v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization

v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization

convexoptimization.com
from convexoptimization.com More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

278 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGNevertheless, semidefinite programming has recently emerged toprominence because it admits a new class of problem previously unsolvable byconvex optimization techniques, [59] and because it theoretically subsumesother convex techniques: (Figure 80) linear programming and quadraticprogramming and second-order cone programming. 4.4 Determination of theRiemann mapping function from complex analysis [286] [29,8,13], forexample, can be posed as a semidefinite program.4.1.2 Maximal complementarityIt has been shown [391,2.5.3] that contemporary interior-point methods[382] [289] [277] [11] [61,11] [145] (developed circa 1990 [151] for numericalsolution of semidefinite programs) can converge to a solution of maximalcomplementarity; [176,5] [390] [253] [158] not a vertex-solution but asolution of highest cardinality or rank among all optimal solutions. 4.5This phenomenon can be explained by recognizing that interior-pointmethods generally find solutions relatively interior to a feasible set bydesign. 4.6 [6, p.3] Log barriers are designed to fail numerically at the feasibleset boundary. So low-rank solutions, all on the boundary, are rendered moredifficult to find as numerical error becomes more prevalent there.4.1.2.1 Reduced-rank solutionA simple rank reduction algorithm, for construction of a primal optimalsolution X ⋆ to (649P) satisfying an upper bound on rank governed byProposition 2.9.3.0.1, is presented in4.3. That proposition asserts existenceof feasible solutions with an upper bound on their rank; [26,II.13.1]specifically, it asserts an extreme point (2.6.0.0.1) of primal feasible setA ∩ S n + satisfies upper bound⌊√ ⌋ 8m + 1 − 1rankX ≤(272)2where, given A∈ R m×n(n+1)/2 and b∈ R m ,A {X ∈ S n | A svec X = b} (652)4.4 SOCP came into being in the 1990s; it is not posable as a quadratic program. [248]4.5 This characteristic might be regarded as a disadvantage to this method of numericalsolution, but this behavior is not certain and depends on solver implementation.4.6 Simplex methods, in contrast, generally find vertex solutions.

4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 279is the affine subset from primal problem (649P).4.1.2.2 Coexistence of low- and high-rank solutions; analogyThat low-rank and high-rank optimal solutions {X ⋆ } of (649P) coexist maybe grasped with the following analogy: We compare a proper polyhedral coneS 3 + in R 3 (illustrated in Figure 81) to the positive semidefinite cone S 3 + inisometrically 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 extremedirections of S 3 + and S 3 + . The set of all rank-1 symmetric matrices inthis dimension{G ∈ S3+ | rankG=1 } (653)is not a connected set.Rank of a sum of members F +G in Lemma 2.9.2.9.1 and location ofa difference F −G in2.9.2.12.1 similarly hold for S 3 + and S 3 + .Euclidean distance from any particular rank-3 positive semidefinitematrix (in the cone interior) to the closest rank-2 positive semidefinitematrix (on the boundary) is generally less than the distance to theclosest rank-1 positive semidefinite matrix. (7.1.2)distance from any point in ∂S 3 + to int S 3 + is infinitesimal (2.1.7.1.1).distance from any point in ∂S 3 + to int S 3 + is infinitesimal.

278 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGNevertheless, semidefinite programming has recently emerged toprominence because it admits a new class of problem previously unsolvable byconvex optimization techniques, [59] and because it theoretically subsumesother convex techniques: (Figure 80) linear programming and quadraticprogramming and second-order cone programming. 4.4 Determination of theRiemann mapping function from complex analysis [286] [29,8,13], forexample, can be posed as a semidefinite program.4.1.2 Maximal complementarityIt has been shown [391,2.5.3] that contemporary interior-point methods[382] [289] [277] [11] [61,11] [145] (developed circa 1990 [151] for numericalsolution of semidefinite programs) can converge to a solution of maximalcomplementarity; [176,5] [390] [253] [158] not a vertex-solution but asolution of highest cardinality or rank among all optimal solutions. 4.5This phenomenon can be explained by recognizing that interior-pointmethods generally find solutions relatively interior to a feasible set bydesign. 4.6 [6, p.3] Log barriers are designed to fail numerically at the feasibleset boundary. So low-rank solutions, all on the boundary, are rendered moredifficult to find as numerical error becomes more prevalent there.4.1.2.1 Reduced-rank solutionA simple rank reduction algorithm, for construction of a primal optimalsolution X ⋆ to (649P) satisfying an upper bound on rank governed byProposition 2.9.3.0.1, is presented in4.3. That proposition asserts existenceof feasible solutions with an upper bound on their rank; [26,II.13.1]specifically, it asserts an extreme point (2.6.0.0.1) of primal feasible setA ∩ S n + satisfies upper bound⌊√ ⌋ 8m + 1 − 1rankX ≤(272)2where, given A∈ R m×n(n+1)/2 and b∈ R m ,A {X ∈ S n | A svec X = b} (652)4.4 SOCP came into being in the 1990s; it is not posable as a quadratic program. [248]4.5 This characteristic might be regarded as a disadvantage to this method of numericalsolution, but this behavior is not certain and depends on solver implementation.4.6 Simplex methods, in contrast, generally find vertex solutions.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!