v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
276 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING⎡A svec X = ⎣〈A 1 , X〉.〈A m , X〉(651)∑svec −1 (A T y) = m y i A iThe vector inner-product for matrices is defined in the Euclidean/Frobeniussense in the isomorphic vector space R n(n+1)/2 ; id est,i=1〈C , X〉 tr(C T X) = svec(C) T svec X (38)where svec X defined by (56) denotes symmetric vectorization.In a national planning problem of some size, one may easily run into severalhundred variables and perhaps a hundred or more degrees of freedom. ...Itshould always be remembered that any mathematical method and particularlymethods in linear programming must be judged with reference to the type ofcomputing machinery available. Our outlook may perhaps be changed whenwe get used to the super modern, high capacity electronic computor that willbe available here from the middle of next year. −Ragnar Frisch [147]Linear programming, invented by Dantzig in 1947 [94], is now integralto modern technology. The same cannot yet be said of semidefiniteprogramming whose roots trace back to systems of positive semidefinitelinear inequalities studied by Bellman & Fan in 1963. [31] [102] Interior-pointmethods for numerical solution can be traced back to the logarithmic barrierof Frisch in 1954 and Fiacco & McCormick in 1968 [141]. Karmarkar’spolynomial-time interior-point method sparked a log-barrier renaissancein 1984, [275,11] [381] [363] [277, p.3] but numerical performanceof contemporary general-purpose semidefinite program solvers remainslimited: Computational intensity for dense systems varies as O(m 2 n)(m constraints ≪ n variables) based on interior-point methods that producesolutions no more relatively accurate than 1E-8. There are no solverscapable of handling in excess of n=100,000 variables without significant,sometimes crippling, loss of precision or time. 4.3 [35] [276, p.258] [67, p.3]4.3 Heuristics are not ruled out by SIOPT; indeed I would suspect that most successfulmethods 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 manyapplications a few digits of accuracy suffices and overnight runs for non-real-time deliveryis acceptable.−Nicholas I. M. Gould, Editor-in-Chief, SIOPT⎤⎦
4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 277PCsemidefinite programquadratic programsecond-order cone programlinear programFigure 80: Venn diagram of programming hierarchy. Semidefinite program isa subset of convex program PC. Semidefinite program subsumes other convexprogram classes excepting geometric program. Second-order cone programand quadratic program each subsume linear program. Nonconvex program\PC comprises those for which convex equivalents have not yet been found.
- Page 225 and 226: 3.2. PRACTICAL NORM FUNCTIONS, ABSO
- Page 227 and 228: 3.2. PRACTICAL NORM FUNCTIONS, ABSO
- Page 229 and 230: 3.2. PRACTICAL NORM FUNCTIONS, ABSO
- Page 231 and 232: 3.2. PRACTICAL NORM FUNCTIONS, ABSO
- Page 233 and 234: 3.2. PRACTICAL NORM FUNCTIONS, ABSO
- Page 235 and 236: 3.3. INVERTED FUNCTIONS AND ROOTS 2
- Page 237 and 238: 3.4. AFFINE FUNCTION 237rather]x >
- Page 239 and 240: 3.4. AFFINE FUNCTION 239f(z)Az 2z 1
- Page 241 and 242: 3.5. EPIGRAPH, SUBLEVEL SET 241{a T
- Page 243 and 244: 3.5. EPIGRAPH, SUBLEVEL SET 243Subl
- Page 245 and 246: 3.5. EPIGRAPH, SUBLEVEL SET 245wher
- Page 247 and 248: 3.5. EPIGRAPH, SUBLEVEL SET 247part
- Page 249 and 250: 3.5. EPIGRAPH, SUBLEVEL SET 249that
- Page 251 and 252: 3.6. GRADIENT 251respect to its vec
- Page 253 and 254: 3.6. GRADIENT 253Invertibility is g
- Page 255 and 256: 3.6. GRADIENT 2553.6.1.0.2 Theorem.
