# Largest dual ellipsoids inscribed in dual cones

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 Largest dual ellipsoids inscribed in dual cones M. J. Todd June 23, 2005 Abstract Suppose x and s lie in the interiors of a cone K and its dual K respectively. We seek dual ellipsoidal norms such that the product of the radii of the largest inscribed balls centered at x and s and incribed in K and K respectively is maximized. Here the balls are defined using the two dual norms. We provide a solution when the cones are symmetric, that is self-dual and homogeneous. This provides a geometric justification for the Nesterov-Todd primal-dual scaling in symmetric cone programming. School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 4853, USA This author was supported in part by NSF through grant DMS and ONR through grant N

2 Introduction Let K be a solid, pointed, closed, convex cone in the finite-dimensional real vector space E. That is, K has a nonempty interior and contains no line. We call such a cone regular. Let E be the dual space, with scalar product, : E E IR, and let K be the dual cone, K := {s E : s, x 0 for all x K}. (The reader may think of E and E as IR n and the scalar product as the usual dot inner product without loss, but the more abstract viewpoint is convenient when considering other settings such as the space of symmetric matrices, and has the virtue of clearly distinguishing the primal and dual spaces.) Suppose we are given points x int K and s int K. We seek large ellipsoids centered at x and s and inscribed in K and K respectively. Our motivation comes from convex optimization. Consider the problem min s 0, x, subject to x L + {x 0}, x K, (.) where L is a linear subspace of E. This is a linear programming problem if K is the nonnegative orthant, a second-order cone programming problem if K is a second-order or Lorentz cone, or the product of such cones, and a semidefinite programming problem if K is the cone of symmetric positive semidefinite matrices. See, e.g., Vandenberghe and Boyd [7], Lewis and Overton [8], Lobo et al. [9], Ben Tal and Nemirovski [2], Alizadeh and Goldfarb [], and [6]. The corresponding dual problem is min s, x 0, subject to s L + {s 0}, s K, (.2) with L E the orthogonal complement of L. If x and s are feasible solutions to these problems, then by orthogonality of L and L and the definition of K we have the weak duality inequality s 0, x + s, x 0 = s 0, x 0 + s, x s 0, x 0, so that optimality of both x and s follows if equality holds. If x and s are feasible in these problems, we would like to obtain improved feasible solutions. Since the optimization of a linear function over the intersection of an affine subspace and an ellipsoid is straightforward, we can consider the restrictions and min s 0, x, subject to x L + { x}, x C, (.3) min s, x 0, subject to s L + { s}, s C, (.4) where C and C are ellipsoids centered at x and s that inscribe K and K respectively. Many interior-point methods are based on moving towards the solutions of such restrictions, where often the objective functions are replaced by penalized functions including also some multiple of a barrier function for the cone K or K. If we consider these two problems separately, then we seek (unrelated) large ellipsoids C and C satisfying these conditions. A natural sense for largeness is to maximize the volumes of the ellipsoids, since this measure is invariant (up to a multiplicative constant) under linear transformations. The resulting optimal ellipsoids are then easy to obtain for many standard cones, for instance for the nonnegative orthant, where X := Diag( x), or {x IR n : X (x x) 2 } {x SIR n n : x /2 (x x) x /2 F } for the positive semidefinite cone, where SIR n n denotes the space of symmetric square matrices of order n, x /2 denotes the positive definite square root of the positive definite matrix x, and subscript F denotes the Frobenius norm. In general, if we have a self-concordant barrier F (see Section 2) for K, then {x E : F ( x)(x x), x x } 2

3 will be a suitable ellipsoid; it is optimal for many standard cones if the standard barrier is used, but note that if we choose, say, F (x ; x 2) := 2 ln x ln x 2 as the barrier for the nonnegative orthant in IR 2, we obtain a suboptimal ellipsoid. However, if we wish to generate iterates in both primal and dual spaces (and computational experience indicates this is usually worthwhile), treating (.3) and (.4) separately requires the solution of two ellipsoidal subproblems. We would like to choose C and C so that both subproblems can be solved for the price of one. This is possible if C and C are balls defined by dual ellipsoidal norms. Let H : E E be a self-adjoint ( Hv, w = Hw, v for all v, w E) and positive definite ( Hv, v > 0 for all nonzero v E) linear operator. Then H defines a norm in E by and a dual norm in E by These are dual norms because it is easy to show that Let and v H := Hv, v /2 u H := u, H u /2. u H = max{ u, v : v H } and v H = max{ u, v : u H }. C = B H( x; α x) := {x E : x x H α x} (.5) C = B H( s; α s) := {s E : s s H α s}. (.6) Then, if L =: {x : Ax = 0}, with A a surjective linear operator from E to some finite-dimensional real vector space space D with dual D, the solution to (.3) is given by and that to (.4) by x = x α x (H H A (AH A ) AH )s 0 s 0, (H H A (AH A ) AH )s 0 /2 (.7) A (AH A ) Ax 0 s = s α s, (.8) A (AH A ) Ax 0, x 0 /2 where A : D E is the adjoint to A, defined by A y, x := y, Ax. These can both be obtained cheaply once (a matrix representation of) AH A is formed and factored. Note that, if C and C are defined in this way, then vol C = α n x (det H) /2 ψ, where n is the dimension of E, H is the matrix representing H with respect to some dual bases of E and E, and ψ is the volume of a certain ball in E, and similarly vol C = α n s (det H ) /2 ψ, where ψ is likewise the volume of a certain ball in E. Hence vol C vol C = (α xα s) n (ψψ ), so that it is equivalent to maximize the product of the volumes of C and C and to maximize the product of their radii α x and α s. Also observe that if H is multiplied by a positive scalar τ, then α x is multiplied by τ and α s by its inverse, and the product stays the same: thus we can equivalently maximize the minimum of α x and α s. In this paper we consider the problem of choosing H to maximize the product α x(h)α s(h) where α x(h) is the largest α x such that B H( x; α x) in (.5) is contained in K, and similarly α s(h) is the largest α s such that B H( s; α s) in (.6) is contained in K. The solution to this problem in the case of the nonnegative orthant was basically noted in Section 4 of [5], and used as a motivation for the primal-dual scaling there. Here we obtain an optimal solution to the problem stated above when K is symmetric, that 3

4 is, self-dual and homogeneous, and we also obtain a lower bound, tight in many standard cases, for the product in terms of another geometric quantity defined from x and s in this case. This provides further motivation for the Nesterov-Todd scaling [, 2] in a primal-dual interior-point algorithm for a symmetric cone programming problem. If K is a hyperbolicity cone, we suggest what may be a good choice for H. A number of papers (see Renegar [3, 4] and Freund [4, 5], e.g.) have considered the geometry of the feasible region or the optimal set in conic optimization problems, usually to obtain complexity bounds for algorithms depending on some geometric condition number of the problem. These works address a given problem, rather than the situation at each iteration. Moreover, the measures considered usually depend on the linear constraints and the objective function, whereas we are concerned only with the current primal and dual iterates and the cones. In Section 2, we define the cones and barriers we will be working with and describe the properties of these cones that we need. Section 3 contains our main results, and in Section 4 we discuss the case of hyperbolicity cones and relate the product of α x(h) and α s(h) to the improvements in the objective functions when we take steps to the optimal solutions of (.3) and (.4). 2 Preliminaries We call the cone K self-dual if there is a linear bijection J : E E with J(K) = K ; we call it homogeneous if, for for every pair of points x and z in int K, there is a linear bijection G : E E with G(K) = K and Gx = z. We call G an automorphism of K if it satisfies just the first of these conditions. Cones that are self-dual and homogeneous are called symmetric and have been studied in depth: see Faraut and Koranyi [3]. A self-concordant barrier with parameter θ for a regular cone K (see Nesterov and Nemirovski [0]) is a function F : int K IR satisfying (i) F is C 3 and convex; (ii) F (x) + if x ˆx K; (iii) D 2 F (x) is positive definite for all x int K; (iv) D 3 F (x)[h, h, h] 2(D 2 F (x)[h, h]) 3/2 for all x int K and all h E; and (v) DF (x)[h] (θd 2 F (x)[h, h]) /2 for all x int K and all h E. Such a function F is θ-logarithmically homogeneous if (vi) F (τx) = F (x) θ ln τ for all x int K and all τ > 0. It can be shown that (i) (iv) and (vi) imply (v). The standard barriers F (x) := ln(x j) for the nonnegative orthant in IR n, F (ξ; x) := ln(ξ 2 x 2 ) for the second-order cone {(ξ; x) IR +n : ξ x }, and F (x) := ln det x for the cone of symmetric positive semidefinite matrices of order n, can be shown to satisfy these conditions, with parameters θ equal to n, 2, and n respectively. If F is a θ-logarithmically homogeneous self-concordant barrier for K, then F, defined by F (s) := sup{ s, x F (x) : x int K}, j 4

5 is a similar barrier for K. We define F and F, and similarly F and F, for x int K and s int K, by F (x), v := DF (x)[v]; F (x)v, w := D 2 F (x)[v, w]; u, F (s) := DF (s)[u]; and t, F (s)u := D 2 F (s)[t, u], for all v, w E and all t, u E. The mapping F takes int K into int K, and F takes int K into int K; these two mappings are inverses of one another. Also, F takes int K into the space of linear maps from E into E, and F takes int K into the space of linear maps from E into E, and F ( F (x)) = F (x). Suppose F further satisfies (a) F (w)(k) K for all w int K; and (b) F (F (w)x) = F (x) 2F (w) θ for all w, x int K; then we call F a self-scaled barrier (Nesterov and Todd []). It follows that F is then necessarily a self-scaled barrier for K. The barriers above are all self-scaled. A cone that admits a self-scaled barrier is called self-scaled. It turns out from the work of Güler [6] that self-scaled cones are precisely symmetric cones. Moreover, the latter have been characterized: they are exactly cones that are isomorphic to direct sums of second-order cones, cones of symmetric positive semidefinite real matrices, cones of Hermitian positive semidefinite complex matrices, cones of Hermitian positive semidefinite quaternion matrices, and an exceptional 27-dimensional cone (see Faraut and Koranyi [3]). While such cones are restrictive, they arise in a wide variety of optimization applications: see, e.g., Vandenberghe and Boyd [7], Lewis and Overton [8], Lobo et al. [9], Ben Tal and Nemirovski [2], Alizadeh and Goldfarb [], and [6]. The key property we use here of self-scaled cones is the following: for every x int K and s int K, there is a unique w int K such that F (w)(k) = K and F (w)x = s; (2.) see Nesterov and Todd [], Theorems 3. and 3.2. Thus F (w) takes the cone K into K and the point x into s, so that the geometry of K around s is exactly that of K around x. The existence of such a linear bijection follows directly from K being symmetric: if J is a linear bijection from K onto K, and G an automorphism of K taking x into J s, then JG takes K into K and x into s. However, self-scaled cones have a precise form for such a mapping, using their associated self-scaled barriers. We call w the scaling point for x and s. Algorithms whose search directions are obtained by solving restricted subproblems of the form (.3) and (.4), where C and C are balls defined using H = F (w) with w the scaling point for x and s, are said to be using the Nesterov-Todd scaling. We now briefly discuss hyperbolicity cones. Let p be a polynomial function defined on E, homogeneous of degree m. We say that p is hyperbolic in direction d E if, for every x E, the polynomial of τ defined by p(x τd) has only real roots. Given such a polynomial, the hyperbolicity cone of p in the direction d is the closure of the connected component of the set {x E : p(x) 0} containing d (see Güler [7], e.g.). The nonnegative orthant, second-order cone, and semidefinite cone are all hyperbolicity cones; the corresponding polynomials are p(x) := Π jx j, p(ξ; x) := ξ 2 x 2 2, and p(x) = det x respectively. However, hyperbolicity cones are much more general: for example, all homogeneous cones are hyperbolicity cones, whether or not they are self-dual; see Güler [7]. It turns out that F (x) = ln p(x) is always an m-logarithmically homogeneous self-concordant barrier function. Moreover, under the weak condition that p is not constant on any lines, Güler shows in Theorem 6.2 of [7] that, for every x int K, s int K, there is a unique scaling point w int K satisfying Thus the strong property (2.) of self-scaled cones almost holds. F (w)x = s and F (w)(k) K. (2.2) 5

6 3 Results We can now answer the question raised in the Introduction in the case that K is self-scaled, with self-scaled barrier F. We are given x int K and s int K, and we wish to find a self-adjoint positive definite H : E E to maximize α x(h)α s(h). We show that H = F (w) solves this problem, where w is the scaling point of x and s, so that Recall that F (w)(k) = K, F (w) x = s. (3.) α x(h) := max{α x : B H( x; α x) K}, α s(h) := max{α s : B H( s; α s) K }. For any v int K, we write v, B v( x; α x), and α x(v) for F (v), B F (v)( x; α x), and α x(f (v)), and define v, B v( s; α s), and α s(v) similarly. Then there is some z K (the boundary of K) with z x w = α x(w), so by the separation theorem, for some nonzero ū K, ū, z = 0, and since B w( x; α x(w) K, 0 = ū, z = min{ ū, z : z B w( x; α x(w))}. (3.2) Similarly, there is some t K with t s w = α s(w), and for some nonzero v K, 0 = t, v = min{ t, v : t B w( s; α s(w))}. (3.3) In fact, by applying F (w) to K, x, B w( x; α x(w), and z, we see that we can take t = F (w) z, v = F (w) ū, and that α x(w) = α s(w). (3.4) To get an explicit formula for the minima in (3.2) and (3.3), we use Lemma 3. We have min{ ū, z : z B H( x; α x)} = ū, x α x ū H, attained by z = x (α x/ ū H)H ū. Correspondingly, we have attained by t = s (α s/ v H)H v. min{ t, v : t B H( s; α s)} = s, v α s v H, Proof: These follow immediately from the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Note that the optimizing z and t are special cases of (.7) and (.8), with A the null operator and the identity respectively. Without loss of generality, we suppose that ū w =, so that, with v = F (w) ū, v w =. Then Lemma 3. together with (3.2) and (3.3) give ū, x = α x(w) ū w = α x(w), s, v = α s(w) v w = α s(w). (3.5) We observe that ū, x = F (w) v, x = F (w) x, v = s, v, so again we see that α x(w) = α s(w). Now let H : E E be an arbitrary self-adjoint positive definite operator. Since B H( x; α x(h)) K, min{ ū, z : z B H( x; α x(h))} 0, so from Lemma 3., Similarly, B H( s; α s(h) K yields α x(h) ū H ū, x. α s(h) v H s, v. Since all the quantities involved are positive, we can multiply these inequalities to obtain α x(w)α s(w) = ū, x s, v (3.6) α x(h)α s(h) ū H v H (3.7) α x(h)α s(h) ū, v (3.8) = α x(h)α s(h), (3.9) since H and H are dual norms and ū, v = ū, F (w) ū = ( ū w) 2 =. We have therefore proved 6

7 Theorem 3. The product of the inscribed radii α x(h) and α s(h) is maximized when H = F (w), where w is the scaling point of x and s. This result provides the desired further justification of the Nesterov-Todd scaling in interior-point methods. We now relate α x(v) for any v int K to another geometric quantity. Recall that [] defines σ x(z) := (sup{α : x αz K}) = min{β 0 : β x z K}. Then z x := max{σ x(z), σ x( z)} behaves like a scaled l -norm in the same way that z x behaves like a scaled l 2-norm. Proposition 3. For any v int K, we have α x(v) σ x(v) and α s(v) σ s( F (v)). Proof: Since α x(v) scales inversely and σ x(v) directly with v, we can assume that v is scaled up if necessary so that x v / K. From Theorem 4. of [], with α =, p = x v, x = x, we get so that Now ( + σ x(v x)) 2 F ( x) F (v), B v( x; ) B x( x; ) K. (3.0) + σ x(v x) + σ x(v x) = + min{β 0 : β x (v x) K} = + min{β 0 : (β + ) x v K} = min{γ : γ x v K}. But since x v / K, γ x v K implies γ >, so min{γ : γ x v K} = min{γ 0 : γ x v K} = σ x(v). Combining this with (3.0) yields the first result, and the second follows similarly. In fact, the bounds given in the proposition are tight for several standard cones. For the nonnegative orthant, σ x(v) = max{v j/ x j}, so /σ x(v) = min{ x j/v j}, and it is easy to see that a step of this length in the v-norm in the negative direction of the corresponding coordinate vector goes to the boundary of K. For the semidefinite cone, we find that σ x(v) is the maximum eigenvalue of x /2 v x /2, or equivalently of v /2 x v /2. So its reciprocal is the minimum eigenvalue of v /2 xv /2. Let q be a corresponding unit eigenvector. Then v /2 xv /2 (/σ x(v))qq T lies in the boundary of K, and hence so does x (/σ x(v))v /2 qq T v /2. It is easy to check that this displacement from x has the appropriate length in the v-norm. Finally consider the second-order cone. The norms associated with its self-scaled barrier are somewhat hard to compute. Nevertheless, given any x and v in int K, we can perform a transformation of the form F (w ) F (w) to bring v to v := (; 0) and x to x := (ξ; x). Moreover, using Theorem 3.2 of [], the norms transform in the appropriate way. We find the reciprocal of σ x (v ) is ξ x 2. The norm associated with v is just 2 times the Euclidean norm, and so a step from x to ( ξ ξ x 2 ; x + ξ ) x 2 x 2 2 x 2 shows the equality. We can now establish our lower bound (tight in the cases above) for α x(w)α s(w): Proposition 3.2 If we choose v = w, the scaling point for x and s, then α x(w) = α s(w) σ x(w) = σ s( F (w)) (3.) and α x(w)α s(w) σ x(w) = 2 σ x( F (s)) = σ s( F ( x)). (3.2) Proof: The previous result gives α x(w) /σ x(w) and α s(w) /σ s( F (w)). We have already noted (due to the action of F (w)) that the two left-hand sides are equal, and Lemma 3.4 of [2] shows that the right-hand sides are also equal. Then the second part follows since σ x(w) 2 = σ x( F (s)) = σ s( F ( x)), also by Lemma 3.4 of [2]. It would be nice to have a more direct geometric proof of these results. 7

