Sequential Convex Restriction and its Applications in Robust Optimization

Dongchan Lee; Jean-Jacques Slotine; Konstantin Turitsyn

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Sequential Convex Restriction and its Applications in Robust Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sequential convex restriction turns nonconvex robust problems into a monotone chain of convex subproblems.

desk verdict Solid extension of the authors' own convex-restriction machinery to robust nonlinear equality constraints, but the universal envelope-existence claim is false as stated and the KKT convergence proof assumes what it needs to prove. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01778 v1 pith:MTRTDCUC submitted 2019-09-04 math.OC

Dongchan Lee , Konstantin Turitsyn , Jean-Jacques Slotine This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 90C2690C3090C25

keywords convexrestrictionsequentialprogrammingrobustoptimizationnonlinearequalityconstraintsconcaveenvelopesBrouwerfixedpointtheoremfeasibilitycertificateuncertaintyset

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that a large class of robust optimization problems with nonlinear equality constraints can be solved by a sequence of convex optimization problems without ever losing feasibility guarantees. Its central claim is that the existence of an implicit variable $x$ satisfying $f(x,u,w)=0$ and $h(x,u,w)\le 0$ for all $w\in W$ can be certified by a convex condition in lifted variables $(u,b)$, built from convex-over/concave-under envelopes around a nominal point and Brouwer's fixed point theorem. From this certificate, the authors construct an algorithm whose every iterate is robustly feasible, whose objective value is non-increasing, and which converges to the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions of the nominal problem whenever the implicit-variable Jacobian is nonsingular. A reader should care because the result provides a tractable, nonlocal guarantee for nonconvex equality constraints under bounded uncertainty, a regime where most robust optimization theory stops at linear or convex inequality constraints.

What carries the argument

The central object is the concave envelope: for each nonlinear basis function, a convex over-estimator and a concave under-estimator that are tight, with tight gradients, at the nominal point, and for which closed-form expressions are assumed. Together with the decomposed representation $f = M\psi(Cx,u)$, $h = L\psi(Cx,u)$, these envelopes turn the geometric containment problem for the polytope $P(b)$ into a finite family of convex inequalities. The load-bearing identity is the fixed-point form $x = -(M\Lambda C)^{-1}M(\psi(Cx,u)-\Lambda Cx)$, which makes Brouwer's fixed point theorem applicable; $\Lambda$ is chosen as the Jacobian of the basis functions at the nominal point when available. Vertex tracking and vertex pruning keep the number of constraints at $q\cdot 2^{|I|+2} + 2n + s$, where $|I|$ is the worst-case number of transformed coordinates appearing in any basis function, so the certificate scales linearly when the representation is sparse.

What would settle it

Take the single equation $f(x,u)=x^{3}+u$ with nominal point $x_{0}=0,u_{0}=0$, construct the convex restriction with any claimed envelope, and test a point $u$ that the condition certifies: if no real $x$ solves $x^{3}+u=0$, the certificate is unsound. A direct end-to-end check is to run Algorithm 1 on the paper's polynomial example and verify at each iterate that the returned $(u^{(k+1)},x^{(k+1)})$ actually satisfies $f=0$ for all sampled $w$ in the uncertainty set; one violated iterate disproves the robust-feasibility guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result, its Theorem 2, is a convex sufficient condition for the feasibility of a system of nonlinear equations and inequalities. For a fixed explicit variable $u$, the condition asks for a polytope $P(b)$ defined by $Ax\le b$ that a Newton-like fixed-point map $G(x)=-(M\Lambda C)^{-1}M(\psi(Cx,u)-\Lambda Cx)$ sends into itself; Brouwer's fixed point theorem then guarantees some $x\in P(b)$ solves $f(x,u)=0$. The self-mapping inclusion is replaced by explicit closed-form inequalities $K^{+}g^{u}_{P}(u,b)+K^{-}g^{l}_{P}(u,b)\le b$ and $L^{+}\psi^{u}_{P}(u,b)+L^{-}\psi^{l}_{P}(u,b)\le 0$, where the bounds are obtained by tracking the vertices of $P(b)$ through convex-over/concave-under envelopes. Under bounded uncertainty, the same inequalities are built from envelopes that also dominate the uncertainty set, yielding a convex certificate of robust feasibility. The paper then shows that re-centering the envelopes at each new iterate yields a monotone algorithm whose nominal-convergence point satisfies the KKT conditions, with the only exceptional case being a singular Jacobian.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every nonlinear basis function admits closed-form convex over-estimators and concave under-estimators that are tight at the nominal point, with matching gradients; the paper asserts such envelopes exist for continuous functions but gives no proof or general construction, so if they cannot be found the convex restriction may certify nothing beyond the nominal point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every iterate returned by the algorithm is robustly feasible for the original constraints, so stopping early still gives a usable point.
The objective value is non-increasing and bounded below by the global optimum, so the gap to the nominal optimum gives a computable optimality gap for the robust problem.
For nominal constraints, any accumulation point of the sequence either satisfies the KKT conditions of the original problem or sits at a singular point of the implicit-variable Jacobian.
When the original constraints are convex, the convex restriction is exactly the feasible set rather than a proper subset, so no feasible region is lost in that case.
The size of each subproblem stays linear in the number of constraints when the basis representation is sparse, such as in network flow models where each basis function depends on one transformed variable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: because the certificate is convex and closed-form, it could serve as a feasibility oracle inside branch-and-bound or cutting-plane global solvers, pruning the search without solving the nonconvex system directly; the paper does not explore this.
Editorial extension: the same lifting used for additive uncertainty (introducing $x_w = w$) suggests that any bounded parametric dependence can be converted into additive form, at the cost of enlarging the implicit-variable space; this may let the method handle nonconvex uncertainty sets beyond the examples shown.
Editorial extension: one could co-optimize the matrix $\Lambda$ in each subproblem rather than fixing it at the nominal point; the paper notes the optimal $\Lambda$ is hard to find, so this is a natural direction for enlarging the certified region.
Editorial extension: the robustness margin computed by Corollary 3 could be compared against Monte Carlo sampling or brute-force feasibility checks on small instances to measure how conservative the envelope-based condition is.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Main thing to know: this is an honest extension of the group's earlier convex restriction work, not a revolution. Theorem 2 comes from [24] and is properly attributed; the genuinely new pieces are the robust counterparts (Theorems 3 and 4, Corollaries 2 and 3) and the KKT convergence analysis in Corollary 5. The fixed-point and envelope-bounding logic is coherent, and the robust results follow from the same machinery. The sparse representation and vertex pruning discussion is real: when the basis functions depend on a bounded number of transformed variables, the convex restriction uses a number of constraints that grows linearly, which matters for network applications.

Where it is soft. The claim in Section 3.3 that 'for any continuous function, there exists a concave envelope satisfying Condition 3' is false. The test case g(z)=sqrt(|z|) at z0=0 is correct: any convex over-estimator through the origin has a finite right derivative, so it cannot dominate sqrt(z) close to zero. That means Theorem 2 is not as universally applicable as the blanket statement suggests. It is still a valid conditional theorem if Condition 3 is assumed, and the missing piece is a correct existence/construction statement—for example, for C^2 functions with bounded Hessians on a box. This is a scope error in the presentation, not a collapse of the method.

The second soft spot is Corollary 5. The proof shows the objective values converge monotonically, then simply supposes the converged solution u* is the limit of the iterates. The iterates themselves are never proved to converge. So the honest reading is: if the sequence of explicit variables converges, the limit satisfies KKT. That is a reasonable claim, but the wording overstates it.

Also, there is no code or data, so the examples in Section 5 cannot be independently reproduced. The plots look plausible, but that is all.

Bottom line: this paper deserves a serious referee. A tractable sufficient condition for robust feasibility with nonlinear equality constraints is a useful addition, and the conditional theory is mostly sound. I would ask the authors to fix the envelope-existence claim and either prove iterate convergence or explicitly state the result as conditional. If you work on robust optimization of power flow or similar network problems, this is the natural companion to their earlier [24].

