2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10107-020-01516-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sparse semidefinite programs with guaranteed near-linear time complexity via dualized clique tree conversion

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In another line of research, techniques based on properties and algorithms for chordal sparsity patterns have been applied to semidefinite programming since the late 1990s [3,13,18,29,30,34,35,42,46,50,51,58]; see [54,60] for recent surveys. An important tool from this literature is the conversion or clique decomposition method proposed by Fukuda et al [30,42].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In another line of research, techniques based on properties and algorithms for chordal sparsity patterns have been applied to semidefinite programming since the late 1990s [3,13,18,29,30,34,35,42,46,50,51,58]; see [54,60] for recent surveys. An important tool from this literature is the conversion or clique decomposition method proposed by Fukuda et al [30,42].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This equivalent problem may be considerably easier to solve by interior-point methods than the original SDP (1). Recent examples where the clique decomposition is applied to solve large sparse SDPs can be found in [27,58].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, SDP relaxation can be computationally demanding and may not scale well to large-scale matrices [40].…”
Section: B Convexificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section reviews two general approaches for doing so. The first one, similar to the conversion methods in Section 3.3.1, reformulates problems (3.5) and (3.6) as SDPs with small positive semidefinite cones, which are often easier to solve with general-purpose interior-point solvers (Fukuda et al, 2001;Kim et al, 2011;Nakata et al, 2003;Zhang & Lavaei, 2020b). The second approach, instead, directly solves (3.6)-(3.5) using an interior-point method for nonsymmetric conic optimization (Andersen et al, 2010a;Coey et al, 2020;Nesterov, 2012;Skajaa & Ye, 2015).…”
Section: Interior-point Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%