Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications

, Volume 158, Issue 3, pp 816–858 | Cite as

A Full Nesterov–Todd Step Infeasible Interior-Point Method for Second-Order Cone Optimization

  • M. Zangiabadi
  • G. Gu
  • C. Roos


After a brief introduction to Jordan algebras, we present a primal–dual interior-point algorithm for second-order conic optimization that uses full Nesterov–Todd steps; no line searches are required. The number of iterations of the algorithm coincides with the currently best iteration bound for second-order conic optimization. We also generalize an infeasible interior-point method for linear optimization to second-order conic optimization. As usual for infeasible interior-point methods, the starting point depends on a positive number. The algorithm either finds a solution in a finite number of iterations or determines that the primal–dual problem pair has no optimal solution with vanishing duality gap.


Feasible interior-point method Infeasible interior-point method Second-order conic optimization Jordan algebra Polynomial complexity 



Authors wish to thank Professor Florian Potra and four anonymous referees for useful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of the manuscript. The first author would like to thank for the financial grant from Shahrekord University. The first author was also partially supported by the Center of Excellence for Mathematics, University of Shahrekord, Shahrekord, Iran.


  1. 1.
    Lobo, M.S., Vandenberghe, L., Boyd, S.E., Lebret, H.: Applications of second-order cone programming. Linear Algebra Appl. 284, 193–228 (1998) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vanderbei, R.J., Yurttan, H.: Using LOQO to solve second-order cone programming problems. Report sor 98-09, Princeton University, Princeton, USA (1998) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolkowicz, H., Saigal, R., Vandenberghe, L. (eds.): Handbook of Semidefinite Programming. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 27. Kluwer, Boston (2000) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ji, J., Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: On the local convergence of predictor-corrector method for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 10(1), 195–210 (1999) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ji, J., Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: On a general class of interior-point algorithms for semidefinite with polynomial complexity and super convergence programming. Methods Appl. Anal. 6(4) (1999) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: A superlinearly convergent primal–dual infeasible-interior-point algorithm for semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 8(4), 1007–1028 (1998) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Potra, F.A., Sheng, R.: On homogeneous interior-point algorithms for semidefinite programming. Optim. Methods Softw. 9, 161–184 (1998) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nesterov, Y.E., Nemirovskii, A.S.: Interior Point Polynomial Methods in Convex Programming: Theory and Algorithms. SIAM, Philadelphia (1993) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nesterov, Y.E., Todd, M.J.: Self-scaled barriers and interior-point methods for convex programming. Math. Oper. Res. 22(1), 1–42 (1997) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nesterov, Y.E., Todd, M.J.: Primal–dual interior-point methods for self-scaled cones. SIAM J. Optim. 8(2), 324–364 (1998) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adler, I., Alizadeh, F.: Primal–dual interior point algorithms for convex quadratically constrained and semidefinite optimization problems. Technical Report RRR-111-95, Rutger Center for Operations Research, Brunswick, NJ (1995) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alizadeh, F., Goldfarb, D.: Second-order cone programming. Math. Program. 95, 3–51 (2003) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmieta, S.H., Alizadeh, F.: Associative and Jordan algebras, and polynomial time interior-point algorithms for symmetric cones. Math. Oper. Res. 26(3), 543–564 (2001) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmieta, S.H., Alizadeh, F.: Extension of polynimal time interior-point algorithms to symmetric cones. Math. Program. 96(3), 409–438 (2003) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faybusovich, L.: Linear system in Jordan algebras and primal–dual interior-point algorithms. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 86(1), 149–175 (1997) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peng, J., Roos, C., Terlaky, T.: Self-regular functions and new search directions for linear and semidefinite optimization. Math. Program. 93, 129–171 (2002) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peng, J., Roos, C., Terlaky, T.: Self-Regularity. A New Paradigm for Primal–Dual Interior-Point Algorithms. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2002) MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bai, Y.Q., Wang, G.Q., Roos, C.: Primal–dual interior-point algorithms for second-order cone optimization based on kernel functions. Nonlinear Anal. 70(10), 3584–3602 (2009) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kojima, M., Megiddo, N., Mizuno, S.: A primal–dual infeasible-interior-point algorithm for linear programming. Math. Program. 61, 263–280 (1993) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, Y.: On the convergence of a class of infeasible-interior-point methods for the horizontal linear complementarity problem. SIAM J. Optim. 4, 208–227 (1994) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mizuno, S.: Polynomiality of infeasible interior point algorithms for linear programming. Math. Program. 67, 109–119 (1994) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potra, F.A.: A quadratically convergent predictor-corrector method for solving linear programs from infeasible starting points. Math. Program. 67, 383–406 (1994) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Potra, F.A.: An infeasible-interior-point predictor-corrector algorithm for linear programming. SIAM J. Optim. 6(1), 19–32 (1996) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, Y.: On extending primal–dual interior-point algorithms from linear programming to semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Optim. 8(2), 365–386 (1998) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rangarajan, B.K.: Polynomial convergence of infeasible-interior-point methods over symmetric cones. SIAM J. Optim. 16(4), 1211–1229 (2006) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roos, C.: A full-Newton step O(n) infeasible interior-point algorithm for linear optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 16(4), 1110–1136 (2006) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mansouri, H.: Full-Newton step interior-point methods for conic optimization. PhD thesis, ISBN 978-90-9023179-2. Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, The Netherlands (2008) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Faraut, J., Koranyi, A.: Analysis on symmetric cones. Oxford University Press, New York (1994) MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koecher, M.: The Minnesota Notes on Jordan Algebras and Their Applications. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1710. Springer, Berlin (1999). Edited, annotated and with a preface by Aloys Krieg and Sebastian Walcher MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCrimmon, K.: A Taste of Jordan Algebras. Universitext. Springer, New York (2004) MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vieira, M.V.C.: Jordan algebraic approach to symmetric optimization. PhD thesis, ISBN 978-90-6464-189-3. Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, The Netherlands (2007) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lim, Y.: Geometric means on symmetric cones. Arch. Math. (Basel) 75(1), 39–56 (2000) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sturm, J.: Similarity and other spectral relations for symmetric cones. Linear Algebra Appl. 312(1–3), 135–154 (2000) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monteiro, R.D.C., Tsuchiya, T.: Polynomial convergence of primal–dual algorithms for the second-order program based on the MZ-family of directions. Math. Program. 88, 61–83 (2000) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roos, C., Terlaky, T., Vial, J.-P.: Theory and Algorithms for Linear Optimization. An Interior-Point Approach. Wiley, Chichester (1997) (2001). (2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2005)) MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mizuno, S., Todd, M.J., Ye, Y.: A surface of analytic centers and primal–dual infeasible-interior-point algorithms for linear programming. Math. Oper. Res. 20(1), 135–162 (1995) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Freund, R.M.: An infeasible-start algorithm for linear programming whose complexity depends on the distance from the starting point to the optimal solution. Ann. Oper. Res. 62, 29–57 (1996) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mansouri, H., Roos, C.: A simplified O(nL) infeasible interior-point algorithm for linear optimization using full Newton steps. Optim. Methods Softw. 22(3), 519–530 (2007) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mansouri, H., Zangiabadi, M.: An adaptive infeasible interior-point algorithm with full-Newton step for linear optimization. J. Optim. (2011). doi: 10.1080/02331934.2011.611881 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mansouri, H., Roos, C.: A new full-Newton step O(n) infeasible interior-point algorithm for semidefinite optimization. J. Numer. Algorithms 52(2), 225–255 (2009) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mansouri, H., Zangiabadi, M., Pirhaji, M.: A full-Newton step O(n) infeasible interior-point algorithm for linear complementarity problems. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 12, 545–561 (2011) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical SciencesShahrekord UniversityShahrekordIran
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer ScienceDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations