Advertisement

The Method of Cyclic Intrepid Projections: Convergence Analysis and Numerical Experiments

  • Heinz H. Bauschke
  • Francesco Iorio
  • Valentin R. Koch
Conference paper
Part of the Mathematics for Industry book series (MFI, volume 1)

Abstract

The convex feasibility problem asks to find a point in the intersection of a collection of nonempty closed convex sets. This problem is of basic importance in mathematics and the physical sciences, and projection (or splitting) methods solve it by employing the projection operators associated with the individual sets to generate a sequence which converges to a solution. Motivated by an application in road design, we present the method of cyclic intrepid projections (CycIP) and provide a rigorous convergence analysis. We also report on very promising numerical experiments in which CycIP is compared to a commerical state-of-the-art optimization solver.

Keywords

Convex set Feasibility problem Halfspace Intrepid projection Linear inequalities Projection Road design 

AMS 2010 Subject Classification

Primary 65K05 90C25 Secondary 90C05 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the referee for very careful reading and constructive comments, Dr. Ramon Lawrence for the opportunity to run the numerical experiments on his server, and Scott Fazackerley and Wade Klaver for technical help. HHB also thanks Dr. Masato Wakayama and the Institute of Mathematics for Industry, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan for their hospitality —some of this research benefited from the extremely stimulating environment during the “Math-for-Industry 2013” forum. HHB was partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant and Accelerator Supplement) and by the Canada Research Chair Program.

References

  1. 1.
    Baillon, J.B., Bruck, R.E., Reich, S.: On the asymptotic behavior of nonexpansive mappings and semigroups in Banach spaces. Houston J. Math. 4, 1–9 (1978)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauschke, H.H., Borwein, J.M.: On projection algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems. SIAM Rev. 38, 367–426 (1996)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauschke, H.H., Combettes, P.L.: A weak-to-strong convergence principle for Fejér-monotone methods in Hilbert spaces. Math. Oper. Res. 26, 248–264 (2001)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauschke, H.H., Combettes, P.L.: Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in Hilbert spaces. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauschke, H.H., Koch, V.R.: Projection methods: swiss army knives for solving feasibility and best approximation problems with halfspaces. Contemporary Mathematics (in press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borwein, J.M., Vanderwerff, J.D.: Convex functions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cegielski, A.: Iterative methods for fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces. Springer, New York (2012)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Censor, Y., Zenios, S.A.: Parallel Optimization. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, W., Herman, G.T.: Efficient controls for finitely convergent sequential al gorithms. ACM Trans. Math. Software 37, 14 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Combettes, P.L.: Hilbertian convex feasibility problems: convergence of projection methods. Appl. Math. Optim. 35, 311–330 (1997)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Combettes, P.L.: Inherently parallel algorithms in feasibility and optimization and their applications. In: Butnariu, D., Censor, Y., Reich, S. (eds.) Quasi-Fejérian analysis of some optimization algorithms, pp. 115–152. Elsevier, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Combettes, P.L.: Solving monotone inclusions via compositions of nonexpansive averaged operators. Optimization 53, 475–504 (2004)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dolan, E.D., Moré, J.J.: Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles. Math. Program. (Ser. A) 91, 201–213 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goebel, K., Kirk, W.A.: Topics in metric fixed point theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goebel, K., Reich, S.: Uniform convexity, hyperbolic geometry, and nonexpansive mappings. Marcel Dekker, New York (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gurobi optimization Inc: gurobi optimizer reference manual. http://www.gurobi.com, (2013)
  18. 18.
    Herman, G.T.: A relaxation method for reconstructing objects from noisy x-rays. Math. Program. 8, 1–19 (1975)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herman, G.T.: Fundamentals of computerized tomography: image reconstruction from projections, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hundal, H.: An alternating projection that does not converge in norm. Nonlinear Anal. 57, 35–61 (2004)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rockafellar, R.T., Wets, R.J.-B.: Variational analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slavakis, K., Yamada, I.: The adaptive projected subgradient method constrained by families of quasi-nonexpansive mappings and its applicaton to online learning. SIAM J. Optim. 23, 126–152 (2013)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamada, I., Ogura, N.: Hybrid steepest descent method for variational inequality problem over the fixed point set of certain quasi-nonexpansive mappings. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 25, 619–655 (2004)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamada, I., Yukawa, M., Yamagishi, M.: Minimizing the moreau envelope of nonsmooth convex functions over the fixed point set of certain quasi-nonexpansive mappings. In: Bauschke, H.H., Burachik, R.S., Combettes, P.L., Elser, V., Luke, D.R., Wolkowicz, H. (eds.) Fixed-point algorithms for inverse problems in science and engineering, springer optimization and its applications, pp. 345–390. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinz H. Bauschke
    • 1
  • Francesco Iorio
    • 2
  • Valentin R. Koch
    • 3
  1. 1.MathematicsUniversity of British ColumbiaKelownaCanada
  2. 2.Autodesk ResearchTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Information Modeling and Platform Products Group (IPG)Autodesk, Inc.San RafaelUSA

Personalised recommendations