v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization
v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization
248 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING The vector inner-product for matrices is defined in the Euclidean/Frobenius sense in the isomorphic vector space R n(n+1)/2 ; id est, 〈C , X〉 ∆ = tr(C T X) = svec(C) T svec X (31) where svec X defined by (49) denotes symmetric vectorization. Linear programming, invented by Dantzig in 1947, is now integral to modern technology. But the same cannot yet be said of semidefinite programming introduced by Bellman & Fan in 1963. [86] Numerical performance of contemporary general-purpose semidefinite program solvers is limited: Computational intensity varies as O(n 6 ) based on interior-point methods that produce solutions no more relatively accurate than1E-8. There are no solvers available capable of handling in excess of n=100 variables without significant, sometimes crippling, loss of precision or time. 4.2 Nevertheless, semidefinite programming has emerged recently to prominence primarily because it admits a new class of problem previously unsolvable by convex optimization techniques, [51] secondarily because it theoretically subsumes other convex techniques such as linear, quadratic, and second-order cone programming. Determination of the Riemann mapping function from complex analysis [248] [28,8,13], for example, can be posed as a semidefinite program. 4.1.1.1 Maximal complementarity It has been shown that contemporary interior-point methods (developed circa 1990 [126]) [53,11] [334] [251] [239] [10] [121] for numerical solution of semidefinite programs can converge to a solution of maximal complementarity; [150,5] [341] [218] [133] not a vertex-solution but a solution of highest cardinality or rank among all optimal solutions. 4.3 [342,2.5.3] 4.2 Heuristics are not ruled out by SIOPT; indeed I would suspect that most successful methods have (appropriately described) heuristics under the hood - my codes certainly do. ...Of course, there are still questions relating to high-accuracy and speed, but for many applications a few digits of accuracy suffices and overnight runs for non-real-time delivery is acceptable. −Nicholas I. M. Gould, Editor-in-Chief, SIOPT 4.3 This characteristic might be regarded as a disadvantage to this method of numerical solution, but this behavior is not certain and depends on solver implementation.
4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 249 4.1.1.2 Reduced-rank solution A simple rank reduction algorithm, for construction of a primal optimal solution X ⋆ to (584P) satisfying an upper bound on rank governed by Proposition 2.9.3.0.1, is presented in4.3. That proposition asserts existence of feasible solutions with an upper bound on their rank; [25,II.13.1] specifically, it asserts an extreme point (2.6.0.0.1) of the primal feasible set A ∩ S n + satisfies upper bound ⌊√ ⌋ 8m + 1 − 1 rankX ≤ 2 where, given A∈ R m×n(n+1)/2 and b∈ R m (245) A ∆ = {X ∈ S n | A svec X = b} (587) is the affine subset from primal problem (584P). 4.1.1.3 Coexistence of low- and high-rank solutions; analogy That low-rank and high-rank optimal solutions {X ⋆ } of (584P) coexist may be grasped with the following analogy: We compare a proper polyhedral cone S 3 + in R 3 (illustrated in Figure 70) to the positive semidefinite cone S 3 + in isometrically isomorphic R 6 , difficult to visualize. The analogy is good: int S 3 + is constituted by rank-3 matrices int S 3 + has three dimensions boundary ∂S 3 + contains rank-0, rank-1, and rank-2 matrices boundary ∂S 3 + contains 0-, 1-, and 2-dimensional faces the only rank-0 matrix resides in the vertex at the origin Rank-1 matrices are in one-to-one correspondence with extreme directions of S 3 + and S 3 + . The set of all rank-1 symmetric matrices in this dimension { G ∈ S 3 + | rankG=1 } (588) is not a connected set.
- Page 197 and 198: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 197 f 1 (x) f
- Page 199 and 200: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 199 3.1.3 norm
- Page 201 and 202: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 201 A B 1 Figu
- Page 203 and 204: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 203 k/m 1 0.9
- Page 205 and 206: k∑ i=1 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 205 S
- Page 207 and 208: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 207 rather x >
- Page 209 and 210: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 209 rather ] x
- Page 211 and 212: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 211 3.1.6.0.2
- Page 213 and 214: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 213 q(x) f(x)
- Page 215 and 216: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 215 3.1.7.0.2
- Page 217 and 218: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 217 We learned
- Page 219 and 220: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 219 Since opti
- Page 221 and 222: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 221 2 1.5 1 0.
