convergence.

Load-bearing premise

The convergence proof needs a Slater point for the feasible set—a feasible point strictly satisfying every linear inequality—so the Lagrange multipliers of the subproblems cannot blow up when the algorithm's limiting argument is made; the abstract states this condition, while the theorem statement in the paper body does not.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every cluster point of BDCA on a linearly constrained DC program is a KKT point under the Slater condition, so practitioners can safely use the boosted method wherever DCA was used.
For quadratic objectives with a solution, BDCA converges geometrically without needing the starting point to be close to a solution, and the bound is explicit in terms of the descent constants.
On copositivity testing, a negative objective value at any BDCA iterate certifies non-copositivity, so faster convergence means earlier certificates on hard matrices; the experiments report about 15 times faster on Horn matrices and larger gains on nearly copositive ones.
On $\ell_\infty$-trust-region subproblems, BDCA reaches similar objective values roughly three times faster on average, making it a practical drop-in for bound-constrained quadratic subproblems.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same 'boost then check feasibility' pattern might extend to DC programs with conic or semidefinite constraints if a cheap membership test replaces the active-set inclusion; the paper's own remark on general convex constraints shows the current check breaks there.
If the Slater condition is truly necessary, then linearly constrained DC problems where every feasible point lies on a boundary, such as equality constraints written as two inequalities, need a modified treatment; this is a natural stress test for Theorem 3.1.
The geometric-rate proof for quadratic objectives could be adapted to other norms or regularizers because it only needs the DCA step to behave like a projection and a local error bound to hold; testing this on $\ell_1$-trust-region or sparse recovery would be a direct extension.
The empirical tendency of BDCA to escape poor local minima, combined with the new constrained version, suggests a practical multi-start heuristic for NP-hard detection problems: run BDCA from several starting points and keep the best objective value, which the paper's experiments already do implicitly.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper extends BDCA to linearly constrained DC programs, and the extension is well designed. The feasibility check in Line 7 (comparing active sets) is a real fix over the earlier simplex-only version, and Lemma 3.1 makes it cheap to implement. The R-linear convergence proof for quadratic objectives follows a sensible Luo–Tseng route and is a useful generalization of [29]. The numerical results on copositivity and l_infinity trust-region subproblems show large, consistent speedups over DCA; the experiments are synthetic, but they are appropriate for the algorithms being compared.

The soft spot is load-bearing. Theorem 3.1 as printed asserts that every limit point is a KKT point with no Slater-type assumption, even though the abstract includes one. The proof writes the subproblem KKT system (8) and passes the multipliers and subgradients to the limit via closedness of the graph of the convex subdifferential. Closedness only works if those objects are bounded along the subsequence, and nothing in the proof supplies that. Slater alone gives existence of multipliers for each subproblem, but it does not uniformly bound them, nor does it bound the selected subgradients u_k in ∂h(x_k). When h is extended-valued, ∂h can be unbounded at the boundary of its domain (e.g., an indicator term added to a quadratic), so the limit passage can genuinely fail. This gap also matters for Theorem 4.1, which uses Theorem 3.1(ii) to identify the Cauchy limit as a KKT point. For the quadratic case the repair is immediate — h is differentiable, so subgradients are locally bounded, and a Slater point would bound the multipliers. For the general theorem, the authors need to state a Slater condition and prove a uniform boundedness argument, or add an assumption that h is finite-valued or has locally bounded subgradients.

This is not a desk-reject. The algorithmic idea is solid, the proofs are clear where they are complete, and the contribution is likely to be useful after a major revision. I would send it to a serious referee, with a note to focus on the multiplier/subgradient passage in Theorem 3.1.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the Boosted DC Algorithm (BDCA) to difference-of-convex programs with linear inequality constraints. Algorithm 1 performs a classical DCA step by solving a strongly convex quadratic subproblem, then, when the DCA direction is feasible at the new point, takes an extrapolation step with a backtracking line search. The main theoretical claims are Theorem 3.1, which states that the objective values decrease monotonically and that every cluster point of the generated sequence is a KKT point of the constrained problem, and Theorem 4.1, which states that for quadratic objective functions the generated sequence converges R-linearly (geometrically) to a KKT point. The numerical section compares DCA and BDCA on two NP-hard problem classes: testing copositivity of a matrix and solving l_infinity-trust-region subproblems, reporting that BDCA outperforms DCA by a factor of three to fifteen in running time.