- Page 257 and 258: 3.6. GRADIENT 257f(Y )[ ∇f(X)−1
- Page 259 and 260: 3.6. GRADIENT 259αβα ≥ β ≥
- Page 261 and 262: 3.6. GRADIENT 2613.6.4 second-order
- Page 263 and 264: 3.7. CONVEX MATRIX-VALUED FUNCTION
- Page 265 and 266: 3.7. CONVEX MATRIX-VALUED FUNCTION
- Page 267 and 268: 3.7. CONVEX MATRIX-VALUED FUNCTION
- Page 269 and 270: 3.8. QUASICONVEX 269exponential alw
- Page 271 and 272: 3.9. SALIENT PROPERTIES 2713.8.0.0.
- Page 273 and 274: Chapter 4Semidefinite programmingPr
- Page 275: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 275(confer p.162
- Page 279 and 280: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 279is the affine
- Page 281 and 282: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 281faces of S 3
- Page 283 and 284: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 2834.1.2.3 Previ
- Page 285 and 286: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 285Semidefinite Fark
- Page 287 and 288: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 287On the other hand
- Page 289 and 290: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 2894.2.2.1 Dual prob
- Page 291 and 292: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 291For symmetric pos
- Page 293 and 294: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 293has norm ‖x ⋆
- Page 295 and 296: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 295minimize 1 TˆxX
- Page 297 and 298: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 297asminimize ‖ỹ
- Page 299 and 300: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2994.3 Rank red
- Page 301 and 302: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 301A rank-reduc
- Page 303 and 304: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 303(t ⋆ i)
- Page 305 and 306: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 3054.3.3.0.1 Ex
- Page 307 and 308: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 3074.3.3.0.2 Ex
- Page 309 and 310: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 311 and 312: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 313 and 314: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 315 and 316: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 317 and 318: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 319 and 320: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 321 and 322: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 323 and 324: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 325 and 326: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
276 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING⎡A svec X = ⎣〈A 1 , X〉.〈A m , X〉(651)∑svec −1 (A T y) = m y i A iThe vector inner-product for matrices is defined in the Euclidean/Frobeniussense in the isomorphic vector space R n(n+1)/2 ; id est,i=1〈C , X〉 tr(C T X) = svec(C) T svec X (38)where svec X defined by (56) denotes symmetric vectorization.In a national planning problem of some size, one may easily run into severalhundred variables and perhaps a hundred or more degrees of freedom. ...Itshould always be remembered that any mathematical method and particularlymethods in linear programming must be judged with reference to the type ofcomputing machinery available. Our outlook may perhaps be changed whenwe get used to the super modern, high capacity electronic computor that willbe available here from the middle of next year. −Ragnar Frisch [147]Linear programming, invented by Dantzig in 1947 [94], is now integralto modern technology. The same cannot yet be said of semidefiniteprogramming whose roots trace back to systems of positive semidefinitelinear inequalities studied by Bellman & Fan in 1963. [31] [102] Interior-pointmethods for numerical solution can be traced back to the logarithmic barrierof Frisch in 1954 and Fiacco & McCormick in 1968 [141]. Karmarkar’spolynomial-time interior-point method sparked a log-barrier renaissancein 1984, [275,11] [381] [363] [277, p.3] but numerical performanceof contemporary general-purpose semidefinite program solvers remainslimited: Computational intensity for dense systems varies as O(m 2 n)(m constraints ≪ n variables) based on interior-point methods that producesolutions no more relatively accurate than 1E-8. There are no solverscapable of handling in excess of n=100,000 variables without significant,sometimes crippling, loss of precision or time. 4.3 [35] [276, p.258] [67, p.3]4.3 Heuristics are not ruled out by SIOPT; indeed I would suspect that most successfulmethods 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 manyapplications a few digits of accuracy suffices and overnight runs for non-real-time deliveryis acceptable.−Nicholas I. M. Gould, Editor-in-Chief, SIOPT⎤⎦