Advertisement

Optimization Letters

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 23–34 | Cite as

A conceptual conjugate epi-projection algorithm of convex optimization: superlinear, quadratic and finite convergence

  • E. A. NurminskiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper considers a conceptual version of a convex optimization algorithm which is based on replacing a convex optimization problem with the root-finding problem for the approximate sub-differential mapping which is solved by repeated projection onto the epigraph of conjugate function. Whilst the projection problem is not exactly solvable in finite space-time it can be approximately solved up to arbitrary precision by simple iterative methods, which use linear support functions of the epigraph. It seems therefore useful to study computational characteristics of the idealized version of this algorithm when projection on the epigraph is computed precisely to estimate the potential benefits for such development. The key results of this study are that the conceptual algorithm attains super-linear rate of convergence in general convex case, the rate of convergence becomes quadratic for objective functions forming super-set of strongly convex functions, and convergence is finite when objective function has sharp minimum. In all cases convergence is global and does not require differentiability of the objective.

Keywords

Convex optimization Conjugate function Approximate sub-differential Super-linear convergence Quadratic convergence Finite convergence Projection Epigraph 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by RF Ministry of Education and Science, project 1.7658.2017/6.7.

References

  1. 1.
    Shor, N.Z., Kiwiel, K.C., Ruszczynski, A.: Minimization Methods for Non-differentiable Functions. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolfe, P.: A method of conjugate subgradients for minimizing nondifferentiable functions. Math. Program. Study 3, 145–173 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, Q.: Conjugate gradient type methods for the nondifferentiable convex minimization. Optim. Lett. 7(3), 533–545 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirriart-Uruty, J.-B., Lemarechal, C.: Convex Analysis and Minimization Algorithms II Advanced Theory and Bundle Methods. A Series of Comprehensive Studies in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shor, N.Z., Zhurbenko, N.G., Likhovid, A.P., Stetsyuk, P.I.: Algorithms of nondifferentiable optimization: development and application. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 39(4), 537–548 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rzhevskiy, S.V.: \(\epsilon \)-Subgradient method for the solution of a convex programming problem. USSR Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 21(5), 51–57 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiwiel, K.C.: An algorithm for nonsmooth convex minimization with errors. Math. Comput. 45(171), 173–180 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nurminski, E.A.: Numerical Methods of Convex Optimization. Nauka, Moscow (1991). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mifflin, R., Sagastizábal, C.A.: A VU-algorithm for convex minimization. Math. Program. 104, 583–606 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parikh, N., Boyd, S.: Proximal algorithms. Found. Trends Optim. 1(3), 123–231 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burke, J.V., Qian, M.: On the superlinear convergence of the variable metric proximal point algorithm using Broyden and BFGS matrix secant updating. Math. Program. 88(1), 157–181 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferris, M.C.: Weak Sharp Minima and Penalty Functions in Mathematical Programming. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferris, M.C.: Finite termination of the proximal point algorithm. Math. Program. 50, 359–366 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou, J., Wang, C.: New characterizations of weak sharp minima. Optim. Lett. 6, 1773 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-011-0369-0 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nurminski, E.A.: Separating plane algorithms for convex optimization. Math. Program. 76, 375–391 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vorontsova, E.A.: A projective separating plane method with additional clipping for non-smooth optimization. WSEAS Trans. Math. 13, 115–121 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vorontsova, E.A.: Extended Separating Plane Algorithm and NSO-Solutions of PageRank Problem. In: Kochetov, Y., Khachay, M., Beresnev, V., Nurminski, E., Pardalos, P. (eds) Discrete Optimization and Operations Research. 9th International Conference, DOOR 2016 Vladivostok, Russia, September 19-23, 2016. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9869 pp. 547–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vorontsova, E.A., Nurminski, E.A.: Synthesis of cutting and separating planes in a nonsmooth optimization method. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 51(4), 619–631 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nurminski, E.A.: Multiple Cuts in Separating Plane Algorithms. In: Kochetov, Y., Khachay, M., Beresnev, V., Nurminski, E., Pardalos, P. (eds) Discrete Optimization and Operations Research. In: 9th International Conference, DOOR 2016 Vladivostok, Russia, September 19-23, 2016. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9869 pp. 430–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural SciencesFar Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussia

Personalised recommendations