Significance. If the convergence claims are valid, this is a practically useful contribution: it provides a simple acceleration of DCA for linearly constrained DC programs with the same theoretical guarantees as DCA, and it gives a self-contained geometric convergence proof in the quadratic case. The paper's descent estimates in Proposition 3.1 and the line-search feasibility check are well motivated, and the numerical tests on challenging NP-hard instances are carefully presented. However, the main convergence theorem has a load-bearing gap: the proof of Theorem 3.1(ii) passes KKT multipliers and subgradients to the limit without proving boundedness, and the theorem statement omits the Slater condition that appears in the abstract. This affects both Theorem 3.1 and, through its final step, Theorem 4.1.

major comments (2)

[Section 3] The proof of Theorem 3.1(ii) extracts a convergent subsequence x_{k_j}->x_bar and then 'takes the limit' in the KKT system (8) without proving that the multiplier sequences mu_i^{(k_j)} and the selected subgradients u_{k_j} are bounded. The statement of Theorem 3.1 does not include the Slater condition that appears in the abstract, and the proof never uses it. Slater's condition guarantees existence of multipliers for each convex subproblem (P_k), but it does not by itself give uniform boundedness of those multipliers along the subsequence; one also needs a bound on the vectors nabla g(y_{k_j}) - u_{k_j}, which can fail when h has unbounded subgradients on the boundary of its domain. Closedness of the graph of partial h does not help when u_{k_j} is unbounded, so the conclusion that x_bar is a KKT point is not established. This is load-bearing because Theorem 3.1(ii) is the main convergence claim and is also used at the end of Theorem 4.1.
[Theorem 4.1, final step] Theorem 4.1 concludes 'x* is in F*, by Theorem 3.1(ii)' after showing that the sequence is Cauchy. Because Theorem 3.1(ii) is not justified as written, the convergence-to-a-KKT-point conclusion in Theorem 4.1 is also not currently established. Even if Theorem 3.1 is repaired, the proof should state explicitly which additional assumptions are used (for example, finite-valued h, or a Slater-based lemma proving uniform boundedness of the multipliers).

minor comments (5)

[Lemma 3.1] In the statement of Lemma 3.1, the symbol D(y_k) is used to denote the set of active constraint indices, but D(y_k) was already defined in Section 2 as the cone of feasible directions. The condition should be 'for all i in I(y_k)' rather than 'for all i in D(y_k)'.
[Theorem 3.1(ii)] The word 'exits' in the phrase 'there exits a subsequence' should be 'exists'.
[Abstract versus full text] The supplied abstract states that the convergence result holds 'if the feasible set has a Slater point', but the full-text abstract and Theorem 3.1 omit this condition. These statements should be harmonized, and the theorem should either include the Slater condition or explain why it is not needed.
[Proposition 3.1] Parts (i) and (iii) of Proposition 3.1 are relegated to references without proof. A short derivation or a more detailed reference to the constrained setting would improve the paper's self-containedness.
[Figures 2 and 5] The left axes of Figures 2 and 5 use a logarithmic scale, but the displayed objective values can be non-positive or close to zero. The paper should explain how zero and negative values are handled on the log scale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence and rate theorems are derived from subproblem KKT systems and external error-bound lemmas; the Slater/limit-passage issue is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I find no step in which a claimed prediction or first-principles result reduces to its own input by construction. The descent inequality of Proposition 3.1 follows from the KKT system (5) of the strongly convex subproblem, strong monotonicity of ∂h, and the feasibility of xk; it does not assume the theorem being proved. Theorem 3.1 derives monotone decrease from (7) and then attempts to pass to the limit in (8). The step 'taking the limit as j→∞ in (8)' is not justified as written because the multipliers μ_i and the subgradients u_{k_j} need a convergent subsequence, and Theorem 3.1 as stated omits the Slater condition that appears in the abstract; however, this is a missing boundedness/closedness argument, not a circular definition or a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. Theorem 4.1 uses the external error-bound Lemma 4.2 from Luo–Tseng/Tuan and Lemma 4.1, together with Theorem 3.1(i), to prove geometric convergence; the KKT identification of the limit is not injected as an assumption. The omitted proofs citing [1] and [3] are self-citations by overlapping authors, but they are not load-bearing circularity: the cited propositions are published results with their own assumptions, and the constrained/nonsmooth extension is independently argued through (5), (6), and (7). The numerical experiments use fixed algorithmic parameters and shared random starting points; they are empirical benchmarks, not predictions fitted to a subset of the reported data. Overall the derivation is self-contained apart from one rigor gap and minor self-citation, so the circularity score is low.

