An Enhanced Spatial Branch-and-Bound Method in Global Optimization with Nonconvex Constraints
|
|
- Janis Edwards
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 An Enhanced Spatial Branch-and-Bound Method in Global Optimization with Nonconvex Constraints Oliver Stein Peter Kirst # Paul Steuermann March 22, 2013 Abstract We discuss some difficulties in determining valid upper bounds in spatial branch-and-bound methods for global minimization in the presence of nonconvex constraints. In fact, two examples illustrate that standard techniques for the construction of upper bounds may fail in this setting. Instead, we propose to perturb infeasible iterates along Mangasarian-Fromovitz directions to feasible points whose objective function values serve as upper bounds. These directions may be calculated by the solution of a single linear optimization problem per iteration. Numerical results show that our enhanced algorithm performs well even for optimization problems where the standard branch-andbound method does not converge to the correct optimal value. Keywords: Branch-and-bound, convergence, consistency, Mangasarian- Fromovitz constraint qualification. AMS subject classifications: 90C26. Institute of Operations Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, stein@kit.edu # Institute of Operations Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, kirst@kit.edu Blumenstraße 5, Jüchen, Germany, numerik@gmx.de 1
2 1 Introduction In this article we present an improvement of branch-and-bound methods for solving global minimization problems of the form P (B) : min f(x) s.t. g i(x) 0, i I x R n x B. All functions f, g i, i I = {1,..., p} with p N 0 are assumed to be at least continuously differentiable on some open set containing the box B = [b, b] = {x R n b x b} with b, b R n, where the inequalities are meant componentwise. The feasible set of P (B) is denoted by M(B) = {x B g i (x) 0, i I}. Our goal is to determine a point x M(B) with f(x ) f(x) + ε for all x M(B) with a given tolerance ε > 0. Branch-and-bound methods are applied in order to solve this kind of problems as we describe in terms of a general framework in Section 2. In [9] an appropriate theory is given which can be useful in proving convergence of explicit algorithms. However, a strong assumption with respect to upper bounds is made which can be difficult to verify in the presence of nonconvex constraints, even if it is fulfilled. This will be illustrated in Section 3 by means of two examples for the αbb method [3], a well established algorithm in global optimization. In Section 4 an enhanced version of the framework is proposed to overcome these difficulties. Numerical results are presented in Section 5, and Section 6 concludes the paper with some final remarks. The notation in this paper is standard. In particular, Df denotes the row vector of partial derivatives of the function f and the Hessian of a twice differentiable function f is denoted by D 2 f. 2 The Branch-and-Bound Framework The main algorithmic idea of branch-and-bound methods is heavily based upon the construction of lower and upper bounds at function values on certain domains. This can be achieved in many ways, for example by the αbb 2
3 method from [3], using Lipschitz constants as examined in [16] or by exploiting duality [5, 6]. Further examples are centered forms [13] or optimal centered forms [4]. The direct application of interval arithmetic [15] is also possible (as opposed to its indirect application in some of the aforementioned alternatives). Independently of what bounding procedures are chosen, we have to ensure some properties regarding their convergence. In order to explain this, we first distinguish two types of bounding procedures. Definition 2.1. a) A function l from the set of all sub-boxes X of B to R is called M- dependent lower bounding procedure for the objective function of P (B), if l(x) inf x M(X) f(x) holds for all sub-boxes X B and any choice of the functions f, g i, i I. b) A function l from the set of all sub-boxes X of B to R is called M- independent lower bounding procedure for a function, if it satisfies l(x) min x X f(x) for all sub-boxes X B and any choice of f. c) A lower bounding procdure l is called monotone, if l(x 1 ) l(x 2 ) holds for all boxes X 1 X 2 B. The corresponding notions for upper bounding procedures u are defined analogously (e.g., u(x) inf x M(X) f(x) for all X B, etc.). Note that, under our assumptions, for X B the optimal value v(x) = inf x M(X) f(x) in the definition of M-dependent bounding procedures is attained as a real number if and only if M(X) is nonempty and that otherwise, as usual, we put v(x) = +. While for the chosen data functions f, g i, i I, of the problem P (B) one may refer to the M-dependent lower bounding procedure by l f, gi, i I, we will omit these subscripts as we will not study the dependence of P (B) on its data functions. On the other hand, an M-independent lower bounding procedure may be applied to any single one of the functions f, g i, i I, giving rise to lower bounding procedures l f and l gi, i I. Hence, in the following, an M-independent lower bounding procedure l will always be indexed by the corresponding function, and an M-dependent one will not. The analogous convention holds for upper bounding procedures. To define our convergence concept for upper and lower bounding procedures, we will apply them to exhaustive sequences of boxes (X k ) k N, by which we mean nested sequences (i.e., X k X k 1, k N) of nonempty boxes X k B 3
4 with lim k diag(x k ) = 0, where diag(x) = x x 2 denotes the diagonal length of a box X. For any exhaustive sequence of boxes (X k ) k N, the set k N X k is a singleton, say { x}. As the sequence (min x Xk f(x)) k N is nondecreasing and bounded above by f( x), it converges. The continuity of f actually yields lim min f(x) = f( x). k x X k We call M-independent lower and upper bounding procedures convergent if lim l f(x k ) = lim min f(x) k k x X k lim u f(x k ) = lim min f(x) k k x X k and hold for any exhaustive sequence of boxes (X k ) k N and any choice of the function f, respectively. For M-dependent lower and upper bounding procedures one may distinguish whether x M(B) holds or not. In the first case we have x M(X k ) for all k N, so that the continuity of f again yields lim min k x M(X k ) f(x) = f( x). In the case x / M(B), on the other hand, for all sufficiently large k N we have M(X k ) = and inf x M(Xk ) f(x) = +. We may thus define the extended-valued limit lim inf k x M(X k ) f(x) = +. With this definition, M-dependent lower and upper bounding procedures are called convergent if lim l(x k) = lim k k lim u(x k) = lim k k inf x M(X k ) inf x M(X k ) f(x) f(x) and hold for any exhaustive sequence of boxes (X k ) k N and any choice of the functions f, g i, i I, respectively. The following proposition shows that both types of bounding procedures can easily be constructed from each other. 4
5 Proposition 2.2. a) Let l(x) denote a convergent M-dependent lower bounding procedure. Then the choice g i (x) 0, i I, results in a convergent M-independent lower bounding procedure l f (X). b) Let l f (X), l gi (X), i I, be convergent M-independent lower bounding procedures. Then { lf (X) if max l(x) = i I l gi (X) 0 + if max i I l gi (X) > 0. is a convergent M-dependent lower bounding procedure. c) Analogous statements hold for the upper bounding procedures. Proof. As the choice of the functions g i, i I, results in M(X) = X for all sub-boxes X of B, the assertion of part a) is clear. To see part b), we first show that l is an M-dependent lower bounding procedure in the sense of Definition 2.1a). To this end, let X be a sub-box of B. In the case M(X) we choose some x X with g i ( x) 0 for all i I. This implies max i I l gi (X) max i I g i ( x) 0, so that l(x) = l f (X) min x X f(x) min x M(X) f(x). In the case M(X) = the assertion is trivial since inf x M(X) f(x) = +. Next, to show the convergence of l, choose an exhaustive sequence of boxes (X k ) k N and let x denote the unique element of k N X k. We distinguish two cases. First assume that x M(B). Then, as above, for any k N, we have max i I l gi (X k ) max i I g i ( x) 0 and, thus, l(x k ) = l f (X k ). This implies lim l(x k) = k lim l f (X k ) = k lim min f(x) = f( x) = k x X k lim min k x M(X k ) f(x) by the convergence of l f, the continuity of f, and x M(X k ) for all k N. For the second case assume that x M(B). Then there is an i I with g i ( x) > 0. By the exhaustiveness of the sequence of boxes (X k ) k N and the continuity of g i, the sequence (min x Xk g i (x)) k N converges to g i ( x). Hence, for all sufficiently large k N we have min x Xk g i (x) > 0 and, as l gi is a convergent M-independent bounding procedure, for possibly larger k N we also obtain l gi (X k ) > 0. This implies l(x k ) = + and, thus, lim k l(x k ) = +, as required for x / M(B). The assertion of part c) is shown analogously. 5
6 Remark 2.3. Many well-known bounding procedures lack the stated convergence properties at first glance, such as some of the aforementioned procedures based on centered forms or interval arithmetic. In these cases, however, usually a similar type of convergence holds, for example lim diag(x) 0 ( u f (X) l f (X) ) = 0. (2.1) With an exhaustive sequence of boxes (X k ) k N we then have ( ) ( ) 0 u f (X k ) min f(x) + min f(x) l f (X k ) = u f (X k ) l f (X k ) x X }{{ k x X }} k {{} 0 0 for all k N. In view of (2.1) we immediately obtain the M-independent convergence of both bounding procedures as well. In fact, while u f (X) denotes an upper bound for min x X f(x), for centered forms or interval arithmetic (2.1) even holds with upper bounds for max x X f(x) as, for example, l f (X). The convergence of such upper bounding procedures follows as above. A convenient way of computing lower bounds in global optimization is the socalled αbb relaxation. We will briefly sketch the method in Example 2.4. For a more detailed explanation we refer to [7]. Tight convex underestimators tailored for certain types of functions such as bi- and trilinear, univariate concave and fractional terms can be found in [1]. For implementation details we refer to [2]. Example 2.4. The main idea of the αbb method to determine lower and upper bounds for nonconvex twice differentiable functions on boxes is to construct convex underestimators. Say, for example, that we want to construct a convex underestimator f for the objective function f on the box X B, that is, f is convex on X and satisfies f(x) f(x) for all x X. This can be achieved by adding a convex term scaled with a suitably large parameter α 0 to compensate for the non-convexities of f. In fact, for α 0 the function ψ α : R n R, x α 2 (x x) (x x). is easily seen to be non-positive on X, so that the function f(x) := f(x) + ψ α (x) is an underestimator for f on X. Moreover, in view of D 2 ψ α (x) = αi n (with the identity matrix I n ), ψ α is strongly convex for α > 0. For sufficiently 6