8 4 Discussion The question we have raised can be posed with respect to any regular cone, but we do not know how to solve it in general. Let us consider the case of a hyperbolicity cone. By (2.2), given x int K and s int K, we can find a unique w int K with F (w) x = s and F (w)(k) K. It therefore seems natural to choose H = F (w) as in the case of self-scaled cones. Let us examine how the arguments of the previous section need to be modified. Equations (3.2) and (3.3) still hold, for the same reasons, but now it is no longer the case that v = F (w) ū as in (3.4). Indeed, F (w) ū may not lie in K, because ū may lie in K \ F (w)(k). Lemma 3. remains true. We can again scale ū so that ū w =, but this no longer implies that v w =. Nevertheless, we can scale v separately so that this last relation holds. Then, using Lemma 3., we see that (3.5) still holds. However, since ū, x may not equal s, v, we cannot conclude that α x(w) and α s(w) are equal. Instead, since the images of x, B w( x; α x(w)), and K by F (w) are s, B w( s; α x(w)), and F (w)(k) K, we can conclude that α s(w) α x(w). Finally, we still have (3.6) (3.8), but (3.9) may not hold since ū and v are no longer related: indeed, we have ū, v ū w v w =, and this inequality is in the reverse direction of what we need. If we can compute the largest inscribed ellipsoids corresponding to the dual w-norms, and obtain the corresponding vectors ū and v, we know that these norms are optimal to within at least the factor ū, v. We conclude by relating the criterion we have been maximizing, α x(h)α s(h), to another natural criterion. Suppose we move from x to the solution to (.3) when C = B H( x; α x(h). Then the improvement in the objective function of (.) is easily seen to be δ x := α x(h) s 0, (H H A (AH A ) AH )s 0 /2 = α x(h) s, (H H A (AH A ) AH ) s /2, using (.7) and the fact that s 0 s lies in the range of A since s is feasible in (.2). Similarly, the improvement in the objective function of (.2), when moving from s to the solution to (.4) when C = B H( s; α s(h), is seen to be δ s := α s(h) A (AH A ) Ax 0, x 0 /2 = α s(h) A (AH A ) A x, x /2. It is at least plausible to choose H to maximize the product of these improvements, although the sum would perhaps be preferable. Now since H A (AH A ) AH is positive semidefinite, we obtain s, (H H A (AH A ) AH ) s /2 s, H s /2 = s H, and since H A (AH A ) A is positive semidefinite, we get Hence A (AH A ) A x, x /2 H x, x /2 = x H. δ xδ s α x(h)α s(h) s H x H α x(h)α s(h) s, x. Maximizing α x(h)α s(h) is therefore equivalent to maximizing this upper bound on the product of the improvements possible by taking steps to the boundaries of the dual inscribed ellipsoids. References [] F. Alizadeh and D. Goldfarb, Second-order cone programming, Mathematical Programming 95 (2003), no., 3 5. [2] A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovskii, Lectures on modern convex optimization: Analysis, algorithms, and engineering applications, MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization, vol. 2, SIAM, Philadelphia,

9 [3] J. Faraut and A. Koranyi, Analysis on symmetric cone, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 994. [4] R. M. Freund, On the primal-dual geometry of level sets in linear and conic optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization 3 (2003), no. 4, [5], Complexity of convex optimization using geometry-based measures and a reference point, Mathematical Programming 99 (2004), no. 2, [6] O. Güler, Barrier functions in interior point methods, Mathemtics of Operations Research 2 (996), [7], Hyperbolic polynomials and interior point methods for convex programming, Mathematics of Operations Research 22 (997), [8] A. S. Lewis and M. L. Overton, Eigenvalue optimization, Acta Numerica, Cambridge University Press, 996, pp [9] M. S. Lobo, L. Vandenberghe, S. Boyd, and H. Lebret, Applications of second-order cone programming, Linear Algebra and its Applications 284 (998), no. 3, [0] Y. E. Nesterov and A. S. Nemirovskii, Interior point polynomial methods in convex programming: Theory and algorithms, SIAM Publications, SIAM, Philadelphia, USA, 993. [] Y. E. Nesterov and M. J. Todd, Self-scaled barriers and interior-point methods for convex programming, Mathematics of Operations Research 22 (997), 42. [2], Primal-dual interior-point methods for self-scaled cones, SIAM Journal on Optimization 8 (998), [3] J. Renegar, Some perturbation theory for linear programming, Mathematical Programming 65 (994), [4], Linear programming, complexity theory and elementary functional analysis, Mathematical Programming 70 (995), [5] M. J. Todd, Scaling, shifting and weighting in interior-point methods, Computational Optimization and Applications 3 (994), [6], Semidefinite optimization, Acta Numerica 0 (200), [7] L. Vandenberghe and S. Boyd, Semidefinite programming, SIAM Review 38 (996),

### Lecture 1. 1 Conic programming. MA 796S: Convex Optimization and Interior Point Methods October 8, Consider the conic program. min.

MA 796S: Convex Optimization and Interior Point Methods October 8, 2007 Lecture 1 Lecturer: Kartik Sivaramakrishnan Scribe: Kartik Sivaramakrishnan 1 Conic programming Consider the conic program min s.t.

### A Primal-Dual Second-Order Cone Approximations Algorithm For Symmetric Cone Programming

A Primal-Dual Second-Order Cone Approximations Algorithm For Symmetric Cone Programming Chek Beng Chua Abstract This paper presents the new concept of second-order cone approximations for convex conic

### Supplement: Universal Self-Concordant Barrier Functions

IE 8534 1 Supplement: Universal Self-Concordant Barrier Functions IE 8534 2 Recall that a self-concordant barrier function for K is a barrier function satisfying 3 F (x)[h, h, h] 2( 2 F (x)[h, h]) 3/2,

### Interior Point Methods: Second-Order Cone Programming and Semidefinite Programming

School of Mathematics T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O H F E D I N B U R G Interior Point Methods: Second-Order Cone Programming and Semidefinite Programming Jacek Gondzio Email: J.Gondzio@ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~gondzio

### L. Vandenberghe EE236C (Spring 2016) 18. Symmetric cones. definition. spectral decomposition. quadratic representation. log-det barrier 18-1

L. Vandenberghe EE236C (Spring 2016) 18. Symmetric cones definition spectral decomposition quadratic representation log-det barrier 18-1 Introduction This lecture: theoretical properties of the following

### A PREDICTOR-CORRECTOR PATH-FOLLOWING ALGORITHM FOR SYMMETRIC OPTIMIZATION BASED ON DARVAY'S TECHNIQUE

Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research 24 (2014) Number 1, 35-51 DOI: 10.2298/YJOR120904016K A PREDICTOR-CORRECTOR PATH-FOLLOWING ALGORITHM FOR SYMMETRIC OPTIMIZATION BASED ON DARVAY'S TECHNIQUE BEHROUZ

### Inner approximation of convex cones via primal-dual ellipsoidal norms

Inner approximation of convex cones via primal-dual ellipsoidal norms by Miaolan Xie A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of

### Using Schur Complement Theorem to prove convexity of some SOC-functions

Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 41-431, 01 Using Schur Complement Theorem to prove convexity of some SOC-functions Jein-Shan Chen 1 Department of Mathematics National Taiwan

### PRIMAL-DUAL INTERIOR-POINT METHODS FOR SELF-SCALED CONES

PRIMAL-DUAL INTERIOR-POINT METHODS FOR SELF-SCALED CONES YU. E. NESTEROV AND M. J. TODD Abstract. In this paper we continue the development of a theoretical foundation for efficient primal-dual interior-point

### Constructing self-concordant barriers for convex cones

CORE DISCUSSION PAPER 2006/30 Constructing self-concordant barriers for convex cones Yu. Nesterov March 21, 2006 Abstract In this paper we develop a technique for constructing self-concordant barriers

### On self-concordant barriers for generalized power cones

On self-concordant barriers for generalized power cones Scott Roy Lin Xiao January 30, 2018 Abstract In the study of interior-point methods for nonsymmetric conic optimization and their applications, Nesterov

### Lecture 6: Conic Optimization September 8

IE 598: Big Data Optimization Fall 2016 Lecture 6: Conic Optimization September 8 Lecturer: Niao He Scriber: Juan Xu Overview In this lecture, we finish up our previous discussion on optimality conditions

### Key words. Complementarity set, Lyapunov rank, Bishop-Phelps cone, Irreducible cone

ON THE IRREDUCIBILITY LYAPUNOV RANK AND AUTOMORPHISMS OF SPECIAL BISHOP-PHELPS CONES M. SEETHARAMA GOWDA AND D. TROTT Abstract. Motivated by optimization considerations we consider cones in R n to be called

### Nonsymmetric potential-reduction methods for general cones

CORE DISCUSSION PAPER 2006/34 Nonsymmetric potential-reduction methods for general cones Yu. Nesterov March 28, 2006 Abstract In this paper we propose two new nonsymmetric primal-dual potential-reduction

### Recursive Construction of Optimal Self-Concordant Barriers for Homogeneous Cones

Recursive Construction of Optimal Self-Concordant Barriers for Homogeneous Cones OLENA SHEVCHENKO November 20, 2006 Abstract. In this paper, we give a recursive formula for optimal dual barrier functions

### LMI MODELLING 4. CONVEX LMI MODELLING. Didier HENRION. LAAS-CNRS Toulouse, FR Czech Tech Univ Prague, CZ. Universidad de Valladolid, SP March 2009

LMI MODELLING 4. CONVEX LMI MODELLING Didier HENRION LAAS-CNRS Toulouse, FR Czech Tech Univ Prague, CZ Universidad de Valladolid, SP March 2009 Minors A minor of a matrix F is the determinant of a submatrix

### COURSE ON LMI PART I.2 GEOMETRY OF LMI SETS. Didier HENRION henrion

COURSE ON LMI PART I.2 GEOMETRY OF LMI SETS Didier HENRION www.laas.fr/ henrion October 2006 Geometry of LMI sets Given symmetric matrices F i we want to characterize the shape in R n of the LMI set F

### Interior-Point Methods for Linear Optimization

Interior-Point Methods for Linear Optimization Robert M. Freund and Jorge Vera March, 204 c 204 Robert M. Freund and Jorge Vera. All rights reserved. Linear Optimization with a Logarithmic Barrier Function

### Primal-Dual Symmetric Interior-Point Methods from SDP to Hyperbolic Cone Programming and Beyond

Primal-Dual Symmetric Interior-Point Methods from SDP to Hyperbolic Cone Programming and Beyond Tor Myklebust Levent Tunçel September 26, 2014 Convex Optimization in Conic Form (P) inf c, x A(x) = b, x

### Interior Point Methods. We ll discuss linear programming first, followed by three nonlinear problems. Algorithms for Linear Programming Problems

AMSC 607 / CMSC 764 Advanced Numerical Optimization Fall 2008 UNIT 3: Constrained Optimization PART 4: Introduction to Interior Point Methods Dianne P. O Leary c 2008 Interior Point Methods We ll discuss

### Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods. Javier Peña Convex Optimization /36-725

Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods Javier Peña Convex Optimization 10-725/36-725 Last time: duality revisited Consider the problem min x subject to f(x) Ax = b h(x) 0 Lagrangian L(x, u, v) = f(x) + u T

### In English, this means that if we travel on a straight line between any two points in C, then we never leave C.

Convex sets In this section, we will be introduced to some of the mathematical fundamentals of convex sets. In order to motivate some of the definitions, we will look at the closest point problem from

### Chapter 3 Transformations

Chapter 3 Transformations An Introduction to Optimization Spring, 2014 Wei-Ta Chu 1 Linear Transformations A function is called a linear transformation if 1. for every and 2. for every If we fix the bases

### EE/ACM Applications of Convex Optimization in Signal Processing and Communications Lecture 17

EE/ACM 150 - Applications of Convex Optimization in Signal Processing and Communications Lecture 17 Andre Tkacenko Signal Processing Research Group Jet Propulsion Laboratory May 29, 2012 Andre Tkacenko

### We describe the generalization of Hazan s algorithm for symmetric programming

ON HAZAN S ALGORITHM FOR SYMMETRIC PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS L. FAYBUSOVICH Abstract. problems We describe the generalization of Hazan s algorithm for symmetric programming Key words. Symmetric programming,

### MIT LIBRARIES. III III 111 l ll llljl II Mil IHII l l

MIT LIBRARIES III III 111 l ll llljl II Mil IHII l l DUPL 3 9080 02246 1237 [DEWEy )28 1414 \^^ i MIT Sloan School of Management Sloan Working Paper 4176-01 July 2001 ON THE PRIMAL-DUAL GEOMETRY OF

### Lecture Note 5: Semidefinite Programming for Stability Analysis

ECE7850: Hybrid Systems:Theory and Applications Lecture Note 5: Semidefinite Programming for Stability Analysis Wei Zhang Assistant Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Ohio State

SIAM J. OPTIM. Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 818 836 c 2001 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics CONDITION-MEASURE BOUNDS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE CENTRAL TRAJECTORY OF A SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAM MANUEL A. NUNEZ

### Primal-Dual Geometry of Level Sets and their Explanatory Value of the Practical Performance of Interior-Point Methods for Conic Optimization

Primal-Dual Geometry of Level Sets and their Explanatory Value of the Practical Performance of Interior-Point Methods for Conic Optimization Robert M. Freund M.I.T. June, 2010 from papers in SIOPT, Mathematics

### Primal-dual path-following algorithms for circular programming

Primal-dual path-following algorithms for circular programming Baha Alzalg Department of Mathematics, The University of Jordan, Amman 1194, Jordan July, 015 Abstract Circular programming problems are a

### Convex Optimization Theory. Chapter 5 Exercises and Solutions: Extended Version

Convex Optimization Theory Chapter 5 Exercises and Solutions: Extended Version Dimitri P. Bertsekas Massachusetts Institute of Technology Athena Scientific, Belmont, Massachusetts http://www.athenasc.com

### The Jordan Algebraic Structure of the Circular Cone

The Jordan Algebraic Structure of the Circular Cone Baha Alzalg Department of Mathematics, The University of Jordan, Amman 1194, Jordan Abstract In this paper, we study and analyze the algebraic structure

### New stopping criteria for detecting infeasibility in conic optimization

Optimization Letters manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) New stopping criteria for detecting infeasibility in conic optimization Imre Pólik Tamás Terlaky Received: March 21, 2008/ Accepted:

### IE 521 Convex Optimization

Lecture 1: 16th January 2019 Outline 1 / 20 Which set is different from others? Figure: Four sets 2 / 20 Which set is different from others? Figure: Four sets 3 / 20 Interior, Closure, Boundary Definition.

### What can be expressed via Conic Quadratic and Semidefinite Programming?

What can be expressed via Conic Quadratic and Semidefinite Programming? A. Nemirovski Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Technion Israel Institute of Technology Abstract Tremendous recent

### Constrained Optimization and Lagrangian Duality

CIS 520: Machine Learning Oct 02, 2017 Constrained Optimization and Lagrangian Duality Lecturer: Shivani Agarwal Disclaimer: These notes are designed to be a supplement to the lecture. They may or may

### Semidefinite Programming

Semidefinite Programming Notes by Bernd Sturmfels for the lecture on June 26, 208, in the IMPRS Ringvorlesung Introduction to Nonlinear Algebra The transition from linear algebra to nonlinear algebra has

Additional Homework Problems Robert M. Freund April, 2004 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1 2 1 Exercises 1. Let IR n + denote the nonnegative orthant, namely IR + n = {x IR n x j ( ) 0,j =1,...,n}.

### Introduction to Optimization Techniques. Nonlinear Optimization in Function Spaces

Introduction to Optimization Techniques Nonlinear Optimization in Function Spaces X : T : Gateaux and Fréchet Differentials Gateaux and Fréchet Differentials a vector space, Y : a normed space transformation

### An E cient A ne-scaling Algorithm for Hyperbolic Programming

An E cient A ne-scaling Algorithm for Hyperbolic Programming Jim Renegar joint work with Mutiara Sondjaja 1 Euclidean space A homogeneous polynomial p : E!R is hyperbolic if there is a vector e 2E such

### DS-GA 1002 Lecture notes 0 Fall Linear Algebra. These notes provide a review of basic concepts in linear algebra.

DS-GA 1002 Lecture notes 0 Fall 2016 Linear Algebra These notes provide a review of basic concepts in linear algebra. 1 Vector spaces You are no doubt familiar with vectors in R 2 or R 3, i.e. [ ] 1.1

### 12. Interior-point methods

12. Interior-point methods Convex Optimization Boyd & Vandenberghe inequality constrained minimization logarithmic barrier function and central path barrier method feasibility and phase I methods complexity

### A Geometric Analysis of Renegar s Condition Number, and its interplay with Conic Curvature

A Geometric Analysis of Renegar s Condition Number, and its interplay with Conic Curvature Alexandre Belloni and Robert M. Freund April, 007 Abstract For a conic linear system of the form Ax K, K a convex

### Research Note. A New Infeasible Interior-Point Algorithm with Full Nesterov-Todd Step for Semi-Definite Optimization

Iranian Journal of Operations Research Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013, pp. 88-107 Research Note A New Infeasible Interior-Point Algorithm with Full Nesterov-Todd Step for Semi-Definite Optimization B. Kheirfam We

### Extreme Abridgment of Boyd and Vandenberghe s Convex Optimization

Extreme Abridgment of Boyd and Vandenberghe s Convex Optimization Compiled by David Rosenberg Abstract Boyd and Vandenberghe s Convex Optimization book is very well-written and a pleasure to read. The

### Lecture 5. Theorems of Alternatives and Self-Dual Embedding

IE 8534 1 Lecture 5. Theorems of Alternatives and Self-Dual Embedding IE 8534 2 A system of linear equations may not have a solution. It is well known that either Ax = c has a solution, or A T y = 0, c

### Permutation invariant proper polyhedral cones and their Lyapunov rank

Permutation invariant proper polyhedral cones and their Lyapunov rank Juyoung Jeong Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Maryland, Baltimore County Baltimore, Maryland 21250, USA juyoung1@umbc.edu

### 15. Conic optimization

L. Vandenberghe EE236C (Spring 216) 15. Conic optimization conic linear program examples modeling duality 15-1 Generalized (conic) inequalities Conic inequality: a constraint x K where K is a convex cone

### Duality Theory of Constrained Optimization

Duality Theory of Constrained Optimization Robert M. Freund April, 2014 c 2014 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. 1 2 1 The Practical Importance of Duality Duality is pervasive

### Lecture 5. The Dual Cone and Dual Problem

IE 8534 1 Lecture 5. The Dual Cone and Dual Problem IE 8534 2 For a convex cone K, its dual cone is defined as K = {y x, y 0, x K}. The inner-product can be replaced by x T y if the coordinates of the

### Lecture 7: Semidefinite programming

CS 766/QIC 820 Theory of Quantum Information (Fall 2011) Lecture 7: Semidefinite programming This lecture is on semidefinite programming, which is a powerful technique from both an analytic and computational

### Semidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2001 Lecture 4

Semidefinite and Second Order Cone Programming Seminar Fall 2001 Lecture 4 Instructor: Farid Alizadeh Scribe: Haengju Lee 10/1/2001 1 Overview We examine the dual of the Fermat-Weber Problem. Next we will

### INTERIOR-POINT ALGORITHMS FOR CONVEX OPTIMIZATION BASED ON PRIMAL-DUAL METRICS

INTERIOR-POINT ALGORITHMS FOR CONVEX OPTIMIZATION BASED ON PRIMAL-DUAL METRICS TOR G. J. MYKLEBUST, LEVENT TUNÇEL Abstract. We propose and analyse primal-dual interior-point algorithms for convex optimization

2015 American Control Conference Palmer House Hilton July 1-3, 2015. Chicago, IL, USA Acyclic Semidefinite Approximations of Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programs Raphael Louca and Eilyan Bitar

### Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods for Linear Programming based on Newton s Method

Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods for Linear Programming based on Newton s Method Robert M. Freund March, 2004 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Problem The logarithmic barrier approach

### A ten page introduction to conic optimization

CHAPTER 1 A ten page introduction to conic optimization This background chapter gives an introduction to conic optimization. We do not give proofs, but focus on important (for this thesis) tools and concepts.