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

No numbers are fitted to data in the theory. The step-size parameters alpha, beta, lambda0, gamma are algorithmic hyperparameters; convergence is proved for any alpha>0 and beta in (0,1), so the specific experimental values do not influence the theoretical claims.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The feasible set F has a Slater point (a point strictly satisfying all linear inequality constraints).
Used in the abstract to justify convergence to KKT points; needed to bound the subproblem multipliers when passing to the limit in Theorem 3.1. The body of Theorem 3.1 omits this condition.
domain assumption g and h are strongly convex with common modulus rho > 0 (Assumption 1).
Not restrictive: any DC decomposition can be modified by adding and subtracting (rho/2)||x||^2. Used throughout the descent estimates.
domain assumption g is continuously differentiable on an open set containing dom h (Assumption 2).
Essential for the smoothness of the DCA subproblem and the boosting step; cannot be omitted (Remark 2.1 cites [3, Example 3.2]).
standard math The local error bound in Lemma 4.2 holds (from Luo-Tseng [17] and Tuan [29]).
Imported as a known theorem for affine variational inequalities; it is the key tool for R-linear convergence in the quadratic case.
domain assumption The quadratic problem (PQ) has a solution (stated in Theorem 4.1).
Needed to ensure the KKT set is nonempty; otherwise the target point x* does not exist.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Boosted DC Algorithm for linearly constrained DC programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNEUPY2G

@misc{pith2026190801138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Boosted DC Algorithm for linearly constrained DC programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNEUPY2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01138}
}

read the original abstract

The Boosted Difference of Convex functions Algorithm (BDCA) has been recently introduced to accelerate the performance of the classical Difference of Convex functions Algorithm (DCA). This acceleration is achieved thanks to an extrapolation step from the point computed by DCA via a line search procedure. In this work, we propose an extension of BDCA that can be applied to difference of convex functions programs with linear constraints, and prove that every cluster point of the sequence generated by this algorithm is a Karush--Kuhn-Tucker point of the problem if the feasible set has a Slater point. When the objective function is quadratic, we prove that any sequence generated by the algorithm is bounded and R-linearly (geometrically) convergent. Finally, we present some numerical experiments where we compare the performance of DCA and BDCA on some challenging problems: to test the copositivity of a given matrix, to solve one-norm and infinity-norm trust-region subproblems, and to solve piecewise quadratic problems with box constraints. Our numerical results demonstrate that this new extension of BDCA outperforms DCA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01138 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Value of the objective function of DCA and BDCA (using logarithmic scale in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison between DCA and BDCA for detecting the non-copositivity of ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison between DCA and BDCA for solving randomly generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Value of the objective function of DCA and BDCA (using logarithmic scale in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[29]

N.: Linear convergence of a type of iterative sequences in nonconvex quadratic programming

Tuan H. N.: Linear convergence of a type of iterative sequences in nonconvex quadratic programming. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 423, 1311–1319 (2015)

work page 2015
[1]

Aragón Artacho, F.J., Fleming, R., Vuong, P.T.: Accelerating the DC algorithm for smooth functions. Math. Program. 169(1), 95–118 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics and Technology (2019)