7 large values of α the function f thus is convex on B [1]. Methods to compute appropriate values for α using, for example, interval arithmetic, are discussed in [1]. Let x denote a (globally) minimal point of the convex function f on X. Then l f (x) := f( x) and u f (X) = f( x) obviously give rise to M-independent lower and upper bounding procedures for f on X, respectively. Since ψ α attains its unique minimal point at the midpoint mid(x) = 1 (x + x) of the box X, it is 2 not hard to see [3] that the so-called maximum separation distance between f and f on X satisfies max x X ( f(x) f(x) ) = α 8 diag(x)2. (2.2) This leads to u f (X) l f (X) = f( x) f( x) max x X ( f(x) f(x) ) = α 8 diag(x)2, so that the lower and upper bounding procedures satisfy (2.1). The discussion in Remark 2.3 now implies that both l f and u f are convergent. In view of l f (X) = min x X f(x) the lower bounding procedure lf also is monotone. To construct M-dependent lower and upper bounding procedures for the objective function of P (B), for X B we may relax the nonlinear optimization problem P (X) and solve the convex problem P (X) : min f(x) s.t. x M(X), x R n where M(X) denotes a convex set containing the feasible set M(X). Such a set can, for example, be obtained by M(X) = {x X ĝ i (x) 0, i I}, where ĝ i is a convex underestimator of g i on X constructed as described above for the objective function. This approach is proposed in [3]. In case of solvability, the minimal value v(x) of the convex optimization problem P (X) provides an M-dependent lower bounding procedure l(x) for the globally minimal value v(x) of P (X). Moreover, for any point x M(X) the value f(x) provides an M-dependent upper bounding procedure u(x) to v(x). Unfortunately, in the presence of nonconvex constraints it may be complicated to determine such a point x M(X), so that stating a well-defined upper bounding procedure is a challenging issue. We will discuss this in more general terms below. 7
8 We will now give a short overview of the branch-and-bound mechanism before we formulate the procedure in detail. We start by dividing the original box B = [b, b] into the boxes X 1 and X 2 along a longest edge. Given an M-dependent lower bounding procedure l, for j {1, 2} we calculate a valid lower bound v j := l(x j ) at the globally minimal value of P (X j ). We save these values together with the corresponding boxes in a list L = {(X 1, v 1 ), (X 2, v 2 )}. If we know elements x 1 M(X 1 ) and x 2 M(X 2 ) we can insert them into the objective function to obtain real upper bounds f(x 1 ) and f(x 2 ) for v(b). Then we update u(b) to the smaller of the two bounds and store the corresponding point x i as the best known feasible point so far, x. To illustrate this, in the αbb approach (cf. Ex. 2.4) we can check if at least one of the optimal points x j of the convex subproblems P (X j ), j {1, 2}, is feasible. Among the feasible points x j, j {1, 2}, the one with smallest value f( x j ) is stored as x. However, in case of infeasibility of both, x 1 and x 2, we cannot construct an upper bound u(b) as above. We will describe the difficulties arising in this step in detail in Section 3 and propose a solution to this problem in Section 4. For the description of the next step assume that we know a valid upper bound u(b). If there is a pair ( X, ṽ) L with ṽ > u(b) we can remove it from L, because the globally minimal point can certainly not be found in X. This is known as the fathoming step. If in this step all list entries are fathomed, resulting in L =, then this is a certificate for inconsistency of M(B). On the other hand, for a consistent set M(B) the box containing the best known point so far is always a list entry. All pairs ( X, ṽ) in the list L contain lower bounds ṽ = l( X) at v( X). Hence, we can compute a valid lower bound for v(b), that is, on the whole domain, by l(b) = min{ṽ R ( X, ṽ) L}. If the lower and upper bounds are sufficiently close to each other in the sense that u(b) l(b) ε holds for a prescribed tolerance ε > 0, the algorithm can terminate since f(x ) = u(b) l(b) + ε f(x) + ε is satisfied for all x M(B) as desired. Otherwise, we choose a pair ( X, ṽ) with minimal value ṽ from L and repeat the above procedure to improve the bounds. This leads, in particular, to a tessellation of the original box B into sub-boxes. 8
9 We are now ready to state a preliminary version of the branch-and-bound framework. Algorithm 2.5 (Conceptual branch-and-bound method). Step 1: Initialization. Choose a tolerance ε > 0, set the lower bound to l 0 (B) =, the upper bound to u 0 (B) = +, and the list to L = {(B, l 0 (B))}. Initialize the best known point so far by x 0 = mid(b) and set the iteration counter to k = 1. Step 2: Select and divide box. Choose a pair (X k, v k ) L with smallest lower bound v k and remove it from L. Divide X k along a longest edge into Xk 1 and X2 k. If the longest edge is not unique, choose the edge parallel to the coordinate axis with smallest index. Step 3: Calculate lower bounds. Determine lower bounds vk 1 = l(x1 k ) and vk 2 = l(x2 k ) for the minimal value of P (X1 k ) and P (X2 k ). Add the pairs (Xk 1, v1 k ) and (X2 k, v2 k ) to L. Step 4: Update upper bound. Choose points x 1 k X1 k and x2 k X2 k. If x 1 k M(X1 k ) and x2 k M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x 1 k ), f(x2 k )} and choose x k {x k 1, x1 k, x2 k } with f(x k ) = u k(b). If x 1 k M(X1 k ) and x2 k / M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x 1 k )} and choose x k {x k 1, x1 k } with f(x k ) = u k(b). If x 1 k / M(X1 k ) and x2 k M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x 2 k )} and choose x k {x k 1, x2 k } with f(x k ) = u k(b). If x 1 k / M(X1 k ) and x2 k / M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = u k 1 (B). Step 5: Fathoming. Remove all pairs ( X, ṽ) with ṽ > u k (B) or ṽ = + from L. Step 6: Update lower bound. If L, compute the lower bound l k (B) = min{ṽ R ( X, ṽ) L}. Step 7: Termination criterion. If u k (B) l k (B) ε or L =, stop. Step 8: Increment iteration counter. Increment k, go to Step 2. As mentioned before, we will focus on problems arising in Step 4 of Algorithm 2.5. In fact, in general there is no guarantee that for any k N one of 9
10 the chosen points x 1 k and x2 k is feasible, so that the inital upper bound u 0(B) might never be updated. This is, of course, not an issue in the merely box constrained case M(X) = X, and also for problems with convex constraints g i, i I, one can efficiently determine feasible points. For example, in the αbb approach (cf. Example 2.4) the optimal points x j k of the convex subproblems P (X j k ), j {1, 2}, are elements of M(X j k ) = M(Xj k ) and, thus, necessarily feasible. In Theorem 4.7 below we will see under which additional conditions such upper bounding procedures lead to finite termination of Algorithm 2.5 for any ε > 0. In the presence of nonconvex constraints, however, before one can study finite termination of Algorithm 2.5, in the first place one has to make sure that the initial bound does not remain constant. In fact, in Section 3 we will review a simple upper bounding procedure from [1] and show in Example 3.2 that the initial upper bound is never updated. An obvious sufficient condition for the termination criterion in Step 7 to hold after finitely many iterations is convergence of the infinite branch-andbound procedure corresponding to the theoretical choice ε = 0, that is, the difference u k (B) l k (B) tends to zero for k. This sufficient condition can, however, be weakened in view of the next result. Lemma 2.6. In Algorithm 2.5 with ε = 0, let l be a monotone M-dependent lower bounding procedure, and let u k (B) +. Then the sequence (u k (B) l k (B)) k N is convergent. Proof. By construction, the sequence (u k (B)) k N is nonincreasing, and by the assumption it is real for all sufficiently large k N. Moreover, by the selection rule in Step 2 for each k N we choose some X k with minimal v k = l(x k ), and the latter coincides with l k 1 (B). The next lower bound l k (B) then either coincides with some ṽ for a pair ( X, ṽ) which was part of the list before the deletion of X k, or it is one of the lower bounds vk 1 = l(x1 k ), v2 k = l(x2 k ) which result from splitting X k. In the first case we have l k (B) l k 1 (B) by the construction of l k 1 (B), and in the second case the same relation holds in view of the monotonicity of l. This shows that the sequence (l k (B)) k N is nondecreasing. Thus, the sequence (u k (B) l k (B)) k N turns out to be nonincreasing and bounded below by zero and, hence, to be convergent. This immediately leads to the following convergence condition. Proposition 2.7. In Algorithm 2.5 with ε = 0, let l be a monotone M- dependent lower bounding procedure, let u k (B) +, and let (u k (B) 10