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a convex sufficient condition, called a convex restriction, for the existence of implicit variables satisfying systems of nonlinear equality and inequality constraints. The construction bounds nonlinear basis functions by convex over-estimators and concave under-estimators, uses a fixed-point representation of the equalities, and applies Brouwer's fixed point theorem to certify feasibility within a parametrized polytope. The authors extend this condition to robust feasibility under bounded uncertainty, both for general uncertainty sets and for state-uncertainty separable constraints, and then propose a sequential convex restriction algorithm that iterates convex subproblems, proves monotone improvement of the objective, and claims convergence to a KKT point for the nominal problem. The method is illustrated on polynomial optimization and nonlinear network flow examples.

Significance. If stated accurately, this framework is a useful contribution: it converts a generally nonconvex robust feasibility problem with equality constraints into a sequence of convex programs, each iterate carrying a feasibility certificate, and the number of constraints scales with the sparsity of the chosen basis representation. The fixed-point reasoning in Theorem 2 is coherent, and the robust extension in Theorem 3 follows from the same bounding logic. The paper also provides explicit closed-form envelopes for bilinear, quadratic, trigonometric, and logistic functions, a support-function treatment of separable uncertainty, and monotone objective improvement. The main weakness is that the paper asserts a universal existence result for the envelopes that is false as stated, and the claimed KKT convergence relies on an unproved convergence assumption for the iterate sequence.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Condition 3 and the sentence 'For any continuous function, there exists a concave envelope satisfying…] The universal envelope existence claim is false. For g(z)=sqrt(|z|) with nominal point z0=0, any real-valued convex over-estimator g^u with g^u(0)=0 has a finite right derivative d at 0; convexity then forces g^u(z) >= d z for z>0, but sqrt(z) > d z for all sufficiently small z, so no convex g^u can dominate g. This invalidates the blanket assertion and means Theorem 2, together with all robust corollaries that inherit Condition 3, is only a conditional statement for functions for which such envelopes can actually be constructed. The authors should either give a correct characterization of the function class admitting such envelopes (for example, functions with bounded Hessian on the relevant box) or state all results as conditional on the explicit availability of envelopes satisfying Condition 3.
[Section 5.2, Corollary 5] The proof assumes u* = lim_{k->infinity} arg min_{u in U^cvxrs_W,(k)} f0(u), but convergence of the iterate sequence is never established. Corollary 4 proves only that the objective values f0(u(k)) form a monotone decreasing sequence bounded below, which implies convergence of the scalar objective values, not convergence of the minimizers u(k). The KKT conclusion is therefore conditional on an unproved assumption. The authors should either prove convergence of the iterates under suitable compactness and regularity conditions, or explicitly state the result as a statement about cluster points or as a conditional result.
[Section 3.3.1, 'Quadratic Concave Envelopes'] The proposed quadratic envelope construction assumes a Taylor expansion whose residual can be bounded by quadratic terms with constant matrices Q^u_k and Q^l_k, and the scalar formula Q^u = sup_y |d^2/dy^2 g_k(y)| requires g_k to be twice differentiable. For general continuous or merely differentiable functions, no such bound need exist, and for non-differentiable functions the derivative conditions in Condition 3 are not even defined. This reinforces the need for a precise characterization of the admissible function class; as written, the section reads as a general construction when it is actually a special case applicable only to functions with controlled second-order behavior.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1, Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 refers to the set U before it has been formally defined; the authors should reorder the definitions or add a forward pointer so that U is introduced before its first use.
[Section 3.2, Lemma 2] The statement contains a typo ('satifies' for 'satisfies'), and the necessity direction would be clearer if the proof explicitly noted that choosing b=A x(0) makes P(b) the singleton {x(0)} precisely because rank(C)=n, so the maximum in condition (6) is attained at x(0).
[Remark 1] The complexity bound 'q * 2^{|I|+2} + 2n + s' should be derived step by step, because Lemma 3 gives 2^{|I_k|+1} per basis function and the total depends on the distribution of the sparsity degrees |I_k|; the stated compact form is not immediately transparent when the |I_k| vary.
[Example 2] The closed-form expression for U^cvxrs_(0) uses the inner-product notation <z, z-2z(0)+u1-u(0)_1> without defining the range of u and the precise domain of the envelope; a brief clarification would help reproducibility.
[Section 4.2, Theorem 4] The assumptions on alpha and beta should be stated more precisely before the conjugates are introduced: alpha_i is assumed linear in w, while L_j beta is assumed concave in w, but the notation in equation (15) leaves the reader to infer which part is covered by which assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the convex-restriction proof is restated in full and the robust extensions are derived from the same conditional machinery rather than from fitted data or self-citation.

