1997
DOI: 10.1007/bf02614432
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complementarity and nondegeneracy in semidefinite programming

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

6
283
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 189 publications
(289 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
6
283
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The idea of studying optimization from a generic perspective dates back further, at least to Saigal and Simon's 1973 study [36] of the complementarity problem, and has persisted: see for example the studies of generic strict complementarity and primal and dual nondegeneracy for semidefinite programming by Alizadeh, Haeberly and Overton [1] and Shapiro [37], and for general conic convex programs by Pataki and Tunçel [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The idea of studying optimization from a generic perspective dates back further, at least to Saigal and Simon's 1973 study [36] of the complementarity problem, and has persisted: see for example the studies of generic strict complementarity and primal and dual nondegeneracy for semidefinite programming by Alizadeh, Haeberly and Overton [1] and Shapiro [37], and for general conic convex programs by Pataki and Tunçel [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of [40] fixed an objective and constraint functions, allowed linear perturbations to the objective and constant perturbations to the constraints, and proved a measure-theoretic result about the second-order conditions via Sard's Theorem. Both [1] and [37] use rather analogous arguments to prove that strict complementarity and primal and dual nondegeneracy are generic properties of semidefinite programs; using a very different technique based on the boundary behavior of convex sets, Pataki and Tunçel [29] generalized these results to general conic convex programs. Ioffe and Lucchetti [16] adopt a more abstract, topological approach, allowing very general perturbations to the optimization problem but proving a result instead about "well-posedness" [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations