v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
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)
- 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 and 294: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 293has norm ‖x ⋆
- Page 295 and 296: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 295minimize 1 TˆxX
- Page 297: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 297asminimize ‖ỹ
- 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
- Page 345 and 346: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 345We
- Page 347 and 348: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 3474.
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)