11 l k (B)) k N possess zero as a cluster point. Then, for any ε > 0, Algorithm 2.5 terminates after finitely many iterations. Remark 2.8. According to [9, Theorem IV.3] any branch-and-bound procedure is convergent if its selection operation is bound improving and its bounding operations are consistent. Here, a selection operation is called bound improving if at least one tessellation element, at which the current lower bound is attained, is selected for further subdivision after a finite number of steps. In Algorithm 2.5 this is obviously the case by the formulation of Step 2 (see also [7]). Consistency is less obvious and, actually, challenging in the presence of nonconvex constraints. In fact, a bounding operation is called consistent [9] if at every step any unfathomed partition element can be further refined, and if any nested subsequence (X kj ) j N of boxes selected in Step 2 satisfies lim j ( ukj (B) l(x kj ) ) = 0. (2.3) As seen above, in Algorithm 2.5 we have l(x kj ) = l kj 1(B) and, thus, u kj (B) l(x kj ) u kj 1(B) l kj 1(B) so that the convergence of the infinite branch-and-bound procedure itself is a natural sufficient condition for consistency. In other words, for the convergence proof of Algorithm 2.5 it will not be helpful to use the consistency concept. As mentioned before, from our point of view the main challenge in any convergence proof for Algorithm 2.5 in the presence of nonconvex constraints is a well-defined statement of the upper bounding procedure. In particular, for the upper bounding procedures in the αbb framework described in [7] we are not aware of a consistency or convergence proof. 3 Difficulties with Nonconvex Constraints As discussed above, determining appropriate upper bounds to the globally minimal value is crucial for termination of Algorithm 2.5 in Step 7. The first idea to gain valid upper bounds is to insert points from the boxes Xk 1 and Xk 2 into the objective function [1]. If these points are feasible we obtain valid upper bounds. In the framework of the αbb method (cf. Ex. 2.4), a 11
12 natural choice for these points are the optimal points x 1 k and x2 k of the convex relaxations P (Xk 1) and P (Xk 2), respectively. Unfortunately both, x1 k and x2 k, may be infeasible so that we cannot update the upper bound. Hence, it is possible that no good upper bound is found, or even none at all. Example 3.1 below illustrates this fact for the αbb method and shows that this procedure of computing upper bounds does not work in general. Example 3.1. Consider the nonconvex optimization problem P (B) : min x R 2 f(x) := x 1 x 2 s.t. g(x) := x 2 1 (x 2 5) x B := [1, 2] [0, 1]. It is not hard to see that the unique globally minimal point is x = ( 4 2, 0) with globally minimal value f(x ) = 4 2. The proof is omitted here for brevity. In the following we will show that the αbb method does not generate any feasible iterates and, thus, no upper bounds for problem P (B) with the strategy described above. As a first step we shall show that the upper left vertex of any box created by the algorithm is infeasible. This is easily seen for the initial box B as well as for any sub-box X = [x, x] of B with x 1 < 4 2. Moreover, as B is a square, due to the division rule all sub-boxes X = [x, x] created by the algorithm are either squares or rectangles with x 2 x 2 = 2(x 1 x 1 ). As all vertices of these boxes have rational coordinates, in the following we only need to consider boxes with 4 2 < x 1 b 1 = 2. In any iteration let (X, v) L be the pair chosen in Step 2 of Algorithm 2.5. Then the upper left vertex (x 1, x 2 ) of X necessarily satisfies x 1 x 2 = min x X f(x) min f(x) = v f(x ) = 4 2. (3.4) x M(X) First consider the case that X is a rectangle with x 2 x 2 = 2(x 1 x 1 ). Then both sub-boxes X 1 and X 2 resulting from the division rule are squares, where the upper left vertex of X 1 is (x 1, x 2 ), and the upper left vertex of X 2 is (x 1, x 2 ) with x 2 := 1 2 (x 2 + x 2 ). In the following we will show that both these points are infeasible, starting with (x 1, x 2 ). In fact, due to X B we have x 2 b 2 = 0 and, thus, x 2 1x 2 2. Using (3.4), this leads to x 2 1(x ). The monotonicity of g(x 1, ) on [0, 1] now yields ( g(x 1, x 2 ) x 2 x ) (3.5) 2 12
13 As the right hand side of (3.5) is stricly increasing for x 1 ( 4 2, 2] and attains the value zero at 4 2, we obtain g(x 1, x 2 ) > 0, that is, the infeasibility of the upper left vertex of X 2. The monotonicity of g(x 1, ) on [0, 1] and the relation x 2 x 2 now yield g(x 1, x 2 ) g(x 1, x 2 ) > 0, that is, also the infeasibility of the upper left vertex of X 1. Analogous arguments yield the infeasibility of the upper left vertices of X 1 and X 2 in the case that the box X is a square. Altogether, we have shown that the upper left vertex of any box created by the algorithm is infeasible. Now we apply the αbb method to problem P (B). Consider an arbitrary iteration in which we have to solve the convex subproblem P ( X) with some sub-box X of B. We will show that any optimal point x of P ( X), if it exists, is infeasible for P (B). In fact, this is trivial in the case M( X) =, so that in the sequel we will assume M( X) and, thus, solvability of P ( X) and P ( X). In the formulation of the relaxed problem P ( X), as f is linear, we only have to construct a convex underestimator for the restriction g on X. It is not hard to see that this is achieved by setting ĝ(x) := g(x) + ψ α (x) with α = 2. Note that then ĝ(x) < g(x) holds for all x from the box X, except for its vertices. In fact, let x be a vertex of X. Then x has rational entries, so that the equation 0 = g(x) = x 2 1 (x 2 5) cannot hold or, in other words, g is not active at any vertex of X. On the other hand, let x be some optimal point of the (nonconvex) problem P ( X). Then g must be active at x as the objective function f(x) = x 1 x 2 attains its minimal value at a boundary point of M( X), and the upper left vertex of X is infeasible. Hence, x is not a vertex of X, and we obtain ĝ( x ) < g( x ) = 0. This excludes that f( x ) is also the minimal value of P ( X), as we will see next. In fact, by the continuity of ĝ there is a neighborhood U of x with ĝ(x) < 0 for all x U. Since x is, in particular, not the upper left vertex of X, the objective function f(x) = x 1 x 2 can be strictly improved by shifting x along one of the directions ( 1, 0) or (0, 1). This implies that the minimal value of P ( X) is stricly lower than the minimal value of P ( X). We conclude that any optimal point x of P ( X) is infeasible for P ( X) and, thus, for P (B). If, as in Example 3.1, feasible points are not available for the generation of upper bounds, a popular alternative is to accept also ε f -feasible points, that is, points x R n with max i I g i (x) ε f for a given tolerance ε f > 0 [7]. 13
14 While infeasible points clearly do not necessarily lead to valid upper bounds, the idea behind ε f -feasibility appears to be that the distance of any ε f -feasible point to the feasible set is small, so that the possible error in the objective function evaluation may be controlled by ε f. The following Example 3.2 illustrates the well-known fact that the latter argument is wrong. Example 3.2. Consider the optimization problem P (B) : min f(x) := 2x x R s.t. g(x) := 3 8π x sin(x) 0 x B := [ 32 π, 32 ] π. It is not hard to see that the minimal value of P (B) is zero. After the initialization of Algorithm 2.5, in Step 2 the box B is divided into X 1 = [ 3π, 0] and 2 X2 = [0, 3 π]. In the following we will focus on the 2 solution of the relaxed problem P (X 2 ). Since the objective function is linear, we only have to construct a convex underestimator of g on X 2. In view of g (x) = 1 sin(x) we may set ĝ(x) = g(x) + αψ(x) with α = 1. The 2 2 unique minimal point of P (X 2 ) then turns out to be x In view of g( x 2) , the optimal point of the relaxation is infeasible for P (B) but, for example for ε f = 0.06, it is at least ε f feasible. Evaluating the objective function at this point leads to f( x 2) This value is significantly smaller than the common optimal value zero of P (X 2 ) and P (B) and, thus, utterly useless as an upper bound. For completeness we also mention the strategy to solve the nonconvex optimization problem P (X) locally on a given sub-box X and use the resulting optimal value as an upper bound [7]. Since in this so-called upper level problem approach also ε f -feasible points have to be accepted, similar problems as in Example 3.2 may occur. 4 An Enhanced Branch-and-Bound Framework In this section we derive a convergent branch-and-bound framework in the presence of nonconvex constraints. 14
15 As a first step, we need the following lemma which ensures that a box not containing any feasible point affects the algorithm for at most a finite number of iterations. Lemma 4.1. Let M(B) be nonempty and let X B \ M(B) be a box such that ( X, ṽ) L holds with some ṽ R. Further assume that in Algorithm 2.5 some convergent M-dependent lower bounding procedure is used. Then in Step 2 of the algorithm a box X X is selected at most in finitely many iterations. Proof. We derive a contradiction. In fact, if the assertion is wrong, then it is not hard to see that the sequence of boxes created by the algorithm contains an exhaustive subsequence of boxes X kj X, j N. Due to X B \ M(B) we have min x M(Xkj ) f(x) = + for each j N and, by the convergence of the lower bounding procedure, lim j l(x kj ) = lim j min x M(Xkj ) f(x) = +. On the other hand, since M(B) is nonempty there is some x M(B) with a finite objective function value f(x). Therefore in every iteration of the algorithm only boxes X with lower bounds v smaller than f(x) are selected and, in particular, we have l(x kj ) = l kj 1(B) f(x) for all j N. This contradicts the unboundedness of (l(x kj )) j N. Proposition 4.2. Let M(B) be nonempty and assume that in Algorithm 2.5 some convergent and monotone M-dependent lower bounding procedure is used. Then, if the infinite branch-and-bound procedure corresponding to ε = 0 does not terminate, we have lim k l k (B) = v(b). Proof. First recall from the proof of Lemma 2.6 that the sequence l k (B) is not only bounded above by the finite value v(b) but also nondecreasing. Therefore it is convergent, and its limit satisfies lim k l k (B) v(b). Under the division rule from Step 2 it is not hard to see that the infinite sequence of created boxes contains an exhaustive subsequence (X kj ) j N. Let x denote the unique element of j N X k j. Assume that x / M(B) holds. Then, for all sufficiently large j N we have X kj B \ M(B), in contradiction to the assertion of Lemma 4.1. Hence we find x M(B) and, by the selection rule in Step 2 and the convergence of the lower bounding procedure, lim l k j 1(B) = j lim l(x kj ) = j lim min j x M(X kj ) f(x) = f( x). As any subsequence of the convergent sequence (l k (B)) k N inherits its limit, we obtain lim k l k (B) = f( x) v(b) and, thus, the assertion. 15
