v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
316 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMINGFigure 85: Sensor-network localization in R 2 , illustrating connectivity andcircular radio-range per sensor. Smaller dark grey regions each hold ananchor at their center; known fixed sensor positions. Sensor/anchor distanceis measurable with negligible uncertainty for sensor within those grey regions.(Graphic by Geoff Merrett.)called multilateration. 4.27 [228] [266] Indeed, practical contemporarynumerical methods for global positioning (GPS) by satellite do not rely onconvex optimization. [290]Modern distance geometry is inextricably melded with semidefiniteprogramming. The beauty of semidefinite programming, as relates tolocalization, lies in convex expression of classical multilateration: So & Yeshowed [320] that the problem of finding unique solution, to a noiselessnonlinear system describing the common point of intersection of hyperspheresin real Euclidean vector space, can be expressed as a semidefinite program4.27 Multilateration − literally, having many sides; shape of a geometric figure formed bynearly intersecting lines of position. In navigation systems, therefore: Obtaining a fix frommultiple lines of position. Multilateration can be regarded as noisy trilateration.
4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAM 317via distance geometry.But the need for SDP methods in Carter & Jin et alii is enigmatic fortwo more reasons: 1) guessing solution to a partition whose intersensormeasurement data or connectivity is inadequate for localization by distancegeometry, 2) reliance on complicated and extensive heuristics for partitioninga large network that could instead be efficiently solved whole by onesemidefinite program [224,3]. While partitions range in size between 2 and10 sensors, 5 sensors optimally, heuristics provided are only for two spatialdimensions (no higher-dimensional heuristics are proposed). For these smallnumbers it remains unclarified as to precisely what advantage is gained overtraditional least squares: it is difficult to determine what part of their noiseperformance is attributable to SDP and what part is attributable to theirheuristic geometry.Partitioning of large sensor networks is a compromise to rapid growthof SDP computational intensity with problem size. But when impact ofnoise on distance measurement is of most concern, one is averse to apartitioning scheme because noise-effects vary inversely with problem size.[53,2.2] (5.13.2) Since an individual partition’s solution is not iteratedin Carter & Jin and is interdependent with adjoining partitions, we expecterrors to propagate from one partition to the next; the ultimate partitionsolved, expected to suffer most.Heuristics often fail on real-world data because of unanticipatedcircumstances. When heuristics fail, generally they are repaired byadding more heuristics. Tenuous is any presumption, for example, thatdistance measurement errors have distribution characterized by circularcontours of equal probability about an unknown sensor-location. (Figure 85)That presumption effectively appears within Carter & Jin’s optimizationproblem statement as affine equality constraints relating unknowns todistance measurements that are corrupted by noise. Yet in most allurban environments, this measurement noise is more aptly characterized byellipsoids of varying orientation and eccentricity as one recedes from a sensor.(Figure 126) Each unknown sensor must therefore instead be bound to itsown particular range of distance, primarily determined by the terrain. 4.28The nonconvex problem we must instead solve is:4.28 A distinct contour map corresponding to each anchor is required in practice.
- 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 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: 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
- Page 353 and 354: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 355 and 356: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 357 and 358: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 359 and 360: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 361 and 362: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 363 and 364: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 365 and 366: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAM 317via distance geometry.But the need for SDP methods in Carter & Jin et alii is enigmatic fortwo more reasons: 1) guessing solution to a partition whose intersensormeasurement data or connectivity is inadequate for localization by distancegeometry, 2) reliance on complicated and extensive heuristics for partitioninga large network that could instead be efficiently solved whole by onesemidefinite program [224,3]. While partitions range in size between 2 and10 sensors, 5 sensors optimally, heuristics provided are only for two spatialdimensions (no higher-dimensional heuristics are proposed). For these smallnumbers it remains unclarified as to precisely what advantage is gained overtraditional least squares: it is difficult to determine what part of their noiseperformance is attributable to SDP and what part is attributable to theirheuristic geometry.Partitioning of large sensor networks is a compromise to rapid growthof SDP computational intensity with problem size. But when impact ofnoise on distance measurement is of most concern, one is averse to apartitioning scheme because noise-effects vary inversely with problem size.[53,2.2] (5.13.2) Since an individual partition’s solution is not iteratedin Carter & Jin and is interdependent with adjoining partitions, we expecterrors to propagate from one partition to the next; the ultimate partitionsolved, expected to suffer most.Heuristics often fail on real-world data because of unanticipatedcircumstances. When heuristics fail, generally they are repaired byadding more heuristics. Tenuous is any presumption, for example, thatdistance measurement errors have distribution characterized by circularcontours of equal probability about an unknown sensor-location. (Figure 85)That presumption effectively appears within Carter & Jin’s optimizationproblem statement as affine equality constraints relating unknowns todistance measurements that are corrupted by noise. Yet in most allurban environments, this measurement noise is more aptly characterized byellipsoids of varying orientation and eccentricity as one recedes from a sensor.(Figure 126) Each unknown sensor must therefore instead be bound to itsown particular range of distance, primarily determined by the terrain. 4.28The nonconvex problem we must instead solve is:4.28 A distinct contour map corresponding to each anchor is required in practice.