v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
294 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGWe can reformulate this minimal cardinality Boolean problem (680) as asemidefinite program: First transform the variablex (ˆx + 1) 1 2(688)so ˆx i ∈ {−1, 1} ; equivalently,minimize ‖(ˆx + 1) 1‖ ˆx2 0subject to A(ˆx + 1) 1 = b 2δ(ˆxˆx T ) = 1(689)where δ is the main-diagonal linear operator (A.1). By assigning (B.1)[ ˆxG =1] [ ˆx T 1] =[ X ˆxˆx T 1][ ˆxˆxT ˆxˆx T 1]∈ S n+1 (690)problem (689) becomes equivalent to: (Theorem A.3.1.0.7)minimize 1 TˆxX∈ S n , ˆx∈R nsubject to A(ˆx + 1) 1[ = b 2] X ˆxG = (≽ 0)ˆx T 1δ(X) = 1rankG = 1(691)where solution is confined to rank-1 vertices of the elliptope in S n+1(5.9.1.0.1) by the rank constraint, the positive semidefiniteness, and theequality constraints δ(X)=1. The rank constraint makes this problemnonconvex; by removing it 4.15 we get the semidefinite program4.15 Relaxed problem (692) can also be derived via Lagrange duality; it is a dual of adual program [sic] to (691). [304] [61,5, exer.5.39] [377,IV] [150,11.3.4] The relaxedproblem must therefore be convex having a larger feasible set; its optimal objective valuerepresents a generally loose lower bound (1683) on the optimal objective of problem (691).
4.2. FRAMEWORK 295minimize 1 TˆxX∈ S n , ˆx∈R nsubject to A(ˆx + 1) 1[ = b 2] X ˆxG =ˆx T 1δ(X) = 1≽ 0(692)whose optimal solution x ⋆ (688) is identical to that of minimal cardinalityBoolean problem (680) if and only if rankG ⋆ =1.Hope 4.16 of acquiring a rank-1 solution is not ill-founded because 2 nelliptope vertices have rank 1, and we are minimizing an affine function ona subset of the elliptope (Figure 130) containing rank-1 vertices; id est, byassumption that the feasible set of minimal cardinality Boolean problem(680) is nonempty, a desired solution resides on the elliptope relativeboundary at a rank-1 vertex. 4.17For that data given in (682), our semidefinite program solversdpsol [384][385] (accurate in solution to approximately 1E-8) 4.18 finds optimal solutionto (692)⎡round(G ⋆ ) =⎢⎣1 1 1 −1 1 1 −11 1 1 −1 1 1 −11 1 1 −1 1 1 −1−1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 11 1 1 −1 1 1 −11 1 1 −1 1 1 −1−1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 1⎤⎥⎦(693)near a rank-1 vertex of the elliptope in S n+1 (Theorem 5.9.1.0.2); its sorted4.16 A more deterministic approach to constraining rank and cardinality is in4.6.0.0.11.4.17 Confinement to the elliptope can be regarded as a kind of normalization akin tomatrix A column normalization suggested in [120] and explored in Example 4.2.3.1.2.4.18 A typically ignored limitation of interior-point solution methods is their relativeaccuracy of only about 1E-8 on a machine using 64-bit (double precision) floating-pointarithmetic; id est, optimal solution x ⋆ cannot be more accurate than square root ofmachine epsilon (ǫ=2.2204E-16). Nonzero primal−dual objective difference is not a goodmeasure of solution accuracy.
- 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 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: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 293has norm ‖x ⋆
- 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
- Page 333 and 334: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 333mi
- Page 335 and 336: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 3350R
- Page 337 and 338: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 337it
- Page 339 and 340: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 339m/
- Page 341 and 342: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 341we
- Page 343 and 344: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 343fl
294 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGWe can reformulate this minimal cardinality Boolean problem (680) as asemidefinite program: First transform the variablex (ˆx + 1) 1 2(688)so ˆx i ∈ {−1, 1} ; equivalently,minimize ‖(ˆx + 1) 1‖ ˆx2 0subject to A(ˆx + 1) 1 = b 2δ(ˆxˆx T ) = 1(689)where δ is the main-diagonal linear operator (A.1). By assigning (B.1)[ ˆxG =1] [ ˆx T 1] =[ X ˆxˆx T 1][ ˆxˆxT ˆxˆx T 1]∈ S n+1 (690)problem (689) becomes equivalent to: (Theorem A.3.1.0.7)minimize 1 TˆxX∈ S n , ˆx∈R nsubject to A(ˆx + 1) 1[ = b 2] X ˆxG = (≽ 0)ˆx T 1δ(X) = 1rankG = 1(691)where solution is confined to rank-1 vertices of the elliptope in S n+1(5.9.1.0.1) by the rank constraint, the positive semidefiniteness, and theequality constraints δ(X)=1. The rank constraint makes this problemnonconvex; by removing it 4.15 we get the semidefinite program4.15 Relaxed problem (692) can also be derived via Lagrange duality; it is a dual of adual program [sic] to (691). [304] [61,5, exer.5.39] [377,IV] [150,11.3.4] The relaxedproblem must therefore be convex having a larger feasible set; its optimal objective valuerepresents a generally loose lower bound (1683) on the optimal objective of problem (691).