16 Remark 4.3. In the framework presented in [9], convergence of lower bounds to v(b) can also be proved, but under different assumptions on the lower bounding procedure. In fact, there one uses that the selection operation is bound improving which is clearly fulfilled in our case, as mentioned above. Secondly, one has to show that the lower bounding operation is strongly consistent. For the formulation of strong consistency consider any nested subsequence of boxes (X kj ) j N selected in Step 2. Strongly consistent bounding operations involve mainly two items in our case. The first one is M M(B) where M := j N X kj which follows immediately from Lemma 4.1. The second one is lim l(x k j ) = min f( M M(B)) j which is likewise used in our proof of Proposition 4.2. After this analysis of an approximation procedure for the optimal value, we turn to an approximation procedure for an optimal point. Proposition 4.4. Let M(B) be nonempty, assume that in Algorithm 2.5 some convergent and monotone M-dependent lower bounding procedure is used, and that the infinite branch-and-bound procedure does not terminate. Furthermore, let (X k ) k N be a subsequence of the boxes chosen in Step 2, and let (x k ) k N be a sequence of points with x k X k, k N. Then (x k ) k N possesses a cluster point, and any such cluster point is a globally minimal point of P (B). Proof. As the sequence (x k ) k N is contained in the bounded set B, the existence of a cluster point is clear. Let x be such a cluster point. We have to prove the feasibility of x as well as f( x) = v(b). Choose a subsequence (x kj ) j N with lim j x kj = x. Then, without loss of generality, we may assume that the sequence (X kj ) j N is exhaustive. The feasibility of x now follows from Lemma 4.1 as in the proof of Proposition 4.2. Furthermore, the convergence of the lower bounding procedure and the continuity of f yield lim l k j 1(B) = j lim l(x kj ) = j lim min j x M(X kj ) f(x) = f( x), so that Proposition 4.2 implies f( x) = v(b). 16
17 Remark 4.5. In [9, Corollary IV.2] one finds a similar result for the best known points so far denoted by x k. However, there consistent bounding operations are assumed, in contrast to our approach. Lemma 4.6. Under the assumptions of Proposition 4.4, further assume that the subsequence (X k ) k N and the points (x k ) k N can be chosen such that x k M(B) holds for all k N. Then the (complete) sequence (u k (B) l k (B)) k N possess zero as a cluster point. Proof. Consider the subsequence (u k (B) l k (B)) k N corresponding to the chosen boxes. For each k N the feasibility of x k leads to v(b) u k (B) f(x k ). Proposition 4.4 and the continuity of f then yield that the sequence (u k (B)) k N possesses the cluster point v(b). Together with Proposition 4.2 the assertion follows. The combination of Proposition 2.7 and Lemma 4.6 immediately yields the following result. Theorem 4.7. Assume that in Algorithm 2.5 some convergent and monotone M-dependent lower bounding procedure is used, and that in each iteration k at least one of the points x 1 k and x2 k chosen in Step 4 is an element of M(B). Then, for any ε > 0, Algorithm 2.5 terminates after finitely many iterations. The feasibility assumption for the points x 1 k, x2 k from Theorem 4.7 clearly is satisfied for purely box constrained problems. It also holds for problems with convex constraints if, for example, the αbb method is used. As illustrated by Example 3.1, this feasibility assumption may not hold in the presence of nonconvex constraints. Then only the approximation of v(b) by lower bounds is clear, accompanied by an approximation of some globally minimal point by infeasible points. This, however, does not guarantee the termination tolerance ε. In the following we will thus derive an upper bounding procedure which guarantees convergence under a mild assumption. Its main idea is an appropriate perturbation of the points x k from Proposition 4.4 to feasible points. In fact, our main assumption is that the Mangasarian-Fromovitz Constraint Qualification (MFCQ) is fulfilled at every globally minimal point x of P (B) (cf. also Rem below). For its formulation, we need to write the box constraints x B as explicit inequality constraints, that is, we put M(B) = 17
18 x x x + λd d Figure 1: Point x close to the feasible set {x R n g i (x) 0, i Ĩ} with Ĩ = {1,..., p + 2n} and g i (x) = g i (x), i I = {1,..., p}, g p+i (x) = b i x i, i = 1,..., n, g p+n+i (x) = x i b i, i = 1,..., n. Then, with the active index set Ĩ0(x ) = {i Ĩ g i(x ) = 0}, MFCQ holds at x if there exists a direction d R n with D g i (x )d < 0 for all i Ĩ0(x ). If MFCQ holds at x, for reasons of continuity any point x R n sufficiently close to x also satisfies D g i ( x)d < 0, i Ĩ0(x ), even if x is infeasible. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Assuming temporarily that Ĩ0(x ) is known, we can compute such a direction d by solving the linear program LP ( x) : min z s.t. D g i( x)d z, i Ĩ0(x ) (d,z) R n+1 d r where the last constraint bounds d with some search radius r > 0. Note that LP ( x) is solvable and that for any optimal point ( d, z) the relation z = max i Ĩ 0 (x ) D g i( x) d holds. As seen above, for x sufficiently close to x the optimal value z of LP ( x) is negative, and we obtain a promising direction 18
19 d in x for searching for feasible points. Actually, still assuming that we know the set Ĩ0(x ), we can prove the following result. Lemma 4.8. Under the assumptions of Proposition 4.4, let x be a cluster point of the sequence (x k ) k N being a globally minimal point of P (B). Furthermore, let MFCQ hold at x. Then, for any r > 0, (x k ) k N contains a subsequence (x kj ) j N such that, for all sufficiently large j N, any optimal point (d kj, z kj ) of LP (x kj ) satisfies z kj < 0 as well as x kj + λ kj d kj M(B) with some λ kj > 0, where lim j λ kj = 0. Proof. First we choose a subsequence (x kj ) j N of (x k ) k N with lim j x kj = x. For j N, let (d kj, z kj ) be some optimal point of the (solvable) linear program LP (x kj ). Choosing, if necessary, another subsequence of (x kj ) j N, by the boundedness of ( d kj ) j N we may assume without loss of generality that the vectors d kj converge to some d R n. The values z kj = max i Ĩ 0 (x ) Dg i(x kj )d kj then obviously converge to z = max i Ĩ 0 (x ) D g i(x )d. As the optimal point mapping of LP (x) is outer semi-continuous [17], the limit (d, z ) turns out to be an optimal point of LP (x ). The assumption of MFCQ in x implies the existence of some feasible point (d, z ) of LP (x ) with z < 0, so that also z < 0 and, hence, D g i (x )d < 0 hold for all i Ĩ0(x ). Standard arguments then show that for all sufficiently small λ > 0 we have g i (x + λd ) < 0 for all i Ĩ. In particular, we may choose some sufficiently large l N with g i (x + 1 l d ) < 0, i Ĩ. Then the continuity of the functions g i, i Ĩ, implies g i (x kj + 1d l k j ) < 0 for all i Ĩ and all j j l with some j l N. Setting λ kjl := 1 shows g l i(x kjl + λ kjl d kjl ) < 0 for all i Ĩ and all sufficiently large l N and, thus, the assertion. Note that Lemma 4.8 relies on solutions of the linear programs LP (x kj ), j N, in whose formulation the active index set Ĩ0(x ) appears. Unfortunately, this set is not known a priorily so that we need a certain substitute. This motivates to define the sets { } I 0 (X) = i Ĩ l g i (X) 0 l gi (X) for boxes X B, where l gi and l gi are convergent M-independent bounding 19
20 procedures for i {1,..., p}, and where we set l gp+i (X) = b i x i, u gp+i (X) = b i x i, l gp+n+i (X) = x i b i, u gp+n+i (X) = x i b i for i = 1,..., n. It it not hard to see that these are also M-independent bounding procedures. Note that l gi (X) is an upper bound for max x X g i (x), as opposed to u gi (X) which is defined to be only an upper bound for min x X g i (x). Lemma 4.9 (Identification of active indices). Let (X k ) k N be an exhaustive sequence of boxes and let x be element of each box X k, k N. Then, for all sufficiently large k N, we have Ĩ0(x ) = I 0 (X k ). Proof. For any i Ĩ0(x ) we have g i (x ) = 0. Since for any k N we have x X k, this results in l gi (X k ) g i (x ) = 0 l gi (X k ) and, thus, Ĩ 0 (x ) I 0 (X k ) for any k N. Next, consider any i Ĩ with g i(x ) < 0. Then, for all sufficiently large k N the convergence of the upper bounding procedure guarantees the inequality g i (x ) l gi (X k ) < 0 and, hence, i / I 0 (X). An analogous argument for any i I with g i (x ) > 0 completes the proof. Lemma 4.9 shows that, in Lemma 4.8, for all sufficiently large k N in problem LP (x k ) we may replace the index set Ĩ0(x ) by I 0 (X k ). Moreover, after the special choice x k := mid(x k ), the linear program is parametrized merely by the choice of the box X k, and we may replace LP (x k ) by LP (X k ) : min z s.t. Dg i(mid(x k )) d z, i I 0 (X k ) (d,z) R n+1 d r. We are now ready to state our final version of the branch-and-bound method in Algorithm Let us first explain in detail how we use Lemma 4.8 in Step 4 of the algorithm: if in Step 4 of iteration k both chosen points x 1 k X1 k and x2 k X2 k are infeasible, then the midpoint of the box Xk is perturbed to a feasible point by the construction illustrated in Figure 1. To this end, an optimal point (d k, z k ) of LP (X k ) is determined. In the case z k 0 this information is not used, and the algorithm continues with Step 5. 20
