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

298 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING⎛⎡y ⋆ ⎜⎢= round⎝⎣1 − 1 √21 − 1 √21⎤⎞⎥⎟⎦⎠ =⎡⎢⎣001⎤⎥⎦ (700)(infeasible, with or without rounding, with respect to original problem (680))whereas solving semidefinite program (692) produces⎡⎤1 1 −1 1round(G ⋆ ) = ⎢ 1 1 −1 1⎥⎣ −1 −1 1 −1 ⎦ (701)1 1 −1 1with sorted eigenvaluesλ(G ⋆ ) =⎡⎢⎣3.999999650572640.00000035942736−0.00000000000000−0.00000001000000⎤⎥⎦ (702)Truncating all but the largest eigenvalue, from (688) we obtain (confer y ⋆ )⎛⎡⎤⎞⎡ ⎤0.99999999625299 1x ⋆ = round⎝⎣0.99999999625299 ⎦⎠ = ⎣ 1 ⎦ (703)0.00000001434518 0the desired minimal cardinality Boolean result.4.2.3.1.3 Exercise. Minimal cardinality Boolean art.Assess general performance of standard-practice approximation (697) ascompared with the proposed semidefinite program (692). 4.2.3.1.4 Exercise. Conic independence.Matrix A from (682) is full-rank having three-dimensional nullspace. Findits four conically independent columns. (2.10) To what part of proper coneK = {Ax | x ≽ 0} does vector b belong?4.2.3.1.5 Exercise. Linear independence.Show why fat matrix A , from compressed sensing problem (518) or (523),may be regarded full-rank without loss of generality. In other words: Is aminimal cardinality solution invariant to linear dependence of rows?

4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2994.3 Rank reduction...it is not clear generally how to predict rankX ⋆ or rankS ⋆before solving the SDP problem.−Farid Alizadeh (1995) [11, p.22]The premise of rank reduction in semidefinite programming is: an optimalsolution found does not satisfy Barvinok’s upper bound (272) on rank. Theparticular numerical algorithm solving a semidefinite program may haveinstead returned a high-rank optimal solution (4.1.2; e.g., (660)) when alower-rank optimal solution was expected. Rank reduction is a means toadjust rank of an optimal solution, returned by a solver, until it satisfiesBarvinok’s upper bound.4.3.1 Posit a perturbation of X ⋆Recall from4.1.2.1, there is an extreme point of A ∩ S n + (652) satisfyingupper bound (272) on rank. [24,2.2] It is therefore sufficient to locate anextreme point of the intersection whose primal objective value (649P) isoptimal: 4.19 [113,31.5.3] [239,2.4] [240] [7,3] [291]Consider again affine subsetA = {X ∈ S n | A svec X = b} (652)where for A i ∈ S n ⎡A ⎣⎤svec(A 1 ) T. ⎦ ∈ R m×n(n+1)/2 (650)svec(A m ) TGiven any optimal solution X ⋆ tominimizeX∈ S n 〈C , X 〉subject to X ∈ A ∩ S n +(649P)4.19 There is no known construction for Barvinok’s tighter result (277).−Monique Laurent (2004)

4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2994.3 Rank reduction...it is not clear generally how to predict rankX ⋆ or rankS ⋆before solving the SDP problem.−Farid Alizadeh (1995) [11, p.22]The premise of rank reduction in semidefinite programming is: an optimalsolution found does not satisfy Barvinok’s upper bound (272) on rank. Theparticular numerical algorithm solving a semidefinite program may haveinstead returned a high-rank optimal solution (4.1.2; e.g., (660)) when alower-rank optimal solution was expected. Rank reduction is a means toadjust rank of an optimal solution, returned by a solver, until it satisfiesBarvinok’s upper bound.4.3.1 Posit a perturbation of X ⋆Recall from4.1.2.1, there is an extreme point of A ∩ S n + (652) satisfyingupper bound (272) on rank. [24,2.2] It is therefore sufficient to locate anextreme point of the intersection whose primal objective value (649P) isoptimal: 4.19 [113,31.5.3] [239,2.4] [240] [7,3] [291]Consider again affine subsetA = {X ∈ S n | A svec X = b} (652)where for A i ∈ S n ⎡A ⎣⎤svec(A 1 ) T. ⎦ ∈ R m×n(n+1)/2 (650)svec(A m ) TGiven any optimal solution X ⋆ tominimizeX∈ S n 〈C , X 〉subject to X ∈ A ∩ S n +(649P)4.19 There is no known construction for Barvinok’s tighter result (277).−Monique Laurent (2004)

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!