Convex Optimization & Parsimony of L p-balls representation

Similar documents
The moment-lp and moment-sos approaches

A GENERALIZATION OF THE LÖWNER-JOHN S ELLIPSOID THEOREM

Convergence rates of moment-sum-of-squares hierarchies for volume approximation of semialgebraic sets

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

A new look at nonnegativity on closed sets

Strong duality in Lasserre s hierarchy for polynomial optimization

HW1 solutions. 1. α Ef(x) β, where Ef(x) is the expected value of f(x), i.e., Ef(x) = n. i=1 p if(a i ). (The function f : R R is given.

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

Moments and Positive Polynomials for Optimization II: LP- VERSUS SDP-relaxations

Moments and Positive Polynomials for Optimization II: LP- VERSUS SDP-relaxations

Approximate Optimal Designs for Multivariate Polynomial Regression

Semidefinite Programming

Convex Optimization M2

CONVEXITY IN SEMI-ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY AND POLYNOMIAL OPTIMIZATION

The moment-lp and moment-sos approaches in optimization

5. Duality. Lagrangian

Lecture: Duality of LP, SOCP and SDP

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

Optimization over Polynomials with Sums of Squares and Moment Matrices

Lecture Note 5: Semidefinite Programming for Stability Analysis

Convex Optimization Boyd & Vandenberghe. 5. Duality

What can be expressed via Conic Quadratic and Semidefinite Programming?

A Brief Review on Convex Optimization

Minimum volume semialgebraic sets for robust estimation

Duality. Lagrange dual problem weak and strong duality optimality conditions perturbation and sensitivity analysis generalized inequalities

Ranks of Real Symmetric Tensors

Unbounded Convex Semialgebraic Sets as Spectrahedral Shadows

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

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

CS-E4830 Kernel Methods in Machine Learning

Extreme Abridgment of Boyd and Vandenberghe s Convex Optimization

Convex sets, conic matrix factorizations and conic rank lower bounds

Exact SDP Relaxations for Classes of Nonlinear Semidefinite Programming Problems

Geometric problems. Chapter Projection on a set. The distance of a point x 0 R n to a closed set C R n, in the norm, is defined as

1 Directional Derivatives and Differentiability

Hilbert s 17th Problem to Semidefinite Programming & Convex Algebraic Geometry

Lecture: Duality.

CSCI : Optimization and Control of Networks. Review on Convex Optimization

12. Interior-point methods

Convex computation of the region of attraction for polynomial control systems

Advanced SDPs Lecture 6: March 16, 2017

4. Convex optimization problems

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

On Polynomial Optimization over Non-compact Semi-algebraic Sets

Real solving polynomial equations with semidefinite programming

Towards Solving Bilevel Optimization Problems in Quantum Information Theory

Constrained optimization

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

Lecture 5 : Projections

ANALYSIS QUALIFYING EXAM FALL 2017: SOLUTIONS. 1 cos(nx) lim. n 2 x 2. g n (x) = 1 cos(nx) n 2 x 2. x 2.

Minimum Ellipsoid Bounds for Solutions of Polynomial Systems via Sum of Squares

Convex Optimization and SVM

approximation algorithms I

Convex computation of the region of attraction for polynomial control systems

Tools from Lebesgue integration

4. Algebra and Duality

Remarks on Extremization Problems Related To Young s Inequality

Constrained Optimization and Lagrangian Duality

8. Geometric problems

that a broad class of conic convex polynomial optimization problems, called

6-1 The Positivstellensatz P. Parrilo and S. Lall, ECC

EE 227A: Convex Optimization and Applications October 14, 2008

I.3. LMI DUALITY. Didier HENRION EECI Graduate School on Control Supélec - Spring 2010

On John type ellipsoids

Lecture 6: Conic Optimization September 8

A Sharpened Hausdorff-Young Inequality

EE/AA 578, Univ of Washington, Fall Duality

Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation

Integer programming, Barvinok s counting algorithm and Gomory relaxations

Sum of Squares Relaxations for Polynomial Semi-definite Programming

Research overview. Seminar September 4, Lehigh University Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering. Research overview.

Global Optimality Conditions in Maximizing a Convex Quadratic Function under Convex Quadratic Constraints

Comparison of Lasserre s measure based bounds for polynomial optimization to bounds obtained by simulated annealing

Convergence Rate of Nonlinear Switched Systems

ICS-E4030 Kernel Methods in Machine Learning

ALGEBRAIC DEGREE OF POLYNOMIAL OPTIMIZATION. 1. Introduction. f 0 (x)

15. Conic optimization

Lagrangian-Conic Relaxations, Part I: A Unified Framework and Its Applications to Quadratic Optimization Problems

Easy and not so easy multifacility location problems... (In 20 minutes.)

Notes on the decomposition result of Karlin et al. [2] for the hierarchy of Lasserre by M. Laurent, December 13, 2012

Semialgebraic Relaxations using Moment-SOS Hierarchies

Immerse Metric Space Homework

Statistical Machine Learning from Data

Lecture 5. 1 Goermans-Williamson Algorithm for the maxcut problem

Laplace s Equation. Chapter Mean Value Formulas

An Exact Jacobian SDP Relaxation for Polynomial Optimization

L p Spaces and Convexity

Trust Region Problems with Linear Inequality Constraints: Exact SDP Relaxation, Global Optimality and Robust Optimization

Semidefinite Programming

LOWER BOUNDS FOR A POLYNOMIAL IN TERMS OF ITS COEFFICIENTS

ON THE MINIMUM VOLUME COVERING ELLIPSOID OF ELLIPSOIDS

EE/ACM Applications of Convex Optimization in Signal Processing and Communications Lecture 18

How to generate weakly infeasible semidefinite programs via Lasserre s relaxations for polynomial optimization

subject to (x 2)(x 4) u,

An introduction to some aspects of functional analysis

Non-commutative polynomial optimization

Lecture Note 1: Background

Summer School: Semidefinite Optimization

Solving Global Optimization Problems with Sparse Polynomials and Unbounded Semialgebraic Feasible Sets

STAT 200C: High-dimensional Statistics

Transcription:

Convex Optimization & Parsimony of L p -balls representation LAAS-CNRS and Institute of Mathematics, Toulouse, France IMA, January 2016

Motivation Unit balls associated with nonnegative homogeneous polynomials An important convexity property Optimality in unit ball representation

Motivation Unit balls associated with nonnegative homogeneous polynomials An important convexity property Optimality in unit ball representation

Motivation Unit balls associated with nonnegative homogeneous polynomials An important convexity property Optimality in unit ball representation

Motivation Unit balls associated with nonnegative homogeneous polynomials An important convexity property Optimality in unit ball representation

It is well-known that the shape of the Euclidean unit ball B 2 = { x : n i=1 x 2 i 1 } has spectacular geometric properties w.r.t. other shapes. For instance, the sphere has the smallest surface area among all surfaces enclosing a given volume and it encloses the largest volume among all closed surfaces with a given surface area. Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen even describe eleven geometric properties of the sphere...

But B 2 has also another spectacular (non-geometric) property related to its algebraic representation which is obvious even to people with a little background in Mathematics: Its defining polynomial x g (2) (x) := n i=1 x i 2 cannot be simpler! Indeed, among all quadratic homogeneous polynomials x g(x) = i j g ij x i x j that define a bounded unit ball { x : g(x) 1 }, g (2) is the one that minimizes the cardinality pseudo-norm" g 0 := #{ (i, j) : g ij 0 }. Only n coefficients of g (2) (out of potentially O(n 2 )) do not vanish and there cannot be less than n non zero coefficients to define a bounded ball { x : g(x) 1 }.

But B 2 has also another spectacular (non-geometric) property related to its algebraic representation which is obvious even to people with a little background in Mathematics: Its defining polynomial x g (2) (x) := n i=1 x i 2 cannot be simpler! Indeed, among all quadratic homogeneous polynomials x g(x) = i j g ij x i x j that define a bounded unit ball { x : g(x) 1 }, g (2) is the one that minimizes the cardinality pseudo-norm" g 0 := #{ (i, j) : g ij 0 }. Only n coefficients of g (2) (out of potentially O(n 2 )) do not vanish and there cannot be less than n non zero coefficients to define a bounded ball { x : g(x) 1 }.

But B 2 has also another spectacular (non-geometric) property related to its algebraic representation which is obvious even to people with a little background in Mathematics: Its defining polynomial x g (2) (x) := n i=1 x i 2 cannot be simpler! Indeed, among all quadratic homogeneous polynomials x g(x) = i j g ij x i x j that define a bounded unit ball { x : g(x) 1 }, g (2) is the one that minimizes the cardinality pseudo-norm" g 0 := #{ (i, j) : g ij 0 }. Only n coefficients of g (2) (out of potentially O(n 2 )) do not vanish and there cannot be less than n non zero coefficients to define a bounded ball { x : g(x) 1 }.

But B 2 has also another spectacular (non-geometric) property related to its algebraic representation which is obvious even to people with a little background in Mathematics: Its defining polynomial x g (2) (x) := n i=1 x i 2 cannot be simpler! Indeed, among all quadratic homogeneous polynomials x g(x) = i j g ij x i x j that define a bounded unit ball { x : g(x) 1 }, g (2) is the one that minimizes the cardinality pseudo-norm" g 0 := #{ (i, j) : g ij 0 }. Only n coefficients of g (2) (out of potentially O(n 2 )) do not vanish and there cannot be less than n non zero coefficients to define a bounded ball { x : g(x) 1 }.

The same is true for the L d -unit ball B d = { x : n i=1 x i d 1 } and its defining polynomial x g (d) (x) := i x i d for any even integer d > 2, when compared to any other homogeneous polynomial g of degree d whose sublevel set { x : g(x) 1 } has finite Lebesgue volume (and so g is necessarily nonnegative). Indeed, again g (d) 0 = n, i.e., out of potentially ( ) n+d 1 d coefficients of g (d), only n do not vanish!

The same is true for the L d -unit ball B d = { x : n i=1 x i d 1 } and its defining polynomial x g (d) (x) := i x i d for any even integer d > 2, when compared to any other homogeneous polynomial g of degree d whose sublevel set { x : g(x) 1 } has finite Lebesgue volume (and so g is necessarily nonnegative). Indeed, again g (d) 0 = n, i.e., out of potentially ( ) n+d 1 d coefficients of g (d), only n do not vanish!

Let Hom[x] d R[x] d be the space of homogeneous polynomials of degree d. In other words, g (d) is an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 0 : inf g { g 0 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, where the minimum is taken over all homogeneous polynomials of degree d, and ρ d denotes the Lebesgue volume of the L d -unit ball B d.

Question I: Can we recover this parsimony property by minimizing the sparsity-inducing l 1 -norm g 1 := α g α, instead of the nasty" cardinality pseudo-norm 0? In other words, Is g (d) also an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 1 : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, where the minimum is taken over all homogeneous polynomials of degree d, and ρ d denotes the Lebesgue volume of the L d -unit ball B d.

Question I: Can we recover this parsimony property by minimizing the sparsity-inducing l 1 -norm g 1 := α g α, instead of the nasty" cardinality pseudo-norm 0? In other words, Is g (d) also an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 1 : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, where the minimum is taken over all homogeneous polynomials of degree d, and ρ d denotes the Lebesgue volume of the L d -unit ball B d.

Question II: What is an optimal solution if one now minimizes the weighted l 2 -norm g 2 := α c α g α 2, c α = ( i α i)! α 1! α n! instead of the l 1 -norm 1? In other words, What is an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 2 : inf g { g 2 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, where the minimum is taken over all homogeneous polynomials of degree d, and ρ d denotes the Lebesgue volume of the L d -unit ball B d.