21 For sufficiently large k, however, we will find z k < 0. In this case there is a chance for mid(x k ) + λ k d k to be feasible for some λ k (0, 1]. As we cannot be sure that k is also suffienctly large for this and, at the same time, we have to search for λ k (0, 1], we suggest to proceed as follows: we discretize the interval (0, 1] uniformly by the points s/n k with s = 1,..., N k and some number N k which is initialized to N 1 = 1. If none of the points mid(x k )+ s N k d k with s = 1,..., N k turn out to be feasible, we do not further refine the discretization by increasing N k, as k might still be to small to find a feasible point this way. Instead, we only increment N k to N k+1 = N k + 1 and continue with Step 5. If, on the other hand, mid(x k ) + s k N k d k M(B) holds for some s k {1,..., N k }, we update the upper bound and the best known feasible point so far accordingly. For the next iteration, we reset N k+1 = 1. Unfortunately, the step sizes λ k = s k /N k determined by this strategy do not necessarily converge to zero as in the assertion of Lemma 4.8, but are only bounded. To compensate for this, we enforce convergence of the points mid(x k ) + λ k d k to x by choosing a geometrically decreasing sequence of search radii (r k ) k N. Note that this modification of LP (X k ) does not interfere with our previous arguments. Algorithm 4.10 (Convergent spatial branch-and-bound method). Step 1: Initialization. Choose a tolerance ε > 0 and some γ (0, 1), set the lower bound to l 0 (B) =, the upper bound to u 0 (B) = +, the search radius to r 1 = diag(b), the number of discretization points to N 1 = 1, and the list to L = {(B, l 0 (B))}. Initialize the best known point so far by x 0 = mid(b) and set the iteration counter to k = 1. Step 2: Select and divide box. Choose a pair (X k, v k ) L with smallest lower bound v k and remove it from L. Divide X k along a longest edge into Xk 1 and X2 k. If the longest edge is not unique, choose the edge parallel to the coordinate axis with smallest index. Step 3: Calculate lower bounds. Determine lower bounds vk 1 = l(x1 k ) and vk 2 = l(x2 k ) for the minimal value of P (X1 k ) and P (X2 k ). Add the pairs (Xk 1, v1 k ) and (X2 k, v2 k ) to L. Step 4: Update upper bound. Choose points x 1 k X1 k and x2 k X2 k. Step 4a: Feasibility check. If x 1 k M(X1 k ) and x2 k M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x 1 k ), f(x2 k )} and choose x k {x k 1, x1 k, x2 k } with f(x k ) = u k (B). 21
22 If x 1 k M(X1 k ) and x2 k / M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x 1 k )} and choose x k {x k 1, x1 k } with f(x k ) = u k(b). If x 1 k / M(X1 k ) and x2 k M(X2 k ), put u k(b) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x 2 k )} and choose x k {x k 1, x2 k } with f(x k ) = u k(b). Step 4b: Perturbation to feasibility. If x 1 k / M(B) and x2 k compute some optimal point (d k, z k ) of / M(B), min z s.t. Dg i(mid(x k )) d z, i I 0 (X k ) (d,z) R n+1 d r k. If z k < 0, put s = 1. While x k,s = mid(x k) + s N k d k / M(B) and s N k, increment s. If x k,s = mid(x k) + s N k d k M(B), put u k (B) = min{u k 1 (B), f(x k,s )} and choose x k {x k 1, x k,s } with f(x k ) = u k(b). Put N k = 1 and r k +1 = γr k. Else put N k+1 = N k + 1. Step 5: Fathoming. Remove all pairs ( X, ṽ) with ṽ > u k (B) or ṽ = + from L. Step 6: Update lower bound. If L, compute the new lower bound l k (B) = min{ṽ R ( X, ṽ) L}. Step 7: Termination criterion. If u k (B) l k (B) ε or L =, stop. Step 8: Increment iteration counter. Increment k, go to Step 2. The following result states that after finitely many iterations the feasible points x k, k N, identified by Algorithm 4.10 approximate some globally minimal point of P (B) arbitrarily well. Proposition Let M(B) be nonempty, let MFCQ hold at all globally minimal points of P (B), assume that in Algorithm 4.10 some convergent and monotone M-dependent lower bounding procedure is used, and that the infinite branch-and-bound procedure does not terminate. Then, for any δ > 0 there exist a globally minimal point x of P (B) and some k N such that the feasible point x k satisfies x k x δ. 22
23 Proof. Let (X kj ) j N be an exhaustive subsequence of the boxes selected in Step 2. If infinitely many of the points x k j, j N, are chosen in Step 4a and, hence, are elements of X kj, then the assertion follows from Proposition 4.4. If, on the other hand, Step 4a is invoked only finitely often, then infinitely many of the points x k j are generated in Step 4b by perturbation of mid(x kj ) to a point in M(B). By Lemma 4.8, for some sufficiently large j N the point x k j is feasible. Moreover, the sequence (mid(x kj )) j N has a cluster point at a globally minimal point of P (B) by Proposition 4.4, and the perturbation term λ kj d kj tends to zero for j. This shows the assertion. In analogy to the proofs of Lemma 4.6 and Theorem 4.7, Proposition 4.11 implies our main convergence result. Theorem Let M(B) be nonempty, let MFCQ hold at all globally minimal points of P (B), assume that in Algorithm 4.10 some convergent and monotone M-dependent lower bounding procedure is used, and that the infinite branch-and-bound procedure does not terminate. Then, for any ε > 0, Algorithm 4.10 terminates after finitely many iterations. Remark Note that the assumption of MFCQ at all globally minimal points of P (B) is mild in the following sense: MFCQ is weaker than the so-called linear independence constraint qualification (LICQ), and in [10] it is shown that generically even LICQ holds at every point in M(B). Remark As discussed in Remark 2.8, under the assumptions of Theorem 4.12 the bounding operation of Algorithm 4.10 is consistent. 5 Numerical Results In this section we present our numerical results. The algorithm is implemented in C++ and compiled with GNU g++, version 4.6. To integrate interval arithmetic, the library PROFIL/BIAS V2, see [12], is linked in. All occuring linear optimization problems are solved with GNU Linear Programming Kit 4.45, see [14]. Bounds at the restrictions g i are provided through the use of optimal centered forms as described in [4]. As a bounding procedure for calculating lower bounds at the objective function we apply the αbb relaxation from Example 2.4. In order to make sure that we really obtain lower bounds, we used an outer approximation method to solve the convex subproblems, see [11]. 23
24 We applied the enhanced branch-and-bound framework to different test problems. In addition to the problems from Examples 3.1 and 3.2, a selection of the Hock-Schittkowski collection [8] was examined. We will identify these problems by HSk where k denotes the corresponding number from the test collection. A brief overview over the optimization problems is given in Table 1. Here, n denotes the number of variables and p refers to the number of inequality constraints other than box constraints. Problem n p f(x ) Example Example HS π HS HS HS HS HS HS HS ln(ln(10.0)) HS HS HS HS Table 1: Overview of the test problems Next we will present the numerical results of our algorithm. The tolerance for the termination of the branch-and-bound mechansim is set to ε = while the feasibility tolerance for the convex subproblems is set to ε sub = As it can be seen in Table 2, all problems are solved by our algorithm. The column LPs contains the number of linear programs which are solved in order to compute Mangasarian-Fromovitz directions. A comparison with Table 1 shows that we could determine valid lower and upper bounds within the given tolerance for all problems. We also implemented the algorithm stated in Example 2.4 (compare also [3]). In Table 3 the results are presented where we do not allow updates of the upper bound at ε f -feasible points. Observe that Example 3.1 is not solved correctly as we expected from the analysis in Section 3. In that case the algorithm was terminated after a maximum number of 100,000 iterations. The acceptance of ε f -feasible points with ε f 24 = 0.1 for updating the upper
25 Problem Iter. LPs u(b) l(b) u(b) f(x ) f(x ) l(b) Example Example HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS Table 2: Results of Algorithm 4.10 Problem Iter. LPs u(b) l(b) u(b) f(x ) f(x ) l(x) Example Example HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS Table 3: Standard αbb without acceptance of ε f -feasible points bound cannot be seen as a practical solution to solve the difficulties as we show in Table 4. Here, the value of u(b) for the problems Example 3.1, Example 3.2, HS018, HS019, HS023 and HS031 is lower than the globally minimal value from Table 1 and therefore not an upper bound. 25
26 Problem Iter. LPs u(b) l(b) u(b) f(x ) f(x ) l(b) Example Example HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS HS Table 4: Standard αbb with acceptance of ε f -feasible points 6 Final Remarks In this paper we presented an enhanced branch-and-bound framework which leads to convergent algorithms for solving global optimization problems under weak conditions at the bounding procedures and the minimal points. However, there are still a few issues we would like to mention. First we point out that further research is necessary to include nonlinear equality restrictions. Although formally restrictions of the form h(x) = 0 with h : R n R can be integrated in the algorithm via the reformulation ±h(x) 0, this approach destroys the MFCQ which is essential for our concept of determining upper bounds. At least all results concerning the lower bounds as well as Proposition 4.4 remain true, but without valid upper bounds the termination tolerance cannot be guaranteed. As a second issue we would like to mention that we experimented with an alternative to calculate valid upper bounds. The main idea is to not only divide the box with the lowest bound in the list but also all boxes in a certain neighbourhood of this box. Then all midpoints of these boxes are checked for feasiblity. Although we could prove convergence, we do not recommend this approach due to the fact that the number of items in the list may increase exponentially. Our numerical tests support this observation. Finally, we believe that our approach may be adapted to other partition strategies as, for example, simplicial subdivision. The details are left for future research. 26
On smoothness properties of optimal value functions at the boundary of their domain under complete convexity
On smoothness properties of optimal value functions at the boundary of their domain under complete convexity Oliver Stein # Nathan Sudermann-Merx June 14, 2013 Abstract This article studies continuity
More informationINTERIOR-POINT METHODS FOR NONCONVEX NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING: CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS AND COMPUTATIONAL PERFORMANCE
INTERIOR-POINT METHODS FOR NONCONVEX NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING: CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS AND COMPUTATIONAL PERFORMANCE HANDE Y. BENSON, ARUN SEN, AND DAVID F. SHANNO Abstract. In this paper, we present global
More informationCoercive polynomials and their Newton polytopes
Coercive polynomials and their Newton polytopes Tomáš Bajbar Oliver Stein # August 1, 2014 Abstract Many interesting properties of polynomials are closely related to the geometry of their Newton polytopes.
More informationOptimality Conditions for Constrained Optimization
72 CHAPTER 7 Optimality Conditions for Constrained Optimization 1. First Order Conditions In this section we consider first order optimality conditions for the constrained problem P : minimize f 0 (x)
More informationTechnische Universität Ilmenau Institut für Mathematik
Technische Universität Ilmenau Institut für Mathematik Preprint No. M 18/03 A branch-and-bound based algorithm for nonconvex multiobjective optimization Julia Niebling, Gabriele Eichfelder Februar 018
More informationA Geometric Framework for Nonconvex Optimization Duality using Augmented Lagrangian Functions
A Geometric Framework for Nonconvex Optimization Duality using Augmented Lagrangian Functions Angelia Nedić and Asuman Ozdaglar April 15, 2006 Abstract We provide a unifying geometric framework for the
More informationON GENERALIZED-CONVEX CONSTRAINED MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
ON GENERALIZED-CONVEX CONSTRAINED MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION CHRISTIAN GÜNTHER AND CHRISTIANE TAMMER Abstract. In this paper, we consider multi-objective optimization problems involving not necessarily
More informationKaisa Joki Adil M. Bagirov Napsu Karmitsa Marko M. Mäkelä. New Proximal Bundle Method for Nonsmooth DC Optimization
Kaisa Joki Adil M. Bagirov Napsu Karmitsa Marko M. Mäkelä New Proximal Bundle Method for Nonsmooth DC Optimization TUCS Technical Report No 1130, February 2015 New Proximal Bundle Method for Nonsmooth
More informationIntroduction to Real Analysis Alternative Chapter 1
Christopher Heil Introduction to Real Analysis Alternative Chapter 1 A Primer on Norms and Banach Spaces Last Updated: March 10, 2018 c 2018 by Christopher Heil Chapter 1 A Primer on Norms and Banach Spaces
More informationConstraint qualifications for nonlinear programming
Constraint qualifications for nonlinear programming Consider the standard nonlinear program min f (x) s.t. g i (x) 0 i = 1,..., m, h j (x) = 0 1 = 1,..., p, (NLP) with continuously differentiable functions
More informationA convergence result for an Outer Approximation Scheme
A convergence result for an Outer Approximation Scheme R. S. Burachik Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação, COPPE-UFRJ, CP 68511, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 21941-972, Brazil regi@cos.ufrj.br J. O. Lopes Departamento
More information3.10 Lagrangian relaxation
3.10 Lagrangian relaxation Consider a generic ILP problem min {c t x : Ax b, Dx d, x Z n } with integer coefficients. Suppose Dx d are the complicating constraints. Often the linear relaxation and the
More informationAN INTERIOR-POINT METHOD FOR NONLINEAR OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS WITH LOCATABLE AND SEPARABLE NONSMOOTHNESS
AN INTERIOR-POINT METHOD FOR NONLINEAR OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS WITH LOCATABLE AND SEPARABLE NONSMOOTHNESS MARTIN SCHMIDT Abstract. Many real-world optimization models comse nonconvex and nonlinear as well
More informationCONVERGENCE ANALYSIS OF AN INTERIOR-POINT METHOD FOR NONCONVEX NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING
CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS OF AN INTERIOR-POINT METHOD FOR NONCONVEX NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING HANDE Y. BENSON, ARUN SEN, AND DAVID F. SHANNO Abstract. In this paper, we present global and local convergence results
More informationSome new facts about sequential quadratic programming methods employing second derivatives
To appear in Optimization Methods and Software Vol. 00, No. 00, Month 20XX, 1 24 Some new facts about sequential quadratic programming methods employing second derivatives A.F. Izmailov a and M.V. Solodov
More informationCONSTRAINT QUALIFICATIONS, LAGRANGIAN DUALITY & SADDLE POINT OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS
CONSTRAINT QUALIFICATIONS, LAGRANGIAN DUALITY & SADDLE POINT OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS A Dissertation Submitted For The Award of the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Mathematics Neelam Patel School of Mathematics
More informationImplications of the Constant Rank Constraint Qualification
Mathematical Programming manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Implications of the Constant Rank Constraint Qualification Shu Lu Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract This paper investigates
More informationUNDERGROUND LECTURE NOTES 1: Optimality Conditions for Constrained Optimization Problems
UNDERGROUND LECTURE NOTES 1: Optimality Conditions for Constrained Optimization Problems Robert M. Freund February 2016 c 2016 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. 1 1 Introduction
More informationConstrained Optimization Theory
Constrained Optimization Theory Stephen J. Wright 1 2 Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison. IMA, August 2016 Stephen Wright (UW-Madison) Constrained Optimization Theory IMA, August
More informationSolving Dual Problems
Lecture 20 Solving Dual Problems We consider a constrained problem where, in addition to the constraint set X, there are also inequality and linear equality constraints. Specifically the minimization problem
More informationA projection-type method for generalized variational inequalities with dual solutions
Available online at www.isr-publications.com/jnsa J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 10 (2017), 4812 4821 Research Article Journal Homepage: www.tjnsa.com - www.isr-publications.com/jnsa A projection-type method
More informationFIRST YEAR CALCULUS W W L CHEN
FIRST YER CLCULUS W W L CHEN c W W L Chen, 994, 28. This chapter is available free to all individuals, on the understanding that it is not to be used for financial gain, and may be downloaded and/or photocopied,
More informationImplementation of an αbb-type underestimator in the SGO-algorithm
Implementation of an αbb-type underestimator in the SGO-algorithm Process Design & Systems Engineering November 3, 2010 Refining without branching Could the αbb underestimator be used without an explicit
More informationConvex Functions and Optimization
Chapter 5 Convex Functions and Optimization 5.1 Convex Functions Our next topic is that of convex functions. Again, we will concentrate on the context of a map f : R n R although the situation can be generalized
More informationCONSTRAINED NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING
149 CONSTRAINED NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING We now turn to methods for general constrained nonlinear programming. These may be broadly classified into two categories: 1. TRANSFORMATION METHODS: In this approach
More informationON LICQ AND THE UNIQUENESS OF LAGRANGE MULTIPLIERS
ON LICQ AND THE UNIQUENESS OF LAGRANGE MULTIPLIERS GERD WACHSMUTH Abstract. Kyparisis proved in 1985 that a strict version of the Mangasarian- Fromovitz constraint qualification (MFCQ) is equivalent to
More information5 Handling Constraints
5 Handling Constraints Engineering design optimization problems are very rarely unconstrained. Moreover, the constraints that appear in these problems are typically nonlinear. This motivates our interest
More informationA Unified Analysis of Nonconvex Optimization Duality and Penalty Methods with General Augmenting Functions
A Unified Analysis of Nonconvex Optimization Duality and Penalty Methods with General Augmenting Functions Angelia Nedić and Asuman Ozdaglar April 16, 2006 Abstract In this paper, we study a unifying framework
More informationOptimization and Optimal Control in Banach Spaces
Optimization and Optimal Control in Banach Spaces Bernhard Schmitzer October 19, 2017 1 Convex non-smooth optimization with proximal operators Remark 1.1 (Motivation). Convex optimization: easier to solve,
More informationFIRST- AND SECOND-ORDER OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMS WITH VANISHING CONSTRAINTS 1. Tim Hoheisel and Christian Kanzow
FIRST- AND SECOND-ORDER OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMS WITH VANISHING CONSTRAINTS 1 Tim Hoheisel and Christian Kanzow Dedicated to Jiří Outrata on the occasion of his 60th birthday Preprint
More informationCharacterizations of Solution Sets of Fréchet Differentiable Problems with Quasiconvex Objective Function
Characterizations of Solution Sets of Fréchet Differentiable Problems with Quasiconvex Objective Function arxiv:1805.03847v1 [math.oc] 10 May 2018 Vsevolod I. Ivanov Department of Mathematics, Technical
More informationConvex Optimization Notes
Convex Optimization Notes Jonathan Siegel January 2017 1 Convex Analysis This section is devoted to the study of convex functions f : B R {+ } and convex sets U B, for B a Banach space. The case of B =
More informationSome Inexact Hybrid Proximal Augmented Lagrangian Algorithms
Some Inexact Hybrid Proximal Augmented Lagrangian Algorithms Carlos Humes Jr. a, Benar F. Svaiter b, Paulo J. S. Silva a, a Dept. of Computer Science, University of São Paulo, Brazil Email: {humes,rsilva}@ime.usp.br
More informationExistence and Uniqueness
Chapter 3 Existence and Uniqueness An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect
More informationPrimal-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
More informationA full-newton step infeasible interior-point algorithm for linear programming based on a kernel function
A full-newton step infeasible interior-point algorithm for linear programming based on a kernel function Zhongyi Liu, Wenyu Sun Abstract This paper proposes an infeasible interior-point algorithm with
More informationn [ F (b j ) F (a j ) ], n j=1(a j, b j ] E (4.1)
1.4. CONSTRUCTION OF LEBESGUE-STIELTJES MEASURES In this section we shall put to use the Carathéodory-Hahn theory, in order to construct measures with certain desirable properties first on the real line
More informationPriority Programme 1962
Priority Programme 1962 An Example Comparing the Standard and Modified Augmented Lagrangian Methods Christian Kanzow, Daniel Steck Non-smooth and Complementarity-based Distributed Parameter Systems: Simulation
More informationLyapunov Stability Theory
Lyapunov Stability Theory Peter Al Hokayem and Eduardo Gallestey March 16, 2015 1 Introduction In this lecture we consider the stability of equilibrium points of autonomous nonlinear systems, both in continuous
More informationSeptember Math Course: First Order Derivative
September Math Course: First Order Derivative Arina Nikandrova Functions Function y = f (x), where x is either be a scalar or a vector of several variables (x,..., x n ), can be thought of as a rule which
More informationThe Chromatic Number of Ordered Graphs With Constrained Conflict Graphs
The Chromatic Number of Ordered Graphs With Constrained Conflict Graphs Maria Axenovich and Jonathan Rollin and Torsten Ueckerdt September 3, 016 Abstract An ordered graph G is a graph whose vertex set
More informationPart 3: Trust-region methods for unconstrained optimization. Nick Gould (RAL)
Part 3: Trust-region methods for unconstrained optimization Nick Gould (RAL) minimize x IR n f(x) MSc course on nonlinear optimization UNCONSTRAINED MINIMIZATION minimize x IR n f(x) where the objective
More informationSome Background Material
Chapter 1 Some Background Material In the first chapter, we present a quick review of elementary - but important - material as a way of dipping our toes in the water. This chapter also introduces important
More informationInexact Newton Methods and Nonlinear Constrained Optimization
Inexact Newton Methods and Nonlinear Constrained Optimization Frank E. Curtis EPSRC Symposium Capstone Conference Warwick Mathematics Institute July 2, 2009 Outline PDE-Constrained Optimization Newton
More informationTMA 4180 Optimeringsteori KARUSH-KUHN-TUCKER THEOREM
TMA 4180 Optimeringsteori KARUSH-KUHN-TUCKER THEOREM H. E. Krogstad, IMF, Spring 2012 Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) Theorem is the most central theorem in constrained optimization, and since the proof is scattered
More informationAn Active Set Strategy for Solving Optimization Problems with up to 200,000,000 Nonlinear Constraints
An Active Set Strategy for Solving Optimization Problems with up to 200,000,000 Nonlinear Constraints Klaus Schittkowski Department of Computer Science, University of Bayreuth 95440 Bayreuth, Germany e-mail:
More informationProblem 3. Give an example of a sequence of continuous functions on a compact domain converging pointwise but not uniformly to a continuous function
Problem 3. Give an example of a sequence of continuous functions on a compact domain converging pointwise but not uniformly to a continuous function Solution. If we does not need the pointwise limit of
More informationAn Inexact Newton Method for Optimization
New York University Brown Applied Mathematics Seminar, February 10, 2009 Brief biography New York State College of William and Mary (B.S.) Northwestern University (M.S. & Ph.D.) Courant Institute (Postdoc)
More informationNotes on Complex Analysis
Michael Papadimitrakis Notes on Complex Analysis Department of Mathematics University of Crete Contents The complex plane.. The complex plane...................................2 Argument and polar representation.........................
More informationLecture 13: Constrained optimization
2010-12-03 Basic ideas A nonlinearly constrained problem must somehow be converted relaxed into a problem which we can solve (a linear/quadratic or unconstrained problem) We solve a sequence of such problems
More information6 Lecture 6: More constructions with Huber rings
6 Lecture 6: More constructions with Huber rings 6.1 Introduction Recall from Definition 5.2.4 that a Huber ring is a commutative topological ring A equipped with an open subring A 0, such that the subspace
More informationA Continuation Method for the Solution of Monotone Variational Inequality Problems
A Continuation Method for the Solution of Monotone Variational Inequality Problems Christian Kanzow Institute of Applied Mathematics University of Hamburg Bundesstrasse 55 D 20146 Hamburg Germany e-mail:
More informationLecture 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
More informationMA651 Topology. Lecture 9. Compactness 2.
MA651 Topology. Lecture 9. Compactness 2. This text is based on the following books: Topology by James Dugundgji Fundamental concepts of topology by Peter O Neil Elements of Mathematics: General Topology
More informationLegendre-Fenchel transforms in a nutshell
1 2 3 Legendre-Fenchel transforms in a nutshell Hugo Touchette School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK Started: July 11, 2005; last compiled: August 14, 2007
More informationInterior-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
More informationCONVERGENCE PROPERTIES OF COMBINED RELAXATION METHODS
CONVERGENCE PROPERTIES OF COMBINED RELAXATION METHODS Igor V. Konnov Department of Applied Mathematics, Kazan University Kazan 420008, Russia Preprint, March 2002 ISBN 951-42-6687-0 AMS classification:
More informationMATH41011/MATH61011: FOURIER SERIES AND LEBESGUE INTEGRATION. Extra Reading Material for Level 4 and Level 6
MATH41011/MATH61011: FOURIER SERIES AND LEBESGUE INTEGRATION Extra Reading Material for Level 4 and Level 6 Part A: Construction of Lebesgue Measure The first part the extra material consists of the construction
More informationPart V. 17 Introduction: What are measures and why measurable sets. Lebesgue Integration Theory
Part V 7 Introduction: What are measures and why measurable sets Lebesgue Integration Theory Definition 7. (Preliminary). A measure on a set is a function :2 [ ] such that. () = 2. If { } = is a finite
More information1 Convexity, Convex Relaxations, and Global Optimization
1 Conveity, Conve Relaations, and Global Optimization Algorithms 1 1.1 Minima Consider the nonlinear optimization problem in a Euclidean space: where the feasible region. min f(), R n Definition (global
More informationLinear Programming: Simplex
Linear Programming: Simplex Stephen J. Wright 1 2 Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison. IMA, August 2016 Stephen Wright (UW-Madison) Linear Programming: Simplex IMA, August 2016
More informationWorst case analysis for a general class of on-line lot-sizing heuristics
Worst case analysis for a general class of on-line lot-sizing heuristics Wilco van den Heuvel a, Albert P.M. Wagelmans a a Econometric Institute and Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University
More informationSolving generalized semi-infinite programs by reduction to simpler problems.
Solving generalized semi-infinite programs by reduction to simpler problems. G. Still, University of Twente January 20, 2004 Abstract. The paper intends to give a unifying treatment of different approaches
More informationOn the Convergence of Adaptive Stochastic Search Methods for Constrained and Multi-Objective Black-Box Global Optimization
On the Convergence of Adaptive Stochastic Search Methods for Constrained and Multi-Objective Black-Box Global Optimization Rommel G. Regis Citation: R. G. Regis. 2016. On the convergence of adaptive stochastic
More informationFinite Dimensional Optimization Part I: The KKT Theorem 1
John Nachbar Washington University March 26, 2018 1 Introduction Finite Dimensional Optimization Part I: The KKT Theorem 1 These notes characterize maxima and minima in terms of first derivatives. I focus
More informationConvex Optimization and Modeling
Convex Optimization and Modeling Duality Theory and Optimality Conditions 5th lecture, 12.05.2010 Jun.-Prof. Matthias Hein Program of today/next lecture Lagrangian and duality: the Lagrangian the dual
More informationLinear Programming Redux
Linear Programming Redux Jim Bremer May 12, 2008 The purpose of these notes is to review the basics of linear programming and the simplex method in a clear, concise, and comprehensive way. The book contains
More informationTree sets. Reinhard Diestel
1 Tree sets Reinhard Diestel Abstract We study an abstract notion of tree structure which generalizes treedecompositions of graphs and matroids. Unlike tree-decompositions, which are too closely linked
More informationSupplementary lecture notes on linear programming. We will present an algorithm to solve linear programs of the form. maximize.
Cornell University, Fall 2016 Supplementary lecture notes on linear programming CS 6820: Algorithms 26 Sep 28 Sep 1 The Simplex Method We will present an algorithm to solve linear programs of the form
More informationA New Trust Region Algorithm Using Radial Basis Function Models
A New Trust Region Algorithm Using Radial Basis Function Models Seppo Pulkkinen University of Turku Department of Mathematics July 14, 2010 Outline 1 Introduction 2 Background Taylor series approximations
More informationSharpening the Karush-John optimality conditions
Sharpening the Karush-John optimality conditions Arnold Neumaier and Hermann Schichl Institut für Mathematik, Universität Wien Strudlhofgasse 4, A-1090 Wien, Austria email: Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at,
More informationProblem List MATH 5143 Fall, 2013
Problem List MATH 5143 Fall, 2013 On any problem you may use the result of any previous problem (even if you were not able to do it) and any information given in class up to the moment the problem was
More informationAn Adaptive Partition-based Approach for Solving Two-stage Stochastic Programs with Fixed Recourse
An Adaptive Partition-based Approach for Solving Two-stage Stochastic Programs with Fixed Recourse Yongjia Song, James Luedtke Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, ysong3@vcu.edu University
More information3 Integration and Expectation
3 Integration and Expectation 3.1 Construction of the Lebesgue Integral Let (, F, µ) be a measure space (not necessarily a probability space). Our objective will be to define the Lebesgue integral R fdµ
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.ag] 24 Jun 2015
TRIANGULATIONS OF MONOTONE FAMILIES I: TWO-DIMENSIONAL FAMILIES arxiv:1402.0460v2 [math.ag] 24 Jun 2015 SAUGATA BASU, ANDREI GABRIELOV, AND NICOLAI VOROBJOV Abstract. Let K R n be a compact definable set
More informationHierarchy among Automata on Linear Orderings
Hierarchy among Automata on Linear Orderings Véronique Bruyère Institut d Informatique Université de Mons-Hainaut Olivier Carton LIAFA Université Paris 7 Abstract In a preceding paper, automata and rational
More informationIterative Reweighted Minimization Methods for l p Regularized Unconstrained Nonlinear Programming
Iterative Reweighted Minimization Methods for l p Regularized Unconstrained Nonlinear Programming Zhaosong Lu October 5, 2012 (Revised: June 3, 2013; September 17, 2013) Abstract In this paper we study
More informationA Brief Introduction to the Theory of Lebesgue Integration
A Brief Introduction to the Theory of Lebesgue Integration Kevin Sigler June 8, 25 Introduction Gonzalez-Velasco s paper The Lebesgue Integral as a Riemann Integral provides a non-standard, direct construction
More informationNear-Potential Games: Geometry and Dynamics
Near-Potential Games: Geometry and Dynamics Ozan Candogan, Asuman Ozdaglar and Pablo A. Parrilo September 6, 2011 Abstract Potential games are a special class of games for which many adaptive user dynamics
More informationOn Semicontinuity of Convex-valued Multifunctions and Cesari s Property (Q)
On Semicontinuity of Convex-valued Multifunctions and Cesari s Property (Q) Andreas Löhne May 2, 2005 (last update: November 22, 2005) Abstract We investigate two types of semicontinuity for set-valued
More informationTHE UNIQUE MINIMAL DUAL REPRESENTATION OF A CONVEX FUNCTION
THE UNIQUE MINIMAL DUAL REPRESENTATION OF A CONVEX FUNCTION HALUK ERGIN AND TODD SARVER Abstract. Suppose (i) X is a separable Banach space, (ii) C is a convex subset of X that is a Baire space (when endowed
More informationC 1 convex extensions of 1-jets from arbitrary subsets of R n, and applications
C 1 convex extensions of 1-jets from arbitrary subsets of R n, and applications Daniel Azagra and Carlos Mudarra 11th Whitney Extension Problems Workshop Trinity College, Dublin, August 2018 Two related
More informationLectures on Parametric Optimization: An Introduction
-2 Lectures on Parametric Optimization: An Introduction Georg Still University of Twente, The Netherlands version: March 29, 2018 Contents Chapter 1. Introduction and notation 3 1.1. Introduction 3 1.2.
More informationA Parametric Simplex Algorithm for Linear Vector Optimization Problems
A Parametric Simplex Algorithm for Linear Vector Optimization Problems Birgit Rudloff Firdevs Ulus Robert Vanderbei July 9, 2015 Abstract In this paper, a parametric simplex algorithm for solving linear
More informationSet, functions and Euclidean space. Seungjin Han
Set, functions and Euclidean space Seungjin Han September, 2018 1 Some Basics LOGIC A is necessary for B : If B holds, then A holds. B A A B is the contraposition of B A. A is sufficient for B: If A holds,
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.oc] 3 Jan 2019
The Product Knapsack Problem: Approximation and Complexity arxiv:1901.00695v1 [math.oc] 3 Jan 2019 Ulrich Pferschy a, Joachim Schauer a, Clemens Thielen b a Department of Statistics and Operations Research,
More informationMORE ON CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS AND SETS
Chapter 6 MORE ON CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS AND SETS This chapter can be considered enrichment material containing also several more advanced topics and may be skipped in its entirety. You can proceed directly
More informationAN AUGMENTED LAGRANGIAN AFFINE SCALING METHOD FOR NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING
AN AUGMENTED LAGRANGIAN AFFINE SCALING METHOD FOR NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING XIAO WANG AND HONGCHAO ZHANG Abstract. In this paper, we propose an Augmented Lagrangian Affine Scaling (ALAS) algorithm for general
More informationLecture 3: Lagrangian duality and algorithms for the Lagrangian dual problem
Lecture 3: Lagrangian duality and algorithms for the Lagrangian dual problem Michael Patriksson 0-0 The Relaxation Theorem 1 Problem: find f := infimum f(x), x subject to x S, (1a) (1b) where f : R n R
More informationSubdifferential representation of convex functions: refinements and applications
Subdifferential representation of convex functions: refinements and applications Joël Benoist & Aris Daniilidis Abstract Every lower semicontinuous convex function can be represented through its subdifferential
More informationResearch Article A New Global Optimization Algorithm for Solving Generalized Geometric Programming
Mathematical Problems in Engineering Volume 2010, Article ID 346965, 12 pages doi:10.1155/2010/346965 Research Article A New Global Optimization Algorithm for Solving Generalized Geometric Programming
More informationMeasure Theory and Lebesgue Integration. Joshua H. Lifton
Measure Theory and Lebesgue Integration Joshua H. Lifton Originally published 31 March 1999 Revised 5 September 2004 bstract This paper originally came out of my 1999 Swarthmore College Mathematics Senior
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL TO IRONING WITHOUT CONTROL
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL TO IRONING WITHOUT CONTROL JUUSO TOIKKA This document contains omitted proofs and additional results for the manuscript Ironing without Control. Appendix A contains the proofs for
More information02. Measure and integral. 1. Borel-measurable functions and pointwise limits
(October 3, 2017) 02. Measure and integral Paul Garrett garrett@math.umn.edu http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/ [This document is http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/m/real/notes 2017-18/02 measure and integral.pdf]
More informationNonlinear Stationary Subdivision
Nonlinear Stationary Subdivision Michael S. Floater SINTEF P. O. Box 4 Blindern, 034 Oslo, Norway E-mail: michael.floater@math.sintef.no Charles A. Micchelli IBM Corporation T.J. Watson Research Center
More informationEfficient packing of unit squares in a square
Loughborough University Institutional Repository Efficient packing of unit squares in a square This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository by the/an author. Additional
More informationA Proximal Method for Identifying Active Manifolds
A Proximal Method for Identifying Active Manifolds W.L. Hare April 18, 2006 Abstract The minimization of an objective function over a constraint set can often be simplified if the active manifold of the
More information(x x 0 ) 2 + (y y 0 ) 2 = ε 2, (2.11)
2.2 Limits and continuity In order to introduce the concepts of limit and continuity for functions of more than one variable we need first to generalise the concept of neighbourhood of a point from R to
More informationNumerical Optimization
Constrained Optimization Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560 012, India. NPTEL Course on Constrained Optimization Constrained Optimization Problem: min h j (x) 0,
More informationTwice Differentiable Characterizations of Convexity Notions for Functions on Full Dimensional Convex Sets
Schedae Informaticae Vol. 21 (2012): 55 63 doi: 10.4467/20838476SI.12.004.0814 Twice Differentiable Characterizations of Convexity Notions for Functions on Full Dimensional Convex Sets Oliver Stein Institute
More information