### The Nearest Doubly Stochastic Matrix to a Real Matrix with the same First Moment

he Nearest Doubly Stochastic Matrix to a Real Matrix with the same First Moment William Glunt 1, homas L. Hayden 2 and Robert Reams 2 1 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Austin Peay State

### Chapter 1. Preliminaries. The purpose of this chapter is to provide some basic background information. Linear Space. Hilbert Space.

Chapter 1 Preliminaries The purpose of this chapter is to provide some basic background information. Linear Space Hilbert Space Basic Principles 1 2 Preliminaries Linear Space The notion of linear space

### ACCELERATED FIRST-ORDER METHODS FOR HYPERBOLIC PROGRAMMING

ACCELERATED FIRST-ORDER METHODS FOR HYPERBOLIC PROGRAMMING JAMES RENEGAR Abstract. A framework is developed for applying accelerated methods to general hyperbolic programming, including linear, second-order

### Advances in Convex Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications

Advances in Convex Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications Stephen Boyd Electrical Engineering Department Stanford University (joint work with Lieven Vandenberghe, UCLA) ISIT 02 ISIT 02 Lausanne

### arxiv:math/ v2 [math.oc] 25 May 2004

arxiv:math/0304104v2 [math.oc] 25 May 2004 THE LAX CONJECTURE IS TRUE A.S. Lewis, P.A. Parrilo, and M.V. Ramana Key words: hyperbolic polynomial, Lax conjecture, hyperbolicity cone, semidefinite representable

### INTERIOR-POINT ALGORITHMS FOR CONVEX OPTIMIZATION BASED ON PRIMAL-DUAL METRICS

INTERIOR-POINT ALGORITHMS FOR CONVEX OPTIMIZATION BASED ON PRIMAL-DUAL METRICS TOR MYKLEBUST, LEVENT TUNÇEL Abstract. We propose and analyse primal-dual interior-point algorithms for convex optimization

### On John type ellipsoids

On John type ellipsoids B. Klartag Tel Aviv University Abstract Given an arbitrary convex symmetric body K R n, we construct a natural and non-trivial continuous map u K which associates ellipsoids to

### BCOL RESEARCH REPORT 07.04

BCOL RESEARCH REPORT 07.04 Industrial Engineering & Operations Research University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1777 LIFTING FOR CONIC MIXED-INTEGER PROGRAMMING ALPER ATAMTÜRK AND VISHNU NARAYANAN

### SCALING DUALITIES AND SELF-CONCORDANT HOMOGENEOUS PROGRAMMING IN FINITE DIMENSIONAL SPACES

SCALING DUALITIES AND SELF-CONCORDANT HOMOGENEOUS PROGRAMMING IN FINITE DIMENSIONAL SPACES BAHMAN KALANTARI Abstract. In this paper first we prove four fundamental theorems of the alternative, called scaling

### Lagrange Duality. Daniel P. Palomar. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)

Lagrange Duality Daniel P. Palomar Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) ELEC5470 - Convex Optimization Fall 2017-18, HKUST, Hong Kong Outline of Lecture Lagrangian Dual function Dual

### Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. P. Duysinx and P. Tossings

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization P. Duysinx and P. Tossings 2018-2019 CONTACTS Pierre Duysinx Institut de Mécanique et du Génie Civil (B52/3) Phone number: 04/366.91.94 Email: P.Duysinx@uliege.be

### 2.1. Jordan algebras. In this subsection, we introduce Jordan algebras as well as some of their basic properties.

FULL NESTEROV-TODD STEP INTERIOR-POINT METHODS FOR SYMMETRIC OPTIMIZATION G. GU, M. ZANGIABADI, AND C. ROOS Abstract. Some Jordan algebras were proved more than a decade ago to be an indispensable tool

### Agenda. Interior Point Methods. 1 Barrier functions. 2 Analytic center. 3 Central path. 4 Barrier method. 5 Primal-dual path following algorithms

Agenda Interior Point Methods 1 Barrier functions 2 Analytic center 3 Central path 4 Barrier method 5 Primal-dual path following algorithms 6 Nesterov Todd scaling 7 Complexity analysis Interior point

### A new primal-dual path-following method for convex quadratic programming

Volume 5, N., pp. 97 0, 006 Copyright 006 SBMAC ISSN 00-805 www.scielo.br/cam A new primal-dual path-following method for convex quadratic programming MOHAMED ACHACHE Département de Mathématiques, Faculté

### EE/ACM Applications of Convex Optimization in Signal Processing and Communications Lecture 2

EE/ACM 150 - Applications of Convex Optimization in Signal Processing and Communications Lecture 2 Andre Tkacenko Signal Processing Research Group Jet Propulsion Laboratory April 5, 2012 Andre Tkacenko

### 1. General Vector Spaces

1.1. Vector space axioms. 1. General Vector Spaces Definition 1.1. Let V be a nonempty set of objects on which the operations of addition and scalar multiplication are defined. By addition we mean a rule

### Lecture 17: Primal-dual interior-point methods part II

10-725/36-725: Convex Optimization Spring 2015 Lecture 17: Primal-dual interior-point methods part II Lecturer: Javier Pena Scribes: Pinchao Zhang, Wei Ma Note: LaTeX template courtesy of UC Berkeley EECS

### A Hierarchy of Polyhedral Approximations of Robust Semidefinite Programs

A Hierarchy of Polyhedral Approximations of Robust Semidefinite Programs Raphael Louca Eilyan Bitar Abstract Robust semidefinite programs are NP-hard in general In contrast, robust linear programs admit

### Semidefinite Programming

Chapter 2 Semidefinite Programming 2.0.1 Semi-definite programming (SDP) Given C M n, A i M n, i = 1, 2,..., m, and b R m, the semi-definite programming problem is to find a matrix X M n for the optimization