Question II: What is an optimal solution if one now minimizes the weighted l 2 -norm g 2 := α c α g α 2, c α = ( i α i)! α 1! α n! instead of the l 1 -norm 1? In other words, What is an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 2 : inf g { g 2 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, where the minimum is taken over all homogeneous polynomials of degree d, and ρ d denotes the Lebesgue volume of the L d -unit ball B d.

Given d N, let v d (x) := (x α ) be the vector of all monomials x α of degree α = d. Restrict to SOS homogeneous polynomials of degree 2d x g Q (x) := v d (x) T Qv d (x), for some real symmetric Q 0. Question III: What is an optimal solution if one minimizes the small rank-inducing norm trace(q) (also known as the nuclear norm of Q) instead of the l 1 -norm g Q 1? In other words, What is an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 3 : inf { trace(q) : vol (G Q) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, Q 0 One expect a solution g Q which consists of a small number of squares.

Given d N, let v d (x) := (x α ) be the vector of all monomials x α of degree α = d. Restrict to SOS homogeneous polynomials of degree 2d x g Q (x) := v d (x) T Qv d (x), for some real symmetric Q 0. Question III: What is an optimal solution if one minimizes the small rank-inducing norm trace(q) (also known as the nuclear norm of Q) instead of the l 1 -norm g Q 1? In other words, What is an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 3 : inf { trace(q) : vol (G Q) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, Q 0 One expect a solution g Q which consists of a small number of squares.

Finally we will consider generalized" homogeneous polynomials x g(x) := α g α x α, α Q, and investigate problem P 1 : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d }, in this new context.

A little detour g : R n R is a positively homogeneous (PH) function of degree" d R if for every λ > 0, g(λ x) = λ d g(x), x. g : R n R is a homogeneous function of degree d R if for every λ, g(λ x) = λ d g(x), x. For instance x x is positively homogeneous of degree d = 1 (but not homogeneous).

A little detour g : R n R is a positively homogeneous (PH) function of degree" d R if for every λ > 0, g(λ x) = λ d g(x), x. g : R n R is a homogeneous function of degree d R if for every λ, g(λ x) = λ d g(x), x. For instance x x is positively homogeneous of degree d = 1 (but not homogeneous).

Theorem Let g be a nonnegative PH of degree 0 < d R such that G := {x : g(x) 1} has finite Lebesgue volume: vol ({x : g(x) y}) = y n/d exp( g) dx. Γ(1 + n/d) R n Was already proved in Morosov & Shakirov 1 in the context of homogeneous polynomials and Integral discriminants. Also extends to quasi-homogeneous polynomials 1 Morosov & Shakirov. Introduction to integral discriminants, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2009)

Theorem Let g be a nonnegative PH of degree 0 < d R such that G := {x : g(x) 1} has finite Lebesgue volume: vol ({x : g(x) y}) = y n/d exp( g) dx. Γ(1 + n/d) R n Was already proved in Morosov & Shakirov 1 in the context of homogeneous polynomials and Integral discriminants. Also extends to quasi-homogeneous polynomials 1 Morosov & Shakirov. Introduction to integral discriminants, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2009)

A simple proof via Laplace transform Let y v(y) := vol({x : g(x) y}). As g is PH of degree d then so is v with degree n/d. Moreover v(y) = 0 for all y < 0. Therefore v(y) = y n/d v(1) = y n/d vol({x : g(x) 1}). In particular, its Laplace transform λ L v (λ) satisfies: L v (λ) = 0 = v(1) exp( λy)v(y) dy 0 exp( λy)y n/d dy = v(1) Γ(1 + n/d) λ 1+n/d.

A simple proof via Laplace transform Let y v(y) := vol({x : g(x) y}). As g is PH of degree d then so is v with degree n/d. Moreover v(y) = 0 for all y < 0. Therefore v(y) = y n/d v(1) = y n/d vol({x : g(x) 1}). In particular, its Laplace transform λ L v (λ) satisfies: L v (λ) = 0 = v(1) exp( λy)v(y) dy 0 exp( λy)y n/d dy = v(1) Γ(1 + n/d) λ 1+n/d.

On the other hand, for 0 < λ R, ( L v (λ) = exp( λy) and so 0 {x:g(x) y} ( ) = exp( λy)dy dx [by Fubini] R n g(x) = 1 exp( λg(x)) dx λ R n 1 = λ 1+n/d exp( g(z)) dz [by homogenity] R n vol({x : g(x) 1}) = v(1) = 1 Γ(1 + n/d) dx ) dy R n exp( g(z)) dz.

In particular, computing the non Gaussian integral exp( g) dx reduces to computing the volume of the level set G := {x : g(x) 1},... which is the same as solving the optimization problem: where : max µ µ(g) s.t. µ + ν = λ µ(b \ G) = 0 B is a box [ a, a] n containing G and λ is the Lebesgue measure.

In particular, computing the non Gaussian integral exp( g) dx reduces to computing the volume of the level set G := {x : g(x) 1},... which is the same as solving the optimization problem: where : max µ µ(g) s.t. µ + ν = λ µ(b \ G) = 0 B is a box [ a, a] n containing G and λ is the Lebesgue measure.

... we know how to approximate as closely as desired µ(g) and any FIXED number of moments of µ, by solving an appropriate hierarchy of semidefinite programs (SDP). via... the moment-lp or the moment-sos appoach

... we know how to approximate as closely as desired µ(g) and any FIXED number of moments of µ, by solving an appropriate hierarchy of semidefinite programs (SDP). via... the moment-lp or the moment-sos appoach

Convex Optimization & Parsimony of Lp -balls representation

... But the resulting SDPs can be numerically difficult to solve Solving the dual reduces to approximating the indicator function I(G) by polynomials of increasing degrees Gibbs effect, etc. However some tricks can help a lot! (see: Approximate volume and integration for basic semi algebraic sets, Henrion, Lasserre and Savorgnan, SIAM Review 51, 2009.)

... But the resulting SDPs can be numerically difficult to solve Solving the dual reduces to approximating the indicator function I(G) by polynomials of increasing degrees Gibbs effect, etc. However some tricks can help a lot! (see: Approximate volume and integration for basic semi algebraic sets, Henrion, Lasserre and Savorgnan, SIAM Review 51, 2009.)

III. Convexity An interesting issue is to analyze how the Lebesgue volume vol {x R n : g(x) 1}, (i.e. vol (G)) changes with g. Corollary Let C d R[x] d be the convex cone of homogeneous polynomials of degree at most d such that vol(g) is finite. Then the function f : C d R, g f (g) := vol(g) = dx, g C d, G is a PHF of degree n/d, strictly convex on C d.

Convexity (continued) Corollary (continued) Moreover, if g int(c d ) then f is differentiable and: f (g) 1 = x α exp( g) dx g α Γ(1 + n/d) R n = d + n x α dx d G 2 f (g) 1 = x α+β exp( g) dx g α g β Γ(1 + n/d) R n 2n + 3d = x α+β dx d G

A consequence of convexity Recall that if K R n is compact then computing the ellipsoid ξ of minimum volume containing K is a classical problem whose optimal solution is called the Löwner-John ellipsoid. So consider the following natural extension of Löwner-John s problem: Find an homogeneous polynomial g R[x] 2d, g C 2d, such that its sub level set G := {x : g(x) 1} contains K and has minimum volume among all such levels sets with this inclusion property. A convex optimization problem with a unique optimal solution, with characterization as in the Löwner-John problem! Lass: Math. Program. 152 (2015), 559 591.

A consequence of convexity Recall that if K R n is compact then computing the ellipsoid ξ of minimum volume containing K is a classical problem whose optimal solution is called the Löwner-John ellipsoid. So consider the following natural extension of Löwner-John s problem: Find an homogeneous polynomial g R[x] 2d, g C 2d, such that its sub level set G := {x : g(x) 1} contains K and has minimum volume among all such levels sets with this inclusion property. A convex optimization problem with a unique optimal solution, with characterization as in the Löwner-John problem! Lass: Math. Program. 152 (2015), 559 591.

But this strict convexity of the function g f (g) := vol(g) has other consequences... Indeed... Combining this strict convexity property with the standard KKT-optimality conditions in convex optimization,... provides us with the tool to solve our initial problems P 1, P 2 and P 3.

But this strict convexity of the function g f (g) := vol(g) has other consequences... Indeed... Combining this strict convexity property with the standard KKT-optimality conditions in convex optimization,... provides us with the tool to solve our initial problems P 1, P 2 and P 3.

But this strict convexity of the function g f (g) := vol(g) has other consequences... Indeed... Combining this strict convexity property with the standard KKT-optimality conditions in convex optimization,... provides us with the tool to solve our initial problems P 1, P 2 and P 3.

Back to problem P 1 With g 1 the l 1 -norm of coefficients of g R[x] d, solve P 1 : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }. Theorem (Lass (2015)) The L d -unit ball polynomial x g (d) (x) = n i=1 x 2d i, x R n, is the unique optimal solution of P 1 and of ˆP 1 : inf g { vol(g) : g 1 n; g Hom[x] d }.

Back to problem P 1 With g 1 the l 1 -norm of coefficients of g R[x] d, solve P 1 : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }. Theorem (Lass (2015)) The L d -unit ball polynomial x g (d) (x) = n i=1 x 2d i, x R n, is the unique optimal solution of P 1 and of ˆP 1 : inf g { vol(g) : g 1 n; g Hom[x] d }.

Sketch of the proof Rewrite P 1 as: λ α : inf λ,g α s.t. λ α ±g α, α : α = d g α = 0, α : α < d R n exp( g(x))dx Γ(1 + n/d) ρ d Write the KKT-optimality conditions at a candidate g int(c d ). Convex problem and Slater s condition holds true implies that the KKT-optimality conditions at g int(c d ) are both necessary and sufficient for optimality. Show that g (d) satisfies the KKT-optimality conditions.

Sketch of the proof Rewrite P 1 as: λ α : inf λ,g α s.t. λ α ±g α, α : α = d g α = 0, α : α < d R n exp( g(x))dx Γ(1 + n/d) ρ d Write the KKT-optimality conditions at a candidate g int(c d ). Convex problem and Slater s condition holds true implies that the KKT-optimality conditions at g int(c d ) are both necessary and sufficient for optimality. Show that g (d) satisfies the KKT-optimality conditions.

Sketch of the proof Rewrite P 1 as: λ α : inf λ,g α s.t. λ α ±g α, α : α = d g α = 0, α : α < d R n exp( g(x))dx Γ(1 + n/d) ρ d Write the KKT-optimality conditions at a candidate g int(c d ). Convex problem and Slater s condition holds true implies that the KKT-optimality conditions at g int(c d ) are both necessary and sufficient for optimality. Show that g (d) satisfies the KKT-optimality conditions.

Sketch of the proof Rewrite P 1 as: λ α : inf λ,g α s.t. λ α ±g α, α : α = d g α = 0, α : α < d R n exp( g(x))dx Γ(1 + n/d) ρ d Write the KKT-optimality conditions at a candidate g int(c d ). Convex problem and Slater s condition holds true implies that the KKT-optimality conditions at g int(c d ) are both necessary and sufficient for optimality. Show that g (d) satisfies the KKT-optimality conditions.

For this we use the explicit expression for the gradient f (g (d) ) of g f (g) = vol(g). Recall that where f (g (d) ) g α = n + d d B d x α dx, α = d, B d = {x : n i=1 x d i 1 } = {x : g (d) (x) 1 }. We also need the inequality x α dx x1 B d B d d dx, α = d.

For this we use the explicit expression for the gradient f (g (d) ) of g f (g) = vol(g). Recall that where f (g (d) ) g α = n + d d B d x α dx, α = d, B d = {x : n i=1 x d i 1 } = {x : g (d) (x) 1 }. We also need the inequality x α dx x1 B d B d d dx, α = d.

The result extends L d -balls B d = {x : n i=1 x i d 1}, where 0 < d is rational (and not necessarily d > 1, e.g. d = 1/2). For this we need introduce... generalized homogeneous polynomials" x g(x) := α g α n x i α i, x R n, i=1 where: There are finitely many non-zero coefficient (g α ). The α s are positive rationals with n i=1 α i = d

A little detour With q N, define the lattice Z n q := {α Z n : q α Z n } and with 0 < d Z q, the finite set N n d,q := { 0 α Zn q : α i d }, and the finite-dimensional vector space of Homogeneous functions i Hom[x] q d := { α N n d,q g α n x i α i : g α R}. i=1 I. We then consider P 1q : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] q d }.

A little detour With q N, define the lattice Z n q := {α Z n : q α Z n } and with 0 < d Z q, the finite set N n d,q := { 0 α Zn q : α i d }, and the finite-dimensional vector space of Homogeneous functions i Hom[x] q d := { α N n d,q g α n x i α i : g α R}. i=1 I. We then consider P 1q : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] q d }.

A little detour With q N, define the lattice Z n q := {α Z n : q α Z n } and with 0 < d Z q, the finite set N n d,q := { 0 α Zn q : α i d }, and the finite-dimensional vector space of Homogeneous functions i Hom[x] q d := { α N n d,q g α n x i α i : g α R}. i=1 I. We then consider P 1q : inf g { g 1 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] q d }.

II. We next prove that the L d -generalized polynomial x g (d) (x) := n x i d, x R n, i=1 is the unique optimal solution of P 1q. Indeed with g Hom[x] q d and G = {x : g(x) 1}, the crucial feature which we exploit is that the function f : Hom[x] q d R: g f (g) := G dx = 1 Γ(1 + n/d) R n exp( g(x)) dx, is strictly convex on the interior of its domain... with gradient f (g) = n + d x α dx g α n G

Back to Problem P 2 Recall that with P 2 : inf g { g 2 : vol (G) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, g 2 := α c α g α 2, c α = ( i α i)! α 1! α n! Theorem (Lass (2015)) Problem P 2 has a unique optimal solution g 2 Hom[x] d which a sum of d-powers of linear forms, i.e.: g 2 (x) = s θ k z k, x d, x R n, k=1 for some positive weights (θ k ) and points (z k ) R n, k = 1,..., s with s ( ) n+d 1 d

Sketch of proof As P 1, problem P 2 is a convex optimization problem and Slater s condition holds. Uniqueness follows from the strict convexity of the volume function. Write g 2 (x) = α =d α! α 1! α n! g 2,α xα. As for problem P 1 one writes the KKT-optimality conditions at a candidate optimal solution g2 Hom[x] d where f is differentiable. This yields x α dx g2,α = M G, α = d. dx G

Which implies that (g2,α ) is the moment vector of a probability measure, hence an element of the DUAL of the space of nonnegative homogeneous polynomials of degree d. But this also implies that g2 is a positive sum of d-powers of linear forms! Theorem (Lass (2015)) For d = 2, 4, 6, 8 g 2 (x) = θ ( n i=1 ) d/2 ( d/2 xi 2 = θ g (x)) (2), for some scaling factor θ > 0 and so G is homothetic to the Euclidean ball!! With n = 2, d = 4, g 2 (x) = (x 2 1 + x 2 2 )2 = 1 6 (x 1 + x 2 ) 4 + 1 6 (x 1 x 2 ) 4 + 2 3 (x 4 1 + x 4 2 ).

Which implies that (g2,α ) is the moment vector of a probability measure, hence an element of the DUAL of the space of nonnegative homogeneous polynomials of degree d. But this also implies that g2 is a positive sum of d-powers of linear forms! Theorem (Lass (2015)) For d = 2, 4, 6, 8 g 2 (x) = θ ( n i=1 ) d/2 ( d/2 xi 2 = θ g (x)) (2), for some scaling factor θ > 0 and so G is homothetic to the Euclidean ball!! With n = 2, d = 4, g 2 (x) = (x 2 1 + x 2 2 )2 = 1 6 (x 1 + x 2 ) 4 + 1 6 (x 1 x 2 ) 4 + 2 3 (x 4 1 + x 4 2 ).

Which implies that (g2,α ) is the moment vector of a probability measure, hence an element of the DUAL of the space of nonnegative homogeneous polynomials of degree d. But this also implies that g2 is a positive sum of d-powers of linear forms! Theorem (Lass (2015)) For d = 2, 4, 6, 8 g 2 (x) = θ ( n i=1 ) d/2 ( d/2 xi 2 = θ g (x)) (2), for some scaling factor θ > 0 and so G is homothetic to the Euclidean ball!! With n = 2, d = 4, g 2 (x) = (x 2 1 + x 2 2 )2 = 1 6 (x 1 + x 2 ) 4 + 1 6 (x 1 x 2 ) 4 + 2 3 (x 4 1 + x 4 2 ).

Problem III Given d N, let v d (x) := (x α ) be the vector of all monomials x α of degree α = d. Restrict to SOS homogeneous polynomials of degree 2d x g Q (x) := v d (x) T Qv d (x), for some real symmetric Q 0. Question III: What is an optimal solution if one minimizes the small rank-inducing norm trace(q) (also known as the nuclear norm of Q) instead of the l 1 -norm g Q 1?

In other words, What is an optimal solution of the optimization problem P 3 : inf { trace(q) : vol (G Q) ρ d ; g Hom[x] d }, Q 0 One expect a solution g Q which consists of a small number of squares.

Recall that C d Hom[x] d is the convex cone of homogeneous polynomials g of degree d such that vol (G) <. For symmetric matrices Q 0 such that g Q int(c d ) Q v(q) := vol (G Q ); g Q int(c d ). Then v(q) = n n + d G Q v d/2 (x)v d/2 (x) T dx.

Theorem Problem P 3 has an optimal solution and there exists a unique homgeneous polynomial g3 Hom[x] d associated with any solution Q of P 3. In addition: Ψ := I (n + d) trace(q ) n ρ d and trace(q Ψ) = 0. G Q v d/2 (x)v d/2 (x) T dx 0 Conversely if Q satisfies the above with g Q int(c d ) and v(q ) = ρ d then Q is an optimal solution of P 3 and g 3 = g Q.

Theorem Problem P 3 has an optimal solution and there exists a unique homgeneous polynomial g3 Hom[x] d associated with any solution Q of P 3. In addition: Ψ := I (n + d) trace(q ) n ρ d and trace(q Ψ) = 0. G Q v d/2 (x)v d/2 (x) T dx 0 Conversely if Q satisfies the above with g Q int(c d ) and v(q ) = ρ d then Q is an optimal solution of P 3 and g 3 = g Q.

Theorem (continued) In particular for d = 2, 4 and for all d = 4N (provided that n is sufficiently large) the unique optimal solution g 3 Hom[x] d is the polynomial x g 3 (x) = (ρ 2/ρ d ) d/n ( n i=1 x 2 i ) d/2. That is, the Euclidean ball is the unique optimal solution!

Theorem (continued) In particular for d = 2, 4 and for all d = 4N (provided that n is sufficiently large) the unique optimal solution g 3 Hom[x] d is the polynomial x g 3 (x) = (ρ 2/ρ d ) d/n ( n i=1 x 2 i ) d/2. That is, the Euclidean ball is the unique optimal solution!

Some references J.B. Lasserre. A Generalization of Löwner-John s ellipsoid Theorem, Math. Program. 152 (2015) J.B. Lasserre. Convex Optimization and Parsimony of L p -balls representation, SIAM J. Optim. (2016)

THANK YOU!!