Semidefinite and Second-Order Cone Programming


Semidefinite programming (SDP) is a branch of convex programming (CP) that has been a subject of intensive research since the early 1990’s [1]–[9]. The continued interest in SDP has been motivated mainly by two reasons. First, many important classes of optimization problems such as linear-programming (LP) and convex quadratic-programming (QP) problems can be viewed as SDP problems, and many CP problems of practical usefulness that are neither LP nor QP problems can also be formulated as SDP problems. Second, several interior-point methods that have proven efficient for LP and convex QP problems have been extended to SDP in recent years.


Linear Matrix Inequality Convex Cone Central Path Convex Programming Problem SOCP Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. Alizadeh, Combinational Optimization with Interior Point Methods and Semidefinite Matrices, Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovski, Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1994.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, “Semidefinite programming,” SIAM Review, vol. 38, pp. 49–95, Mar. 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Nemirovski and P. Gahinet, “The projective method for solving linear matrix inequalities,” in Proc. American Control Conference, pp. 840–844, Baltimore, MD., June 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Helmberg, F. Rendl, R. Vanderbei, and H. Wolkowicz, “An interior-point method for semidefinite programming,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 6, pp. 342–361, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Kojima, S. Shindoh, and S. Hara, “Interior-point methods for the monotone linear complementarity problem in symmetric matrices,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 7, pp. 86–125, 1997.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Nesterov and M. Todd, “Primal-dual interior-point method for self-scaled cones,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 8, pp. 324–364, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Alizadeh, J. A. Haeberly, and M. L. Overton, “Primal-dual interior-point methods for semidefinite programming: Convergence rates, stability and numerical results,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 8, pp. 746–768, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Monteiro, “Polynomial convergence of primal-dual algorithm for semidefinite programming based on Monteiro and Zhang family of directions,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 8, pp. 797–812, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1994.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. S. Lewis and M. L. Overton, “Eigenvalue optimization,” Acta Numerica, vol. 5, pp. 149–190, 1996.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Shida, S. Shindoh, and M. Kojima, “Existence and uniqueness of search directions in interior-point algorithms for the SDP and the monotone SDLCP,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 8, pp. 387–398, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Mehrotra, “On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method,” SIAM, J. Optim., vol. 2, pp. 575–601, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Gahinet and A. Nemirovski, “The projective method for solving linear matrix inequalities,” Math. Programming, vol. 77, pp. 163–190, 1997.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. S. Lobo, L. Vandenberghe, S. Boyd, and H. Lebret, “Applications of second-order cone programming,” Linear Algebra and Its Applications, vol. 284, pp. 193–228, Nov. 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. D. C. Monteiro and T. Tsuchiya, “Polynomial convergence of primal-dual algorithms for the second-order cone program based on the MZ-family of directions,” Math. Programming, vol. 88, pp. 61–83, 2000.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Personalised recommendations