### An interior-point trust-region polynomial algorithm for convex programming

An interior-point trust-region polynomial algorithm for convex programming Ye LU and Ya-xiang YUAN Abstract. An interior-point trust-region algorithm is proposed for minimization of a convex quadratic

### Summer School: Semidefinite Optimization

Summer School: Semidefinite Optimization Christine Bachoc Université Bordeaux I, IMB Research Training Group Experimental and Constructive Algebra Haus Karrenberg, Sept. 3 - Sept. 7, 2012 Duality Theory

### The Simplest Semidefinite Programs are Trivial

The Simplest Semidefinite Programs are Trivial Robert J. Vanderbei Bing Yang Program in Statistics & Operations Research Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 January 10, 1994 Technical Report SOR-93-12

### Primal-dual relationship between Levenberg-Marquardt and central trajectories for linearly constrained convex optimization

Primal-dual relationship between Levenberg-Marquardt and central trajectories for linearly constrained convex optimization Roger Behling a, Clovis Gonzaga b and Gabriel Haeser c March 21, 2013 a Department

Iranian Journal of Operations Research Vol. 2, No. 2, 20, pp. 29-34 A semidefinite relaxation scheme for quadratically constrained quadratic problems with an additional linear constraint M. Salahi Semidefinite

### 8. Geometric problems

8. Geometric problems Convex Optimization Boyd & Vandenberghe extremal volume ellipsoids centering classification placement and facility location 8 Minimum volume ellipsoid around a set Löwner-John ellipsoid

### A priori bounds on the condition numbers in interior-point methods

A priori bounds on the condition numbers in interior-point methods Florian Jarre, Mathematisches Institut, Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Germany. Abstract Interior-point methods are known to be

### Semidefinite Programming Basics and Applications

Semidefinite Programming Basics and Applications Ray Pörn, principal lecturer Åbo Akademi University Novia University of Applied Sciences Content What is semidefinite programming (SDP)? How to represent

### Second-Order Cone Program (SOCP) Detection and Transformation Algorithms for Optimization Software

and Second-Order Cone Program () and Algorithms for Optimization Software Jared Erickson JaredErickson2012@u.northwestern.edu Robert 4er@northwestern.edu Northwestern University INFORMS Annual Meeting,

### On Two Measures of Problem Instance Complexity and their Correlation with the Performance of SeDuMi on Second-Order Cone Problems

2016 Springer International Publishing AG. Part of Springer Nature. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10589-005-3911-0 On Two Measures of Problem Instance Complexity and their Correlation with the Performance

Radial Subgradient Descent Benja Grimmer Abstract We present a subgradient method for imizing non-smooth, non-lipschitz convex optimization problems. The only structure assumed is that a strictly feasible

### Selected Examples of CONIC DUALITY AT WORK Robust Linear Optimization Synthesis of Linear Controllers Matrix Cube Theorem A.

. Selected Examples of CONIC DUALITY AT WORK Robust Linear Optimization Synthesis of Linear Controllers Matrix Cube Theorem A. Nemirovski Arkadi.Nemirovski@isye.gatech.edu Linear Optimization Problem,

### Convex Optimization M2

Convex Optimization M2 Lecture 3 A. d Aspremont. Convex Optimization M2. 1/49 Duality A. d Aspremont. Convex Optimization M2. 2/49 DMs DM par email: dm.daspremont@gmail.com A. d Aspremont. Convex Optimization

### Optimization Theory. A Concise Introduction. Jiongmin Yong

October 11, 017 16:5 ws-book9x6 Book Title Optimization Theory 017-08-Lecture Notes page 1 1 Optimization Theory A Concise Introduction Jiongmin Yong Optimization Theory 017-08-Lecture Notes page Optimization

### A QUADRATIC CONE RELAXATION-BASED ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR PROGRAMMING

A QUADRATIC CONE RELAXATION-BASED ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR PROGRAMMING A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

### Math 350 Fall 2011 Notes about inner product spaces. In this notes we state and prove some important properties of inner product spaces.

Math 350 Fall 2011 Notes about inner product spaces In this notes we state and prove some important properties of inner product spaces. First, recall the dot product on R n : if x, y R n, say x = (x 1,...,

### On polyhedral approximations of the second-order cone Aharon Ben-Tal 1 and Arkadi Nemirovski 1 May 30, 1999

On polyhedral approximations of the second-order cone Aharon Ben-Tal 1 and Arkadi Nemirovski 1 May 30, 1999 Abstract We demonstrate that a conic quadratic problem min x e T x Ax b, A l x b l 2 c T l x

### The proximal mapping

The proximal mapping http://bicmr.pku.edu.cn/~wenzw/opt-2016-fall.html Acknowledgement: this slides is based on Prof. Lieven Vandenberghes lecture notes Outline 2/37 1 closed function 2 Conjugate function

### MTH 2032 SemesterII

MTH 202 SemesterII 2010-11 Linear Algebra Worked Examples Dr. Tony Yee Department of Mathematics and Information Technology The Hong Kong Institute of Education December 28, 2011 ii Contents Table of Contents

### Optimization: Then and Now

Optimization: Then and Now Optimization: Then and Now Optimization: Then and Now Why would a dynamicist be interested in linear programming? Linear Programming (LP) max c T x s.t. Ax b αi T x b i for i

### A data-independent distance to infeasibility for linear conic systems

A data-independent distance to infeasibility for linear conic systems Javier Peña Vera Roshchina May 29, 2018 Abstract We offer a unified treatment of distinct measures of well-posedness for homogeneous

### Lecture: Duality of LP, SOCP and SDP

1/33 Lecture: Duality of LP, SOCP and SDP Zaiwen Wen Beijing International Center For Mathematical Research Peking University http://bicmr.pku.edu.cn/~wenzw/bigdata2017.html wenzw@pku.edu.cn Acknowledgement:

### 4.2. ORTHOGONALITY 161

4.2. ORTHOGONALITY 161 Definition 4.2.9 An affine space (E, E ) is a Euclidean affine space iff its underlying vector space E is a Euclidean vector space. Given any two points a, b E, we define the distance

### Augmented self-concordant barriers and nonlinear optimization problems with finite complexity

Augmented self-concordant barriers and nonlinear optimization problems with finite complexity Yu. Nesterov J.-Ph. Vial October 9, 2000 Abstract In this paper we study special barrier functions for the

### Inequality Constraints

Chapter 2 Inequality Constraints 2.1 Optimality Conditions Early in multivariate calculus we learn the significance of differentiability in finding minimizers. In this section we begin our study of the