A new algorithm for concave quadratic programming

  • Moslem ZamaniEmail author


The main outcomes of the paper are divided into two parts. First, we present a new dual for quadratic programs, in which, the dual variables are affine functions, and we prove strong duality. Since the new dual is intractable, we consider a modified version by restricting the feasible set. This leads to a new bound for quadratic programs. We demonstrate that the dual of the bound is a semi-definite relaxation of quadratic programs. In addition, we probe the relationship between this bound and the well-known bounds in the literature. In the second part, thanks to the new bound, we propose a branch and cut algorithm for concave quadratic programs. We establish that the algorithm enjoys global convergence. The effectiveness of the method is illustrated for numerical problem instances.


Non-convex quadratic programming Duality Semi-definite relaxation Bound Branch and cut method Concave quadratic programming 



I am very grateful to two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions which help to improve the paper considerably. The author would like to thank associate editor for the very thoughtful comments provided on the first version of this manuscript. This research was in part supported by a grant from the Iran National Science Foundation (No. 96010653, Principal investigator: Dr. Majid Soleimani-damaneh).


  1. 1.
    Anstreicher, K.M.: Semidefinite programming versus the reformulation-linearization technique for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. J. Glob. Optim. 43(2–3), 471–484 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao, X., Sahinidis, N.V., Tawarmalani, M.: Semidefinite relaxations for quadratically constrained quadratic programming: a review and comparisons. Math. Program. 129(1), 129 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belotti, P.: Couenne: A User’s Manual. Tech. rep., Lehigh University (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A.: Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization: Analysis, Algorithms, and Engineering Applications, vol. 2. Siam, Philadelphia (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bomze, I.M.: Copositive relaxation beats lagrangian dual bounds in quadratically and linearly constrained quadratic optimization problems. SIAM J. Optim. 25(3), 1249–1275 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bomze, I.M., Locatelli, M., Tardella, F.: New and old bounds for standard quadratic optimization: dominance, equivalence and incomparability. Math. Program. 115(1), 31 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burer, S., Dong, H.: Separation and relaxation for cones of quadratic forms. Math. Program. 137(1–2), 343–370 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burer, S., Vandenbussche, D.: A finite branch-and-bound algorithm for nonconvex quadratic programming via semidefinite relaxations. Math. Program. 113(2), 259–282 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burkard, R.E., Cela, E., Pardalos, P.M., Pitsoulis, L.S.: The quadratic assignment problem. In: Du, D.-Z., Pardalos, P.M. (eds.) Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 1713–1809. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, J., Burer, S.: Globally solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems via completely positive programming. Math. Program. Comput. 4(1), 33–52 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chuong, T., Jeyakumar, V.: Generalized lagrangian duality for nonconvex polynomial programs with polynomial multipliers. J. Glob. Optim. 72(4), 655–678 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dür, M., Horst, R.: Lagrange duality and partitioning techniques in nonconvex global optimization. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 95(2), 347–369 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Floudas, C.A., Visweswaran, V.: Quadratic optimization. In: Horst, R., Pardalos, P.M. (eds.) Handbook of global optimization, pp. 217–269. Springer, Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fourer, R., Gay, D., Kernighan, B.: Ampl (vol. 117). Danvers, MA: Boyd & Fraser (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Gondzio, J., Yildirim, E.A.: Global Solutions of Nonconvex Standard Quadratic Programs Via Mixed Integer Linear Programming Reformulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02307 (2018)
  18. 18.
    Gorge, A., Lisser, A., Zorgati, R.: Generating cutting planes for the semidefinite relaxation of quadratic programs. Comput. Oper. Res. 55, 65–75 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horst, R., Tuy, H.: Global Optimization: Deterministic Approaches. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ILOG, I.: Cplex 9.0 reference manual. ILOG CPLEX Division (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jiang, B., Li, Z., Zhang, S.: On cones of nonnegative quartic forms. Found. Comput. Math. 17(1), 161–197 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, S., Kojima, M., Waki, H.: Generalized lagrangian duals and sums of squares relaxations of sparse polynomial optimization problems. SIAM J. Optim. 15(3), 697–719 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Konno, H.: Maximization of a convex quadratic function under linear constraints. Math. Program. 11(1), 117–127 (1976)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Konno, H., Thach, P.T., Tuy, H.: Optimization on Low Rank Nonconvex Structures, vol. 15. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lasserre, J.B.: An Introduction to Polynomial and Semi-Algebraic Optimization, vol. 52. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lasserre, J.B., Toh, K.C., Yang, S.: A bounded degree sos hierarchy for polynomial optimization. EURO J. Comput. Optim. 5(1–2), 87–117 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laurent, M., Sun, Z.: Handelman’s hierarchy for the maximum stable set problem. J. Glob. Optim. 60(3), 393–423 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Locatelli, M., Schoen, F.: Global Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, vol. 15. Siam, Philadelphia (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lovász, L., Schrijver, A.: Cones of matrices and set-functions and 0–1 optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 1(2), 166–190 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luenberger, D.G.: A double look at duality. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 37(10), 1474–1482 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo, Z.Q., Ma, W.K., So, A.M.C., Ye, Y., Zhang, S.: Semidefinite relaxation of quadratic optimization problems. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 27(3), 20–34 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mangasarian, O.L.: Nonlinear Programming. Siam, Philadelphia (1974)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MOSEK, A.: The mosek optimization toolbox for matlab manual. version 8.1. (2017)
  34. 34.
    Nesterov, Y., Wolkowicz, H., Ye, Y.: Semidefinite programming relaxations of nonconvex quadratic optimization. In: Wolkowicz, H., Saigal, R., Vandenberghe, L. (eds.) Handbook of Semidefinite Programming, pp. 361–419. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nie, J.: Optimality conditions and finite convergence of lasserre’s hierarchy. Math. Program. 146(1–2), 97–121 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pardalos, P.M., Vavasis, S.A.: Quadratic programming with one negative eigenvalue is np-hard. J. Glob. Optim. 1(1), 15–22 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pólik, I., Terlaky, T.: A survey of the s-lemma. SIAM Rev. 49(3), 371–418 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Renegar, J.: A Mathematical View of Interior-Point Methods in Convex Optimization, vol. 3. Siam, Philadelphia (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sahinidis, N.V., Tawarmalani, M.: Baron 18.11.12: Global optimization of mixed-integer nonlinear programs. User’s manual (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sahni, S.: Computationally related problems. SIAM J. Comput. 3(4), 262–279 (1974)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sherali, H.D., Tuncbilek, C.H.: A global optimization algorithm for polynomial programming problems using a reformulation-linearization technique. J. Glob. Optim. 2(1), 101–112 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sherali, H.D., Tuncbilek, C.H.: A reformulation-convexification approach for solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems. J. Glob. Optim. 7(1), 1–31 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shor, N.Z.: Dual quadratic estimates in polynomial and boolean programming. Ann. Oper. Res. 25(1), 163–168 (1990)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sponsel, J., Bundfuss, S., Dür, M.: An improved algorithm to test copositivity. J. Glob. Optim. 52(3), 537–551 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sturm, J.F., Zhang, S.: On cones of nonnegative quadratic functions. Math. Oper. Res. 28(2), 246–267 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tuy, H.: Convex Analysis and Global Optimization (Springer Optimization and Its Applications Book 110). Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xia, W., Vera, J., Zuluaga, L.F.: Globally solving non-convex quadratic programs via linear integer programming techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02423 (2015)
  48. 48.
    Zamani, M.: New bounds for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08861 (2019)
  49. 49.
    Zheng, X., Sun, X., Li, D., Xu, Y.: On zero duality gap in nonconvex quadratic programming problems. J. Glob. Optim. 52(2), 229–242 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Parametric MultiObjective Optimization Research GroupTon Duc Thang UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and StatisticsTon Duc Thang UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations