v2007.09.13 - Convex Optimization

v2007.09.13 - Convex Optimization v2007.09.13 - Convex Optimization

convexoptimization.com
from convexoptimization.com More from this publisher
10.07.2015 Views

284 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGwhose rank constraint can be regularized as inmaximize1X∈ S n 4subject to δ(X) = 1X ≽ 0〈X , δ(A1) − A〉 − w〈X , W 〉(684)where w ≈1000 is a nonnegative fixed weight, and W is a direction matrixdetermined fromn∑λ(X ⋆ ) ii=2= minimizeW ∈ S n 〈X ⋆ , W 〉subject to 0 ≼ W ≼ ItrW = n − 1(1475a)whose optimal solution is known in closed form. These two problems (684)and (1475a) are iterated until convergence as defined on page 257.Because convex problem statement (684) is so elegant, it is numericallysolvable for large binary vectors within reasonable time. 4.29 To test ourconvex iterative method, we compare an optimal convex result to anactual solution of the max cut problem found by performing a brute forcecombinatorial search of (679) 4.30 for a tight upper bound. Search-time limitsbinary vector lengths to 24 bits (about five days cpu time). Accuracyobtained, 98%, is independent of binary vector length (12, 13, 20, 24)when averaged over more than 231 problem instances including planar,randomized, and toroidal graphs. 4.31 A Matlab program is providedinF.7. That same accuracy is presumed maintained when binary vectorlength is further increased.4.29 We solved for a length-250 binary vector in only a few minutes and convex iterationson a Dell Precision model M90.4.30 more computationally intensive than the proposed convex iteration by many ordersof magnitude. Solving max cut by searching over all binary vectors of length 100, forexample, would occupy a contemporary supercomputer for a million years.4.31 Existence of a polynomial-time approximation to max cut with accuracy better than94.11% would refute proof of NP-hardness, which some researchers believe to be highlyunlikely. [130, thm.8.2]

4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAM 2854.4.3.0.8 Example. Cardinality/sparsity problem.d’Aspremont et alii [65] propose approximating a positive semidefinite matrixA ∈ S N + by a rank-one matrix having a constraint on cardinality c : for0 < c < Nminimize ‖A − zz T ‖ Fz(685)subject to cardz ≤ cwhich, they explain, is a hard problem equivalent tomaximize x T Axxsubject to ‖x‖ = 1cardx ≤ c(686)where z ∆ = √ λ x and where optimal solution x ⋆ is a principal eigenvector(1469) (A.5) of A and λ = x ⋆T Ax ⋆ is the principal eigenvalue when c istrue cardinality of that eigenvector. This is principal component analysiswith a cardinality constraint which controls solution sparsity. Define thematrix variableX ∆ = xx T ∈ S N (687)whose desired rank is 1, and whose desired diagonal cardinalitycardδ(X) ≡ cardx (688)is equivalent to cardinality c of vector x . Then we can transform cardinalityproblem (686) to an equivalent problem in new variable X : 4.32maximizeX∈S N 〈X , A〉subject to 〈X , I〉 = 1(X ≽ 0)rankX = 1cardδ(X) ≤ c(689)We transform problem (689) to an equivalent convex problem byintroducing two direction matrices: W to achieve desired cardinality4.32 A semidefiniteness constraint X ≽ 0 is not required, theoretically, because positivesemidefiniteness of a rank-1 matrix is enforced by symmetry. (Theorem A.3.1.0.7)

4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAM 2854.4.3.0.8 Example. Cardinality/sparsity problem.d’Aspremont et alii [65] propose approximating a positive semidefinite matrixA ∈ S N + by a rank-one matrix having a constraint on cardinality c : for0 < c < Nminimize ‖A − zz T ‖ Fz(685)subject to cardz ≤ cwhich, they explain, is a hard problem equivalent tomaximize x T Axxsubject to ‖x‖ = 1cardx ≤ c(686)where z ∆ = √ λ x and where optimal solution x ⋆ is a principal eigenvector(1469) (A.5) of A and λ = x ⋆T Ax ⋆ is the principal eigenvalue when c istrue cardinality of that eigenvector. This is principal component analysiswith a cardinality constraint which controls solution sparsity. Define thematrix variableX ∆ = xx T ∈ S N (687)whose desired rank is 1, and whose desired diagonal cardinalitycardδ(X) ≡ cardx (688)is equivalent to cardinality c of vector x . Then we can transform cardinalityproblem (686) to an equivalent problem in new variable X : 4.32maximizeX∈S N 〈X , A〉subject to 〈X , I〉 = 1(X ≽ 0)rankX = 1cardδ(X) ≤ c(689)We transform problem (689) to an equivalent convex problem byintroducing two direction matrices: W to achieve desired cardinality4.32 A semidefiniteness constraint X ≽ 0 is not required, theoretically, because positivesemidefiniteness of a rank-1 matrix is enforced by symmetry. (Theorem A.3.1.0.7)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!