v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
300 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGwhose rank does not satisfy upper bound (272), we posit existence of a setof perturbations{t j B j | t j ∈ R , B j ∈ S n , j =1... n} (704)such that, for some 0≤i≤n and scalars {t j , j =1... i} ,X ⋆ +i∑t j B j (705)j=1becomes an extreme point of A ∩ S n + and remains an optimal solution of(649P). Membership of (705) to affine subset A is secured for the i thperturbation by demanding〈B i , A j 〉 = 0, j =1... m (706)while membership to the positive semidefinite cone S n + is insured by smallperturbation (715). Feasibility of (705) is insured in this manner, optimalityis proved in4.3.3.The following simple algorithm has very low computational intensity andlocates an optimal extreme point, assuming a nontrivial solution:4.3.1.0.1 Procedure. Rank reduction. [Wıκımization]initialize: B i = 0 ∀ifor iteration i=1...n{1. compute a nonzero perturbation matrix B i of X ⋆ + i−1 ∑j=1t j B j2. maximize t isubject to X ⋆ + i ∑j=1t j B j ∈ S n +}
4.3. RANK REDUCTION 301A rank-reduced optimal solution is theni∑X ⋆ ← X ⋆ + t j B j (707)j=14.3.2 Perturbation formPerturbations of X ⋆ are independent of constants C ∈ S n and b∈R m inprimal and dual problems (649). Numerical accuracy of any rank-reducedresult, found by perturbation of an initial optimal solution X ⋆ , is thereforequite dependent upon initial accuracy of X ⋆ .4.3.2.0.1 Definition. Matrix step function. (conferA.6.5.0.1)Define the signum-like quasiconcave real function ψ : S n → Rψ(Z) { 1, Z ≽ 0−1, otherwise(708)The value −1 is taken for indefinite or nonzero negative semidefiniteargument.△Deza & Laurent [113,31.5.3] prove: every perturbation matrix B i ,i=1... n , is of the formB i = −ψ(Z i )R i Z i R T i ∈ S n (709)where∑i−1X ⋆ R 1 R1 T , X ⋆ + t j B j R i Ri T ∈ S n (710)j=1where the t j are scalars and R i ∈ R n×ρ is full-rank and skinny where( )∑i−1ρ rank X ⋆ + t j B jj=1(711)
- 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 and 298: 4.2. FRAMEWORK 297asminimize ‖ỹ
- Page 299: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2994.3 Rank red
- 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.
- Page 349 and 350: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 349R
4.3. RANK REDUCTION 301A rank-reduced optimal solution is theni∑X ⋆ ← X ⋆ + t j B j (707)j=14.3.2 Perturbation formPerturbations of X ⋆ are independent of constants C ∈ S n and b∈R m inprimal and dual problems (649). Numerical accuracy of any rank-reducedresult, found by perturbation of an initial optimal solution X ⋆ , is thereforequite dependent upon initial accuracy of X ⋆ .4.3.2.0.1 Definition. Matrix step function. (conferA.6.5.0.1)Define the signum-like quasiconcave real function ψ : S n → Rψ(Z) { 1, Z ≽ 0−1, otherwise(708)The value −1 is taken for indefinite or nonzero negative semidefiniteargument.△Deza & Laurent [113,31.5.3] prove: every perturbation matrix B i ,i=1... n , is of the formB i = −ψ(Z i )R i Z i R T i ∈ S n (709)where∑i−1X ⋆ R 1 R1 T , X ⋆ + t j B j R i Ri T ∈ S n (710)j=1where the t j are scalars and R i ∈ R n×ρ is full-rank and skinny where( )∑i−1ρ rank X ⋆ + t j B jj=1(711)