Aragón, F.J., Goberna, M.A., López, M.A., Rodríguez, M.M.L.: Nonlinear Optimiza- tion. Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics and Technology (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

The Boosted DC Algorithm for nonsmooth functions

Aragón Artacho, F.J., Vuong, P.T.: The boosted DC algorithm for nonsmooth functions. ArXiv: 1812.06070 (2019)

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[4]

Euro- pean J

Bomze, I.M.: Copositive optimization-precent developments and applications. Euro- pean J. Oper. Res.216(3), 509–520 (2012)

work page 2012
[5]

Burer, S.: On the copositive representation of binary and continuous nonconvex quadratic programs. Math. Program. 120(2), 479–495 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization (2000)

Conn, A.R., Gould, N.I.M., Toint, P.L.: Trust-region methods. MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization (2000)

work page 2000
[7]

Dür, M., Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B.: Testing copositivity with the help of difference-of-convex optimization. Math. Program. 140(1), 31–43 (2013) 18

work page 2013

Show all 33 references

[8]

Fukushima, M., Mine, H.: A generalized proximal point algorithm for certain non- convex minimization problems. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 12(8), 989–1000 (1981)

1981
[9]

Geremew, W., Nam, N.M., Semenov, A., Boginski, V ., Pasiliao, E.: A DC program- ming approach for solving multicast network design problems via the Nesterov smooth- ing technique. J. Glob. Optim. 72(4), 705–729 (2018)

2018
[10]

Geremew, S., Mouffe, M., Toint, P.L., Weber-Mendonça, M.: A recursive 𝓁∞-trust- region method for bound-constrained nonlinear optimization. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 28, 827–861 (2008)

2008
[11]

Electron

Johnson, C.R., Reams, R.: Constructing copositive matrices from interior matrices. Electron. J. Linear Al., 17, 9–20 (2008)

2008
[12]

de Klerk, E., Pasechnik, D.V .: Approximation of the stability number of a graph via copositive programming. SIAM J. Optim., 12(4), 875–892 (2002)

2002
[13]

Le Thi, H.A., Pham Dinh, T.: DC Programming and DCA: Thirty Years of Develop- ments. Math. Program. 169(1), 5–68 (2018)

2018
[14]

Le Thi, H.A., Pham Dinh, T., Yen, N.D.: Behavior of DCA sequences for solving the trust-region subproblem. J. Global Optim. 53(2), 317–329 (2012)

2012
[15]

Le Thi, H.A., Pham Dinh, T.: The DC (difference of convex functions) programming and DCA revisited with DC models of real world nonconvex optimization problems.Ann. Oper. Res. 133(1-4), 23–46 (2005)

2005
[16]

Le Thi, H.A., V . N. Huynh, Pham Dinh, T.: Convergence analysis of Difference-of- Convex Algorithm with subanalytic data. J. Optim. Theory Appl., 179, 103–126 (2018)

2018
[17]

Luo, Z.Q., Tseng, P: Error bound and convergence analysis of matrix splitting algo- rithms for the afﬁne variational inequality problem. SIAM J. Optim. , 2, 43–54 (1992)

1992
[18]

Mine, H., Fukushima, M.: A minimization method for the sum of a convex function and a continuously differentiable function. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 33(1), 9–23 (1981)

1981
[19]

Mordukhovich, B.S.: Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation, vol. II . Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2006)

2006
[20]

Murty, K.G., Kabadi, S.N.: Some NP-complete problems in quadratic and nonlinear programming. Math. Program. 39, 117–129 (1987)

1987
[21]

M., Geremew, W., Reynolds, R., Tran, T.: Nesterov’s smoothing technique and minimizing differences of convex functions for hierarchical clustering

Nam, N. M., Geremew, W., Reynolds, R., Tran, T.: Nesterov’s smoothing technique and minimizing differences of convex functions for hierarchical clustering. Optim. Lett. 12, 455–473 (2018)

2018
[22]

