v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
282 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING4.1.2.2.1 Example. Optimization over A ∩ S 3 + .Consider minimization of the real linear function 〈C , X〉 overa polyhedral feasible set;P A ∩ S 3 + (654)f0 ⋆ minimize 〈C , X〉Xsubject to X ∈ A ∩ S+3(655)As illustrated for particular vector C and hyperplane A = ∂H in Figure 81,this linear function is minimized on any X belonging to the face of Pcontaining extreme points {Γ 1 , Γ 2 } and all the rank-2 matrices in between;id est, on any X belonging to the face of PF(P) = {X | 〈C , X〉 = f ⋆ 0 } ∩ A ∩ S 3 + (656)exposed by the hyperplane {X | 〈C , X〉=f ⋆ 0 }. In other words, the set of alloptimal points X ⋆ is a face of P{X ⋆ } = F(P) = Γ 1 Γ 2 (657)comprising rank-1 and rank-2 positive semidefinite matrices. Rank 1 isthe upper bound on existence in the feasible set P for this case m = 1hyperplane constituting A . The rank-1 matrices Γ 1 and Γ 2 in face F(P)are extreme points of that face and (by transitivity (2.6.1.2)) extremepoints of the intersection P as well. As predicted by analogy to Barvinok’sProposition 2.9.3.0.1, the upper bound on rank of X existent in the feasibleset P is satisfied by an extreme point. The upper bound on rank of anoptimal solution X ⋆ existent in F(P) is thereby also satisfied by an extremepoint of P precisely because {X ⋆ } constitutes F(P) ; 4.7 in particular,{X ⋆ ∈ P | rankX ⋆ ≤ 1} = {Γ 1 , Γ 2 } ⊆ F(P) (658)As all linear functions on a polyhedron are minimized on a face, [94] [252][274] [280] by analogy we so demonstrate coexistence of optimal solutions X ⋆of (649P) having assorted rank.4.7 and every face contains a subset of the extreme points of P by the extremeexistence theorem (2.6.0.0.2). This means: because the affine subset A and hyperplane{X | 〈C , X 〉 = f ⋆ 0 } must intersect a whole face of P , calculation of an upper bound onrank of X ⋆ ignores counting the hyperplane when determining m in (272).
4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 2834.1.2.3 Previous workBarvinok showed, [24,2.2] when given a positive definite matrix C and anarbitrarily small neighborhood of C comprising positive definite matrices,there exists a matrix ˜C from that neighborhood such that optimal solutionX ⋆ to (649P) (substituting ˜C) is an extreme point of A ∩ S n + and satisfiesupper bound (272). 4.8 Given arbitrary positive definite C , this meansnothing inherently guarantees that an optimal solution X ⋆ to problem (649P)satisfies (272); certainly nothing given any symmetric matrix C , as theproblem is posed. This can be proved by example:4.1.2.3.1 Example. (Ye) Maximal Complementarity.Assume dimension n to be an even positive number. Then the particularinstance of problem (649P),has optimal solution〈[ I 0minimizeX∈ S n 0 2Isubject to X ≽ 0X ⋆ =〈I , X〉 = n[ 2I 00 0] 〉, X(659)]∈ S n (660)with an equal number of twos and zeros along the main diagonal. Indeed,optimal solution (660) is a terminal solution along the central path taken bythe interior-point method as implemented in [391,2.5.3]; it is also a solutionof highest rank among all optimal solutions to (659). Clearly, rank of thisprimal optimal solution exceeds by far a rank-1 solution predicted by upperbound (272).4.1.2.4 Later developmentsThis rational example (659) indicates the need for a more generally applicableand simple algorithm to identify an optimal solution X ⋆ satisfying Barvinok’sProposition 2.9.3.0.1. We will review such an algorithm in4.3, but first weprovide more background.4.8 Further, the set of all such ˜C in that neighborhood is open and dense.
- 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 and 278: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 277PCsemidefinit
- Page 279 and 280: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 279is the affine
- Page 281: 4.1. CONIC PROBLEM 281faces of S 3
- 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
- Page 329 and 330: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 331 and 332: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
282 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING4.1.2.2.1 Example. <strong>Optimization</strong> over A ∩ S 3 + .Consider minimization of the real linear function 〈C , X〉 overa polyhedral feasible set;P A ∩ S 3 + (654)f0 ⋆ minimize 〈C , X〉Xsubject to X ∈ A ∩ S+3(655)As illustrated for particular vector C and hyperplane A = ∂H in Figure 81,this linear function is minimized on any X belonging to the face of Pcontaining extreme points {Γ 1 , Γ 2 } and all the rank-2 matrices in between;id est, on any X belonging to the face of PF(P) = {X | 〈C , X〉 = f ⋆ 0 } ∩ A ∩ S 3 + (656)exposed by the hyperplane {X | 〈C , X〉=f ⋆ 0 }. In other words, the set of alloptimal points X ⋆ is a face of P{X ⋆ } = F(P) = Γ 1 Γ 2 (657)comprising rank-1 and rank-2 positive semidefinite matrices. Rank 1 isthe upper bound on existence in the feasible set P for this case m = 1hyperplane constituting A . The rank-1 matrices Γ 1 and Γ 2 in face F(P)are extreme points of that face and (by transitivity (2.6.1.2)) extremepoints of the intersection P as well. As predicted by analogy to Barvinok’sProposition 2.9.3.0.1, the upper bound on rank of X existent in the feasibleset P is satisfied by an extreme point. The upper bound on rank of anoptimal solution X ⋆ existent in F(P) is thereby also satisfied by an extremepoint of P precisely because {X ⋆ } constitutes F(P) ; 4.7 in particular,{X ⋆ ∈ P | rankX ⋆ ≤ 1} = {Γ 1 , Γ 2 } ⊆ F(P) (658)As all linear functions on a polyhedron are minimized on a face, [94] [252][274] [280] by analogy we so demonstrate coexistence of optimal solutions X ⋆of (649P) having assorted rank.4.7 and every face contains a subset of the extreme points of P by the extremeexistence theorem (2.6.0.0.2). This means: because the affine subset A and hyperplane{X | 〈C , X 〉 = f ⋆ 0 } must intersect a whole face of P , calculation of an upper bound onrank of X ⋆ ignores counting the hyperplane when determining m in (272).