v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
302 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGand where matrix Z i ∈ S ρ is found at each iteration i by solving a verysimple feasibility problem: 4.20find Z i ∈ S ρsubject to 〈Z i , RiA T j R i 〉 = 0 ,j =1... m(712)Were there a sparsity pattern common to each member of the set{R T iA j R i ∈ S ρ , j =1... m} , then a good choice for Z i has 1 in each entrycorresponding to a 0 in the pattern; id est, a sparsity pattern complement.At iteration i∑i−1X ⋆ + t j B j + t i B i = R i (I − t i ψ(Z i )Z i )Ri T (713)j=1By fact (1450), therefore∑i−1X ⋆ + t j B j + t i B i ≽ 0 ⇔ 1 − t i ψ(Z i )λ(Z i ) ≽ 0 (714)j=1where λ(Z i )∈ R ρ denotes the eigenvalues of Z i .Maximization of each t i in step 2 of the Procedure reduces rank of (713)and locates a new point on the boundary ∂(A ∩ S n +) . 4.21 Maximization oft i thereby has closed form;4.20 A simple method of solution is closed-form projection of a random nonzero point onthat proper subspace of isometrically isomorphic R ρ(ρ+1)/2 specified by the constraints.(E.5.0.0.6) Such a solution is nontrivial assuming the specified intersection of hyperplanesis not the origin; guaranteed by ρ(ρ + 1)/2 > m. Indeed, this geometric intuition aboutforming the perturbation is what bounds any solution’s rank from below; m is fixed bythe number of equality constraints in (649P) while rank ρ decreases with each iteration i.Otherwise, we might iterate indefinitely.4.21 This holds because rank of a positive semidefinite matrix in S n is diminished belown by the number of its 0 eigenvalues (1460), and because a positive semidefinite matrixhaving one or more 0 eigenvalues corresponds to a point on the PSD cone boundary (193).Necessity and sufficiency are due to the facts: R i can be completed to a nonsingular matrix(A.3.1.0.5), and I − t i ψ(Z i )Z i can be padded with zeros while maintaining equivalencein (713).
4.3. RANK REDUCTION 303(t ⋆ i) −1 = max {ψ(Z i )λ(Z i ) j , j =1... ρ} (715)When Z i is indefinite, direction of perturbation (determined by ψ(Z i )) isarbitrary. We may take an early exit from the Procedure were Z i to become0 or wererank [ svec R T iA 1 R i svec R T iA 2 R i · · · svec R T iA m R i]= ρ(ρ + 1)/2 (716)which characterizes rank ρ of any [sic] extreme point in A ∩ S n + . [239,2.4][240]Proof. Assuming the form of every perturbation matrix is indeed (709),then by (712)svec Z i ⊥ [ svec(R T iA 1 R i ) svec(R T iA 2 R i ) · · · svec(R T iA m R i ) ] (717)By orthogonal complement we haverank [ svec(R T iA 1 R i ) · · · svec(R T iA m R i ) ] ⊥+ rank [ svec(R T iA 1 R i ) · · · svec(R T iA m R i ) ] = ρ(ρ + 1)/2(718)When Z i can only be 0, then the perturbation is null because an extremepoint has been found; thus[svec(RTi A 1 R i ) · · · svec(R T iA m R i ) ] ⊥= 0 (719)from which the stated result (716) directly follows.
- 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 and 300: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 2994.3 Rank red
- Page 301: 4.3. RANK REDUCTION 301A rank-reduc
- 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
- Page 351 and 352: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 351pe
302 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGand where matrix Z i ∈ S ρ is found at each iteration i by solving a verysimple feasibility problem: 4.20find Z i ∈ S ρsubject to 〈Z i , RiA T j R i 〉 = 0 ,j =1... m(712)Were there a sparsity pattern common to each member of the set{R T iA j R i ∈ S ρ , j =1... m} , then a good choice for Z i has 1 in each entrycorresponding to a 0 in the pattern; id est, a sparsity pattern complement.At iteration i∑i−1X ⋆ + t j B j + t i B i = R i (I − t i ψ(Z i )Z i )Ri T (713)j=1By fact (1450), therefore∑i−1X ⋆ + t j B j + t i B i ≽ 0 ⇔ 1 − t i ψ(Z i )λ(Z i ) ≽ 0 (714)j=1where λ(Z i )∈ R ρ denotes the eigenvalues of Z i .Maximization of each t i in step 2 of the Procedure reduces rank of (713)and locates a new point on the boundary ∂(A ∩ S n +) . 4.21 Maximization oft i thereby has closed form;4.20 A simple method of solution is closed-form projection of a random nonzero point onthat proper subspace of isometrically isomorphic R ρ(ρ+1)/2 specified by the constraints.(E.5.0.0.6) Such a solution is nontrivial assuming the specified intersection of hyperplanesis not the origin; guaranteed by ρ(ρ + 1)/2 > m. Indeed, this geometric intuition aboutforming the perturbation is what bounds any solution’s rank from below; m is fixed bythe number of equality constraints in (649P) while rank ρ decreases with each iteration i.Otherwise, we might iterate indefinitely.4.21 This holds because rank of a positive semidefinite matrix in S n is diminished belown by the number of its 0 eigenvalues (1460), and because a positive semidefinite matrixhaving one or more 0 eigenvalues corresponds to a point on the PSD cone boundary (193).Necessity and sufficiency are due to the facts: R i can be completed to a nonsingular matrix(A.3.1.0.5), and I − t i ψ(Z i )Z i can be padded with zeros while maintaining equivalencein (713).