Nie, J., Yang, Z., Zhang, X.: A complete semideﬁnite algorithm for detecting coposi- tive matrices and tensors. SIAM J. Optim. 28(4), 2902-2921 (2018)

2018
[23]

ArXiv: 1906.01509 (2019) 19

Niu, Y .S., Wang, Y .J.: Higher-order moment portfolio optimization via difference-of- convex programming and sums-of-squares. ArXiv: 1906.01509 (2019) 19

2019 arXiv
[24]

Anal.27(4), 895–919 (2019)

de Oliveira, W., Tcheou, M.P.: An Inertial Algorithm for DC Programming.Set-Valued Var. Anal.27(4), 895–919 (2019)

2019
[25]

Acta Math

Pham Dinh, T., Le Thi, H.A.: Convex analysis approach to DC programming: theory, algorithms and applications. Acta Math. Vietnam., 22, 289–355 (1997)

1997
[26]

optimization algorithm for solving the trus- region subproblem

Pham Dinh, T., Le Thi, H.A.: A D.C. optimization algorithm for solving the trus- region subproblem. SIAM J. Optim., 8(2), 476–505 (1998)

1998
[27]

: Combining DCA (DC Algorithms) and interior point techniques for large-scale nonconvex quadratic programming.Optimization Methods and Software, 23, 609–629 (2008)

Pham Dinh, T., Le Thi, H.A., Akoa, F. : Combining DCA (DC Algorithms) and interior point techniques for large-scale nonconvex quadratic programming.Optimization Methods and Software, 23, 609–629 (2008)

2008
[28]

N.: Convergence rate of the Pham Dinh-Le Thi algorithm for the trust-region subproblem

Tuan H. N.: Convergence rate of the Pham Dinh-Le Thi algorithm for the trust-region subproblem. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 154, 904–915 (2012)

2012
[30]

N., Yen, N.D.: Convergence of the Pham Dinh-Le Thi’s algorithm for the trust-region subproblem

Tuan H. N., Yen, N.D.: Convergence of the Pham Dinh-Le Thi’s algorithm for the trust-region subproblem. J. Glob. Optim., 55, 337-347 (2013)

2013
[31]

Princeton University Press (1972)

Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press (1972)

1972
[32]

Rockafellar, R.T., Wets, R.J.-B.: Variational Analysis, Grundlehren Math. Wiss. 317, Springer, New York (1998)

1998
[33]

H., Wang, Y

Xu, H.M., Xue, H., Chen, X. H., Wang, Y . Y .: Solving Indeﬁnite Kernel Support Vector Machine with Difference of Convex Functions Programming. Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AAAI-17) 20

Pith tools

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

[1] [29]

N.: Linear convergence of a type of iterative sequences in nonconvex quadratic programming

Tuan H. N.: Linear convergence of a type of iterative sequences in nonconvex quadratic programming. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 423, 1311–1319 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [1]

Aragón Artacho, F.J., Fleming, R., Vuong, P.T.: Accelerating the DC algorithm for smooth functions. Math. Program. 169(1), 95–118 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [2]

Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics and Technology (2019)

Aragón, F.J., Goberna, M.A., López, M.A., Rodríguez, M.M.L.: Nonlinear Optimiza- tion. Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics and Technology (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [3]

The Boosted DC Algorithm for nonsmooth functions

Aragón Artacho, F.J., Vuong, P.T.: The boosted DC algorithm for nonsmooth functions. ArXiv: 1812.06070 (2019)

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[5] [4]

Euro- pean J

Bomze, I.M.: Copositive optimization-precent developments and applications. Euro- pean J. Oper. Res.216(3), 509–520 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [5]

Burer, S.: On the copositive representation of binary and continuous nonconvex quadratic programs. Math. Program. 120(2), 479–495 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [6]

MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization (2000)

Conn, A.R., Gould, N.I.M., Toint, P.L.: Trust-region methods. MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization (2000)

work page 2000

[8] [7]

Dür, M., Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B.: Testing copositivity with the help of difference-of-convex optimization. Math. Program. 140(1), 31–43 (2013) 18

work page 2013