v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
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.
- 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 and 276: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 275(confer p.162
- Page 277: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 277PCsemidefinit
- 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
- Page 327 and 328: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
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.