- Page 223 and 224: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 223 Setting th
- Page 225 and 226: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 225 Similarly,
- Page 227 and 228: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 227 For vector
- Page 229 and 230: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 229 This means
- Page 231 and 232: 3.1. CONVEX FUNCTION 231 f(Y ) −
- Page 233 and 234: 3.2. MATRIX-VALUED CONVEX FUNCTION
- Page 235 and 236: 3.2. MATRIX-VALUED CONVEX FUNCTION
- Page 237 and 238: 3.2. MATRIX-VALUED CONVEX FUNCTION
- Page 239 and 240: 3.3. QUASICONVEX 239 exponential al
- Page 241 and 242: 3.3. QUASICONVEX 241 Unlike convex
- Page 243 and 244: 3.4. SALIENT PROPERTIES 243 6. (af
- Page 245 and 246: Chapter 4 Semidefinite programming
- Page 247: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 247 where K is a
- Page 251 and 252: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 251 In any SDP f
- Page 253 and 254: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 253 Proposition
- Page 255 and 256: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 255 sets are closed
- Page 257 and 258: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 257 4.2.1.1.3 Exampl
- Page 259 and 260: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 259 4.2.2 Duals The
- Page 261 and 262: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 261 When equality is
- Page 263 and 264: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 263 The pseudoinvers
- Page 265 and 266: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 265 For the data giv
- Page 267 and 268: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 267 minimizes an aff
- Page 269 and 270: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 269 whose rank
- Page 271 and 272: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 271 and where m
- Page 273 and 274: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 273 4.3.3 Optim
- Page 275 and 276: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 275 Initialize:
- Page 277 and 278: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 279 and 280: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 281 and 282: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 283 and 284: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 285 and 286: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 287 and 288: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 289 and 290: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 291 and 292: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 293 and 294: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 295 and 296: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 295 m
- Page 297 and 298: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 297 m
248 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING<br />
The vector inner-product for matrices is defined in the Euclidean/Frobenius<br />
sense in the isomorphic vector space R n(n+1)/2 ; id est,<br />
〈C , X〉 ∆ = tr(C T X) = svec(C) T svec X (31)<br />
where svec X defined by (49) denotes symmetric vectorization.<br />
Linear programming, invented by Dantzig in 1947, is now integral to<br />
modern technology. But the same cannot yet be said of semidefinite<br />
programming introduced by Bellman & Fan in 1963. [86] Numerical<br />
performance of contemporary general-purpose semidefinite program solvers<br />
is limited: Computational intensity varies as O(n 6 ) based on interior-point<br />
methods that produce solutions no more relatively accurate than1E-8. There<br />
are no solvers available capable of handling in excess of n=100 variables<br />
without significant, sometimes crippling, loss of precision or time. 4.2<br />
Nevertheless, semidefinite programming has emerged recently to<br />
prominence primarily because it admits a new class of problem previously<br />
unsolvable by convex optimization techniques, [51] secondarily because it<br />
theoretically subsumes other convex techniques such as linear, quadratic, and<br />
second-order cone programming. Determination of the Riemann mapping<br />
function from complex analysis [248] [28,8,13], for example, can be posed<br />
as a semidefinite program.<br />
4.1.1.1 Maximal complementarity<br />
It has been shown that contemporary interior-point methods (developed<br />
circa 1990 [126]) [53,11] [334] [251] [239] [10] [121] for numerical<br />
solution of semidefinite programs can converge to a solution of maximal<br />
complementarity; [150,5] [341] [218] [133] not a vertex-solution but a<br />
solution of highest cardinality or rank among all optimal solutions. 4.3<br />
[342,2.5.3]<br />
4.2 Heuristics are not ruled out by SIOPT; indeed I would suspect that most successful<br />
methods have (appropriately described) heuristics under the hood - my codes certainly do.<br />
...Of course, there are still questions relating to high-accuracy and speed, but for many<br />
applications a few digits of accuracy suffices and overnight runs for non-real-time delivery<br />
is acceptable.<br />
−Nicholas I. M. Gould, Editor-in-Chief, SIOPT<br />
4.3 This characteristic might be regarded as a disadvantage to this method of numerical<br />
solution, but this behavior is not certain and depends on solver implementation.