Computational Optimization and Applications

, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 225–258 | Cite as

A difference-of-convex functions approach for sparse PDE optimal control problems with nonconvex costs

  • Pedro MerinoEmail author


We propose a local regularization of elliptic optimal control problems which involves the nonconvex \(L^q\) quasi-norm penalization in the cost function. The proposed Huber type regularization allows us to formulate the PDE constrained optimization instance as a DC programming problem (difference of convex functions) that is useful to obtain necessary optimality conditions and tackle its numerical solution by applying the well known DC algorithm used in nonconvex optimization problems. By this procedure we approximate the original problem in terms of a consistent family of parameterized nonsmooth problems for which there are efficient numerical methods available. Finally, we present numerical experiments to illustrate our theory with different configurations associated to the parameters of the problem.


Optimal control Nonconvex DC programming DCA Elliptic PDE 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C26 90C46 49J20 49K20 



I wish to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful advise in the revisions. Also to Prof Eduardo Casas and Prof. Juan Carlos De los Reyes for their suggestions and comments which help me to improve this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Ambrosetti, A., Prodi, G.: A Primer of Nonlinear Analysis, vol. 34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auchmuty, G.: Duality algorithms for nonconvex variational principles. Numer. Func. Anal. Optim. 10(3–4), 211–264 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auchmuty, G.: Duality for non-convex variational principles. J. Differ. Equ. 50, 80–145 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casas, E., Clason, C., Kunisch, K.: Parabolic control problems in measure spaces with sparse solutions. SIAM J. Control Optim. 51(1), 28–63 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casas, E., Kunisch, K.: Parabolic control problems in space-time measure spaces. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 22(2), 355–370 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casas, E.: A review on sparse solutions in optimal control of partial differential equations. SeMA J. 74(3), 319–344 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casas, E., Mateos, M., Rosch, A.: Finite element approximation of sparse parabolic control problems. Am. Inst. Math. Sci. 7(3), 393–417 (2017). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciarlet, P.G.: Linear and nonlinear functional analysis with applications. SIAM 130, 472 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dal Maso, G.: An Introduction to \(\Gamma \)-Convergence, vol. 8. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De los Reyes, J.C.: Theory of PDE-constrained optimization. In: Pardalos, P.M., Pintér, J.D., Robinson, S., Terlaky, T., Thai, M.T. (eds.) Numerical PDE-Constrained Optimization, pp. 25–41. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Los Reyes, J.C., Loayza, E., Merino, P.: Second-order orthan–based methods with enriched hessian information for sparse \(\ell _1\)-optimization. Comput. Optim. Appl. 67(2), 225–258 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dellacherie, C., Meyer, P.-A.: Probabilities and Potential. North Holland & Hermann, Mathematical Studies, vol. 29 (1975)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dinh, T.P., Le Thi, H.A.: Recent advances in DC programming and DCA. In: Nguyen, N.T., Le Thi, H.A. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Intelligence XIII, pp. 1–37. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flores-Bazán, F., Oettli, W.: Simplified optimality conditions for minimizing the difference of vector-valued functions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 108(3), 571–586 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foucart, S., Rauhut, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Compressive Sensing, vol. 1. Birkhäuser, Basel (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hintermüller, M., Tao, W.: Nonconvex \(TV^{q}\)-models in image restoration: analysis and a trust-region regularization-based superlinearly convergent solver. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 6(3), 1385–1415 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hinze, M., Pinnau, R., Ulbrich, M., Ulbrich, S.: Optimization with PDE Constraints, vol. 23. Springer, Berlin (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B.: From convex optimization to nonconvex optimization. Necessary and sufficient conditions for global optimality. In: Clarke, F.H., Dem’yanov, V.F., Giannessi, F. (eds.) Nonsmooth Optimization and Related Topics, pp. 219–239. Springer, Berlin (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B., Lemaréchal, C.: Fundamentals of Convex Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ioffe, A.D., Tihomirov, V.M., Luderer, B.: Theorie der Extremalaufgaben. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften (1979)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ito, K., Kunisch, K.: Lagrange multiplier approach to variational problems and applications. SIAM Adv. Des. Control 52(2), 1251–1275 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ito, K., Kunisch, K.: Optimal control with \(\mathit{L}^{p}({\Omega })\), \(p \in [0,1)\), control cost. SIAM J. Control Optim. (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jahn, J.: Introduction to the Theory of Nonlinear Optimization, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramlau, R., Zarzer, C.A.: On the minimization of a Tikhonov functional with a non-convex sparsity constraint. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. 39, 476–507 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rockafellar, R.T.: Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stadler, G.: Elliptic optimal control problems with \(L^1\)-control cost and applications for the placement of control devices. Comput. Optim. Appl. 44(2), 159–181 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wright, S., Nowozin, S., Sra, S.: Optimization for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center of Mathematical Modeling (MODEMAT) and Department of MathematicsEscuela Politécnica NacionalQuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations