Optimization On Manifolds: Methods and Applications

  • P.-A. Absil
  • R. Mahony
  • R. Sepulchre
Conference paper


This paper provides an introduction to the topic of optimization on manifolds. The approach taken uses the language of differential geometry, however,we choose to emphasise the intuition of the concepts and the structures that are important in generating practical numerical algorithms rather than the technical details of the formulation. There are a number of algorithms that can be applied to solve such problems and we discuss the steepest descent and Newton’s method in some detail as well as referencing the more important of the other approaches.There are a wide range of potential applications that we are aware of, and we briefly discuss these applications, as well as explaining one or two in more detail.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P.-A. Absil.Numerical representations of a universal subspace flow for linear programs. Communications in Information and Systems, 8(2):71–84, 2009.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.-A. Absil, C. G. Baker, and K. A. Gallivan. Trust-region methods on Riemannian manifolds. Found. Comput. Math., 7(3):303–330, July 2007.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.-A. Absil and K. A. Gallivan. Joint diagonalization on the oblique manifold for independent component analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), volume 5,pages V–945–V–948, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre. Riemannian geometry of Grassmann manifolds with a view on algorithmic computation. Acta Appl. Math.,80(2):199–220, January 2004.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre. Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.-A. Absil, Jochen Trumpf, Robert Mahony, and Ben Andrews. All roads lead to Newton: Feasible second-order methods for equality-constrained optimization.Technical Report UCL-INMA-2009.024, UCLouvain, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roy L. Adler, Jean-Pierre Dedieu, Joseph Y. Margulies, Marco Martens, and Mike Shub. Newton’s method on Riemannian manifolds and a geometric model for the human spine. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 22(3):359–390, July 2002.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bijan Afsari and P. S. Krishnaprasad. Some gradient based joint diagonalization methods for ICA. In Springer LCNS Series, editor, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Independent Component Analysis and Blind Source Separation, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregory Ammar and Clyde Martin.The geometry of matrix eigenvalue methods.Acta Appl. Math., 5(3):239–278, 1986.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. G. Baker, P.-A. Absil, and K. A. Gallivan. An implicit trust-region method on Riemannian manifolds. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 28(4):665–689, 2008.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christopher G. Baker. Riemannian manifold trust-region methods with applications to eigenproblems. PhD thesis, School of Computational Science, Florida State University, Summer Semester 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Baumann and U. Helmke. Riemannian subspace tracking algorithms on Grassmann manifolds. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silv`ere Bonnabel and Rodolphe Sepulchre. Riemannian metric and geometric mean for positive semidefinite matrices of fixed rank. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31(3):1055–1070, 2009.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas J. Bridges and Sebastian Reich. Computing Lyapunov exponents on a Stiefel manifold. Phys. D, 156(3-4):219–238, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hasan Ertan Çetingül and René Vidal. Intrinsic mean shift for clustering on Stiefel and Grassmann manifolds. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’09), 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aris Daniilidis, Warren Hare, and Jérôme Malick.Geometrical interpretation of the predictor-corrector type algorithms in structured optimization problems.Optimization, 55(5-6):481–503, 2006.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jean-Pierre Dedieu, Gregorio Malajovich, and Mike Shub. On the curvature of the central path of linear programming theory. Found. Comput. Math.,5(2):145–171, 2005.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alan Edelman, Tomás A. Arias, and Steven T. Smith. The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 20(2):303–353, 1998.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Eldén and B. Savas. A Newton–Grassmann method for computing the best multi-linear rank-(r 1, r 2, r 3) approximation of a tensor. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31:248–271, 2009.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lars Eldén and Haesun Park. A Procrustes problem on the Stiefel manifold.Numer. Math., 82(4):599–619, 1999.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hermann Grassmann. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda, 1873. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uwe Helmke, Knut Hüper, Pei Yean Lee, and John B. Moore.Essential matrix estimation using Gauss-Newton iterations on a manifold. Int. J. Computer Vision, 74(2):117–136, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uwe Helmke, Knut Hüper, and Jochen Trumpf. Newton’s method on Grassmann manifolds, September 2007. arXiv:0709.2205v2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uwe Helmke and John B. Moore. Optimization and Dynamical Systems. Communications and Control Engineering Series. Springer-Verlag London Ltd., London, 1994. With a foreword by R. Brockett.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Magnus R. Hestenes and Eduard Stiefel.Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J. Research Nat. Bur. Standards, 49:409–436 (1953),1952.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knut Hüper, Hao Shen, and Abd-Krim Seghouane. Local convergence properties of FastICA and some generalisations. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), volume 5, pages V–1009–V–1012, 2006.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Ishteva, L. De Lathauwer, P.-A. Absil, and S. Van Huffel. Best low multilinear rank approximation of higher-order tensors, based on the Riemannian trust-region scheme. Technical Report 09-142, ESAT-SISTA, K.U.Leuven, Belgium, 2009.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jens Jordan and Uwe Helmke. Controllability of the QR-algorithm on Hessenberg flags. In David S. Gilliam and Joachim Rosenthal, editors, Proceeding of the Fifteenth International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Network and Systems (MTNS 2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shantanu H. Joshi, Eric Klassen, Anuj Srivastava, and Ian Jermyn. A novel representation for Riemannian analysis of elastic curves in R n. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2007.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Journée, F. Bach, P.-A. Absil, and R. Sepulchre. Low-rank optimization for semidefinite convex problems, 2008. arXiv:0807.4423.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Klassen, A. Srivastava, M. Mio, and S.H. Joshi. Analysis of planar shapes using geodesic paths on shape spaces. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26(3):372–383, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eric Klassen and Anuj Srivastava. Geodesics between 3D closed curves using path-straightening. In A. Leonardis, H. Bischof, and A. Pinz, editors, ECCV 2006, Part I,, volume 3951 of LNCS, pages 95–106. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    John M. Lee. Introduction to smooth manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pei Yean Lee and John B. Moore. Pose estimation via a Gauss-Newton-onmanifold approach. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Network and System (MTNS), Leuven, 2004.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Claude Lemaréchal, Fran¸cois Oustry, and Claudia Sagastizábal. The ULagrangian of a convex function. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 352(2):711–729, 2000.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. S. Lewis. Active sets, nonsmoothness, and sensitivity. SIAM J. Optim.,13(3):702–725 (electronic) (2003), 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chong Li, Genaro L´opez, and Victoria Mart´ın-Márquez. Monotone vector fields and the proximal point algorithm on Hadamard manifolds.J. London Math. Soc., 79(3):663–683, 2009.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    R. Lippert and A. Edelman. Nonlinear eigenvalue problems with orthogonality constraints (Section 9.4). In Zhaojun Bai, James Demmel, Jack Dongarra, Axel Ruhe, and Henk van der Vorst, editors, Templates for the Solution of Algebraic Eigenvalue Problems, pages 290–314. SIAM, Philadelphia, 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xiuwen Liu, Anuj Srivastava, and Kyle Gallivan. Optimal linear representations of images for object recognition. IEEE Pattern Anal. and Mach. Intell., 26(5):662–666, May 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eva Lundström and Lars Eldén. Adaptive eigenvalue computations using Newton’s method on the Grassmann manifold. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 23(3):819–839, 2001/02.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yi Ma, Jana Kosecka, and Shankar S. Sastry. Optimization criteria and geometric algorithms for motion and structure estimation. Int. J. Computer Vision, 44(3):219–249, 2001.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jonathan H. Manton. A centroid (Karcher mean) approach to the joint approximate diagonalization problem: The real symmetric case. Digital Signal Processing, 16(5):468–478, 2005.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robert Mifflin and Claudia Sagastizábal. On \(\mathcal{VU}\)-theory for functions with primal-dual gradient structure. SIAM J. Optim., 11(2):547–571 (electronic),2000.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Scott A. Miller and Jérôme Malick. Newton methods for nonsmooth convex minimization: connections among \(\mathcal{U}\)-Lagrangian, Riemannian Newton and SQP methods. Math. Program., 104(2-3, Ser. B):609–633, 2005.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Y. Nesterov and A. Nemirovski. Primal central paths and Riemannian distances for convex sets. Found. Comput. Math., 8(5):533–560, 2008.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yasunori Nishimori and Shotaro Akaho. Learning algorithms utilizing quasigeodesic flows on the Stiefel manifold. Neurocomputing, 67:106–135, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yasunori Nishimori, Shotaro Akaho, and Mark D. Plumbley. Natural conjugate gradient on complex flag manifolds for complex independent subspace analysis. In Vera Kurkova-Pohlova, Roman Neruda, and Jan Koutnik, editors, Artificial Neural Networks - ICANN 2008, volume 5163 of LNCS, pages 165–174.Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chunhong Qi, Kyle A. Gallivan, and P.-A. Absil. Riemannian BFGS algorithm with applications. In Recent Advances in Optimization and its Applications in Engineering. Springer, 2010. To appear.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Quentin Rentmeesters, P.-A. Absil, and Paul Van Dooren. Identification method for time-varying ARX models. Submitted, 2009.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chafik Samir, P.-A. Absil, Anuj Srivastava, and Eric Klassen. A gradientdescent method for curve fitting on Riemannian manifolds. Technical Report UCL-INMA-2009.023, UCLouvain, 2009.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Oliver Sander. Geodesic finite elements for Cosserat rods. submitted, 2009.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Berkant Savas and Lek-Heng Lim. Best multilinear rank approximation of tensors with quasi-Newton methods on Grassmannians. Technical Report LITH-MAT-R-2008-01-SE, Department of Mathematics, Linköpings Universitet,2008.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Anuj Srivastava and Eric Klassen. Bayesian and geometric subspace tracking.Adv. in Appl. Probab., 36(1):43–56, 2004.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Anuj Srivastava and Xiuwen Liu. Tools for application-driven linear dimension reduction. Neurocomputing, 67:136–160, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    E. Stiefel. Richtungsfelder und Fernparallelismus in n-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten.Comment. Math. Helv., 8(1):305–353, 1935.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fabian J. Theis, Thomas P. Cason, and P.-A. Absil. Soft dimension reduction for ICA by joint diagonalization on the Stiefel manifold. In Proc. ICA 2009,volume 5441 of LNCS, pages 354–361, Paraty, Brazil, 2009. Springer.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Frank Tompkins and Patrick J.Wolfe. Bayesian filtering on the Stiefel manifold.In 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi- Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMPSAP 2007), 2007.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nickolay T. Trendafilov and Ross A. Lippert. The multimode Procrustes problem.Linear Algebra Appl., 349:245–264, 2002.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pavan Turaga, Ashok Veeraraghavan, and Rama Chellappa. Statistical analysis on Stiefel and Grassmann manifolds with applications in computer vision. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2008.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bart Vandereycken, P.-A. Absil, and Stefan Vandewalle. Embedded geometry of the set of symmetric positive semidefinite matrices of fixed rank. In Proceedings of the IEEE 15th Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing, pages 389–392, 2009.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bart Vandereycken and Stefan Vandewalle. A Riemannian optimization approach for computing low-rank solutions of Lyapunov equations. Submitted,2009.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Frank W. Warner. Foundations of differentiable manifolds and Lie groups,volume 94 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983. Corrected reprint of the 1971 edition.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gongyun Zhao.Representing the space of linear programs as the Grassmann manifold. Math. Program., 121(2, Ser. A):353–386, 2010.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer -Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • P.-A. Absil
    • 1
  • R. Mahony
    • 2
  • R. Sepulchre
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical EngineeringUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringThe Australian National UniversityCanberra ACTAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversité de LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations