Mathematical Programming

, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 223–257 | Cite as

Computation of sparse low degree interpolating polynomials and their application to derivative-free optimization

Full Length Paper Series B

Abstract

Interpolation-based trust-region methods are an important class of algorithms for Derivative-Free Optimization which rely on locally approximating an objective function by quadratic polynomial interpolation models, frequently built from less points than there are basis components. Often, in practical applications, the contribution of the problem variables to the objective function is such that many pairwise correlations between variables are negligible, implying, in the smooth case, a sparse structure in the Hessian matrix. To be able to exploit Hessian sparsity, existing optimization approaches require the knowledge of the sparsity structure. The goal of this paper is to develop and analyze a method where the sparse models are constructed automatically. The sparse recovery theory developed recently in the field of compressed sensing characterizes conditions under which a sparse vector can be accurately recovered from few random measurements. Such a recovery is achieved by minimizing the 1-norm of a vector subject to the measurements constraints. We suggest an approach for building sparse quadratic polynomial interpolation models by minimizing the 1-norm of the entries of the model Hessian subject to the interpolation conditions. We show that this procedure recovers accurate models when the function Hessian is sparse, using relatively few randomly selected sample points. Motivated by this result, we developed a practical interpolation-based trust-region method using deterministic sample sets and minimum 1-norm quadratic models. Our computational results show that the new approach exhibits a promising numerical performance both in the general case and in the sparse one.

Keywords

Derivative-free optimization Interpolation-based trust-region methods Random sampling Sparse recovery Compressed sensing 1-Minimization 

Mathematics Subject Classification

65D05 90C30 90C56 90C90 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alizadeh F., Goldfarb D.: Second-order cone programming. Math. Program. 95, 3–51 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandeira, A., Scheinberg, K., Vicente, L.N.: On partially sparse recovery. Tech. Rep. 11–13, Dept. Mathematics, Univ. Coimbra (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandeira, A.S., Fickus, M., Mixon, D.G., Wong, P.: The road to deterministic matrices with the restricted isometry property. Submitted, available online: arXiv:1202.1234 [math.FA] (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baraniuk R., Davenport M., DeVore R., Wakin M.: A simple proof of the restricted isometry property for random matrices. Constr. Approx. 28, 253–263 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Candès E., Tao T.: Near optimal signal recovery from random projections: universal encoding strategies?. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 5406–5425 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Candès, E.J.: The restricted isometry property and its implications for compressed sensing. Compte Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences, Paris, Serie I, pp. 589–592 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colson B., Toint Ph. L.: Optimizing partially separable functions without derivatives. Optim. Methods Softw. 20, 493–508 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conn A.R., Gould N.I.M., Toint Ph.L.: Trust-Region Methods. MPS-SIAM Series on Optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conn, A.R., Scheinberg, K., Toint, Ph. L.: A derivative free optimization algorithm in practice. In: Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, St. Louis, Missouri, Sept 2–4 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conn A.R., Scheinberg K., Vicente L.N.: Global convergence of general derivative-free trust-region algorithms to first and second order critical points. SIAM J. Optim. 20, 387–415 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conn A.R., Scheinberg K., Vicente L.N.: Introduction to Derivative-Free Optimization. MPS-SIAM Series on Optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolan E.D., Moré J.J.: Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles. Math. Program. 91, 201–213 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dolan E.D., Moré J.J., Munson T.S.: Optimality measures for performance profiles. SIAM J. Optim. 16, 891–909 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fasano G., Morales J.L., Nocedal J.: On the geometry phase in model-based algorithms for derivative-free optimization. Optim. Methods Softw. 24, 145–154 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferris, M.C., Deng, G.: Classification-based global search: An application to a simulation for breast cancer. In: Proceedings of 2008 NSF Engineering Research and Innovation Conference. Knoxville, Tennessee (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould N.I.M., Orban D., Toint Ph.L.: CUTEr (and SifDec), a constrained and unconstrained testing environment, revisited. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 29, 373–394 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gratton S., Toint Ph.L., Tröltzsch A.: An active-set trust-region method for derivative-free nonlinear bound-constrained optimization. Optim. Methods Softw. 26, 873–894 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacques L.: A short note on compressed sensing with partially known signal support. Signal Process. 90, 3308–3312 (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moré J.J., Sorensen D.C.: Computing a trust region step. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 4, 553–572 (1983)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nocedal J., Wright S.J.: Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Powell M.J.D.: On trust region methods for unconstrained minimization without derivatives. Math. Program. 97, 605–623 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Powell M.J.D.: Least Frobenius norm updating of quadratic models that satisfy interpolation conditions. Math. Program. 100, 183–215 (2004)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Powell, M.J.D.: The NEWUOA software for unconstrained optimization without derivatives. In: Nonconvex Optim. Appl., vol. 83, pp. 255–297. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rauhut, H.: Compressive sensing and structured random matrices. In: Fornasier, M. (ed.) Theoretical Foundations and Numerical Methods for Sparse Recovery, Radon Series Comp. Appl. Math., pp. 1–92 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rauhut H., Ward R.: Sparse Legendre expansions via 1-minimization. J. Approx. Theory 164, 517–533 (2012)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheinberg K., Toint P.L.: Self-correcting geometry in model-based algorithms for derivative-free unconstrained optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 20, 3512–3532 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tao, T.: Open question: deterministic UUP matrices: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/open-question-deterministic-uup-matrices (2007)
  28. 28.
    Vaswani N., Lu W.: Modified-CS: modifying compressive sensing for problems with partially known support. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 58, 4595–4607 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wild, S.M.: MNH: A derivative-free optimization algorithm using minimal norm Hessians. In: Tenth Copper Mountain Conference on Iterative Methods (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wojtaszczyk P.: Stability and instance optimality for gaussian measurements in compressed sensing. Found. Comput. Math. 10, 1–13 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y.: Solving large-scale linear programs by interior-point methods under the MATLAB environment. Optim. Methods Softw. 10, 1–31 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer and Mathematical Optimization Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Bandeira
    • 1
  • K. Scheinberg
    • 2
  • L. N. Vicente
    • 3
  1. 1.Program in Applied and Computational MathematicsPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringLehigh University, Harold S. Mohler LaboratoryBethlehemUSA
  3. 3.CMUC, Department of MathematicsUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations