v2007.09.13 - Convex Optimization
v2007.09.13 - Convex Optimization v2007.09.13 - Convex Optimization
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)
- Page 233 and 234: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 2334.1.1.3 Previ
- Page 235 and 236: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 235Equivalently, pri
- Page 237 and 238: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 237is positive semid
- Page 239 and 240: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 239Optimal value of
- Page 241 and 242: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 2414.2.3.0.2 Example
- Page 243 and 244: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 243where δ is the m
- Page 245 and 246: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 2454.2.3.0.3 Example
- Page 247 and 248: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2474.3 Rank red
- Page 249 and 250: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 249A rank-reduc
- Page 251 and 252: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 251(t ⋆ i)
- Page 253 and 254: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2534.3.3.0.1 Ex
- Page 255 and 256: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2554.3.3.0.2 Ex
- Page 257 and 258: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 259 and 260: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 261 and 262: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 263 and 264: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 265 and 266: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 267 and 268: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 269 and 270: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 271 and 272: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 273 and 274: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 275 and 276: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- 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: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 287 and 288: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 289 and 290: Chapter 5Euclidean Distance MatrixT
- Page 291 and 292: 5.2. FIRST METRIC PROPERTIES 291cor
- Page 293 and 294: 5.3. ∃ FIFTH EUCLIDEAN METRIC PRO
- Page 295 and 296: 5.3. ∃ FIFTH EUCLIDEAN METRIC PRO
- Page 297 and 298: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 297The collecti
- Page 299 and 300: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 2995.4.2 Gram-f
- Page 301 and 302: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 301D ∈ EDM N
- Page 303 and 304: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 3035.4.2.2.1 Ex
- Page 305 and 306: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 305ten affine e
- Page 307 and 308: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 307spheres:Then
- Page 309 and 310: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 309By eliminati
- Page 311 and 312: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 311whereΦ ij =
- Page 313 and 314: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 3135.4.2.2.5 De
- Page 315 and 316: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 315105ˇx 4ˇx
- Page 317 and 318: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 317corrected by
- Page 319 and 320: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 319aptly be app
- Page 321 and 322: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 321As before, a
- Page 323 and 324: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 323where ([√t
- Page 325 and 326: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 325because (A.3
- Page 327 and 328: 5.5. INVARIANCE 3275.5.1.0.1 Exampl
- Page 329 and 330: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 331 and 332: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 333 and 334: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
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)