full rationale

The core derivation is conditional on the stated envelope assumption: Condition 3 requires convex over-estimators and concave under-estimators that are tight at the nominal point. Theorem 2 is then proved directly: the envelope inequalities bound the maximum of K_i g over the polytope, so the map G(x) = -(M Lambda C)^-1 M g(Cx,u) maps P(b) into itself, and Brouwer's theorem supplies the implicit variable. Lemma 2 is a genuine equivalence for the fixed-point containment, not a restatement of the desired conclusion. No quantity in the paper is fit to data, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the rho and Q choices in the quadratic envelopes change the shape of the restriction but are not calibrated to force the target feasibility conclusion. The robust conditions in Theorems 3 and 4 and Corollaries 2 and 3 extend the same conditional argument, and the optimality gap bound in Corollary 6 is the tautological but non-circular inequality f0(u_nominal-opt) <= f0(u_robust-opt) obtained from w0 in W. The main self-citation is the statement in Section 3.7 that the convex restriction condition 'was first provided in [24]', with overlapping authorship; however, the proof is restated in full in the present paper, so the citation is provenance rather than load-bearing logical evidence. The most serious correctness concern is the assertion in Section 3.3 that 'For any continuous function, there exists a concave envelope satisfying Condition 3', which is mathematically overbroad and is the real load-bearing assumption; but that is a correctness and scope issue, not circularity, because the theorem is valid as a conditional statement once envelopes satisfying Condition 3 are assumed. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard fixed point theorems, on user-supplied sparse representations and concave envelopes, and on a convergence assumption that is stated but not proved. The free parameters are envelope shaping constants and matrix choices, not data-fitted constants.

free parameters (3)

rho_1, rho_2 in bilinear envelope
Arbitrary positive parameters in Appendix A.1 control the tightness of the bilinear over- and under-estimators. Feasibility holds for any positive values, but the size and shape of the convex restriction depend on them.
Q^u_k, Q^l_k Hessian bound matrices
In Section 3.3.1 these matrices bound the residual term of the Taylor expansion and are not unique. They are chosen by hand to make the quadratic envelopes valid, and different choices change conservatism.
Lambda matrix = Jacobian or subgradient at the nominal point
The fixed point form and the matrix K depend on the choice of Lambda. The paper recommends the Jacobian or a subgradient, but the choice is a modeling degree of freedom that affects the resulting restriction.

assumptions (6)

standard math Brouwer fixed point theorem
Used in Lemma 2 and Theorem 2 to turn the self-mapping condition into existence of an implicit variable in the polytope P(b).
domain assumption Concave envelopes satisfying Condition 3 exist and have closed form
Section 3.3 asserts existence for any continuous function and assumes closed-form envelopes. No general construction is proved, and the entire convex restriction inherits this premise.
domain assumption Sparse linear operator representation f = M psi(Cx,u), h = L psi(Cx,u) with rank(C)=n
Section 2.1 shows this is always trivially possible, but the complexity of the method depends on the degree of sparsity |I| being small.
domain assumption M Lambda C is invertible, equivalently the Jacobian of f with respect to x is non-singular at the nominal point
Condition 2(ii) is used to define the fixed point operator and K, and Algorithm 1 relies on inverting M Lambda C.
domain assumption For robust separable constraints, W is convex and compact, alpha_i is linear in w, and L_j beta is concave in w
Theorem 4 invokes Fenchel duality and support functions, which require these convexity and compactness assumptions.
domain assumption The iterate sequence u(k) has a limit u*
Corollary 5 assumes u* = lim_k argmin of the subproblems exists. Only monotone decrease of the objective is proved, so iterate convergence is an unproved premise of the KKT result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential Convex Restriction and its Applications in Robust Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTRTDCUC

@misc{pith2026190901778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential Convex Restriction and its Applications in Robust Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTRTDCUC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01778}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a convex sufficient condition for solving a system of nonlinear equations under parametric changes and proposes a sequential convex optimization method for solving robust optimization problems with nonlinear equality constraints. By bounding the nonlinearity with concave envelopes and using Brouwer's fixed point theorem, the sufficient condition is expressed in terms of closed-form convex inequality constraints. We extend the result to provide a convex sufficient condition for feasibility under bounded uncertainty. Using these conditions, a non-convex optimization problem can be solved as a sequence of convex optimization problems, with feasibility and robustness guarantees. We present a detailed analysis of the performance and complexity of the proposed condition. The examples in polynomial optimization and nonlinear network are provided to illustrate the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01778 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Projection of the manifold created by x 2 + u1x + u2 = 0 onto the explicit variable space. This paper considers the convex restriction of U, which we denote by U cvxrs ⊆ U. The convex restriction provides a convex sufficient condition for the feasibility of the explicit variable u, and can be written with a closed-form expression based on the envelope over the nonlinear functions. We show extended analysis of the co… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Illustration of a concave envelope. An example of such an envelope is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The convex restriction of a quadratic equation with (a) the solvability of the equality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of the trade-off between the complexity and the conservatism. The complexity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The blue region represents the feasible region and the contour line shows the objective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The convergence of sequential convex restriction with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Illustration of concave envelopes for a bilinear function. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[24]

D. Lee, H. D. Nguyen, K. Dvijotham, and K. Turitsyn , Convex Restriction of Power Flow Feasibility Sets, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, (2019)

work page 2019
[1]

A verbakh and Y.-B

I. A verbakh and Y.-B. Zhao , Explicit Reformulations for Robust Optimization Problems with General Uncertainty Sets , SIAM Journal on Optimization, 18 (2008), pp. 1436–1466

work page 2008
[2]

Ben-Tal, D

A. Ben-Tal, D. den Hertog, and J. P. Vial , Deriving robust counterparts of nonlinear uncertain inequalities, Mathematical Programming, 149 (2014), pp. 265–299

work page 2014
[3]

Ben-Tal, L

A. Ben-Tal, L. E. Ghaoui, and A. Nemirovski , Robust optimization, Princeton University Press, 2009

work page 2009
[4]

Ben-Tal and A

A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski , Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs, Operations Research Letters, 25 (1999), pp. 1–13

work page 1999
[5]

Ben-Tal and A

A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski , On Tractable Approximations of Uncertain Linear Ma- trix Inequalities Aﬀected by Interval Uncertainty , SIAM Journal on Optimization, 12 (2003), pp. 811–833

work page 2003
[6]

D. P. Bertsekas , Nonlinear programming, Athena Scientiﬁc, 1999

work page 1999
[7]

Bertsimas, D

D. Bertsimas, D. B. Brown, and C. Caramanis , Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization, SIAM Review, 53 (2010), pp. 464–501

work page 2010

Show all 29 references

[8]

Bertsimas, D

D. Bertsimas, D. Pachamanova, and M. Sim , Robust linear optimization under general norms, Operations Research Letters, 32 (2004), pp. 510–516. 23

2004
[9]

H. G. Beyer and B. Sendhoff , Robust optimization - A comprehensive survey , Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 196 (2007), pp. 3190–3218

2007
[10]

P. T. Boggs and J. W. Tolle , Sequential quadratic programming, Acta Numerica, 4 (1995), p. 1

1995
[11]

K. C. Border , Fixed point theorems with applications to economics and game theory , Cam- bridge University Press, 1989

1989
[12]

L. E. J. Brouwer , ¨Uber abbildung von mannigfaltigkeiten , Mathematische Annalen, 71 (1911), pp. 97–115

1911
[13]

R. H. Byrd, F. E. Curtis, and J. Nocedal , An Inexact SQP Method for Equality Con- strained Optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 19 (2008), pp. 351–369

2008
[14]

, An inexact Newton method for nonconvex equality constrained optimization , Mathemat- ical Programming, 122 (2010), pp. 273–299

2010
[15]

Calafiore and L

G. Calafiore and L. El Ghaoui , Ellipsoidal bounds for uncertain linear equations and dynamical systems, Automatica, 40 (2004), pp. 773–787

2004
[16]

A. R. Conn, N. I. M. Gould, and P. L. Toint , Trust region methods, vol. 1, Siam, 2000

2000
[17]

F. E. Curtis, T. C. Johnson, D. P. Robinson, and A. W ¨achter, An Inexact Sequential Quadratic Optimization Algorithm for Nonlinear Optimization , SIAM Journal on Optimiza- tion, 24 (2014), pp. 1041–1074

2014
[18]

El Ghaoui and H

L. El Ghaoui and H. Lebret , Robust Solutions to Least-Squares Problems with Uncertain Data, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 18 (2003), pp. 1035–1064

2003
[19]

Florenzano , General equilibrium analysis: existence and optimality properties of equilib- ria, Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

M. Florenzano , General equilibrium analysis: existence and optimality properties of equilib- ria, Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

2003
[20]

Gabrel, C

V. Gabrel, C. Murat, and A. Thiele , Recent advances in robust optimization: An overview, jun 2014

2014
[21]

Gould, D

N. Gould, D. Orban, and P. Toint , Numerical methods for large-scale nonlinear opti- mization, may 2005

2005
[22]

Hijazi, C

H. Hijazi, C. Coffrin, and P. V. Hentenryck , Convex quadratic relaxations for mixed- integer nonlinear programs in power systems , Mathematical Programming Computation, 9 (2017), pp. 321–367

2017
[23]

Kellner, T

K. Kellner, T. Theobald, and C. Trabandt , Containment Problems for Polytopes and Spectrahedra, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 23 (2013), pp. 1000–1020

2013
[25]

D. Lee, K. Turitsyn, D. K. Molzahn, and L. A. Roald , Feasible path identiﬁcation in optimal power ﬂow with sequential convex restriction, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09483, (2019)

2019 arXiv
[26]

Mitsos, B

A. Mitsos, B. Chachuat, and P. I. Barton , McCormick-Based Relaxations of Algorithms, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 20 (2009), pp. 573–601. 24

2009
[27]

Nocedal and S

J. Nocedal and S. Wright , Numerical optimization, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

2006
[28]

Park and S

J. Park and S. Boyd , General heuristics for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07870, (2017)

2017 arXiv
[29]

Zhang , General robust-optimization formulation for nonlinear programming , Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 132 (2007), pp

Y. Zhang , General robust-optimization formulation for nonlinear programming , Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 132 (2007), pp. 111–124. 25

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

D. Lee, H. D. Nguyen, K. Dvijotham, and K. Turitsyn , Convex Restriction of Power Flow Feasibility Sets, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [1]

A verbakh and Y.-B

I. A verbakh and Y.-B. Zhao , Explicit Reformulations for Robust Optimization Problems with General Uncertainty Sets , SIAM Journal on Optimization, 18 (2008), pp. 1436–1466

work page 2008

[3] [2]

Ben-Tal, D

A. Ben-Tal, D. den Hertog, and J. P. Vial , Deriving robust counterparts of nonlinear uncertain inequalities, Mathematical Programming, 149 (2014), pp. 265–299

work page 2014

[4] [3]

Ben-Tal, L

A. Ben-Tal, L. E. Ghaoui, and A. Nemirovski , Robust optimization, Princeton University Press, 2009

work page 2009

[5] [4]

Ben-Tal and A

A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski , Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs, Operations Research Letters, 25 (1999), pp. 1–13

work page 1999

[6] [5]

Ben-Tal and A

A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski , On Tractable Approximations of Uncertain Linear Ma- trix Inequalities Aﬀected by Interval Uncertainty , SIAM Journal on Optimization, 12 (2003), pp. 811–833

work page 2003

[7] [6]

D. P. Bertsekas , Nonlinear programming, Athena Scientiﬁc, 1999

work page 1999

[8] [7]

Bertsimas, D

D. Bertsimas, D. B. Brown, and C. Caramanis , Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization, SIAM Review, 53 (2010), pp. 464–501

work page 2010