Skip to main content
Log in

Perturbed variations of penalty function methods

Example: Projective SUMT

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Penalty function techniques are well known perturbation methods for solving mathematical programming problems. We define new classes of penalty functions by introducing simple perturbations of classical penalty functions or, equivalently, perturbations of the given problem. Motivation is a recently developed method called “Projective SUMT”, proposed by McCormick, based on solving the differential equation associated with a barrier function minimizing trajectory. We show that this trajectory-following algorithm is a simple variation of classical SUMT (Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Technique). This leads to numerous additional interpretations, simplified convergence results, duality relationships and extensions. Like SUMT, Projective SUMT is closely related to the approach of Karmarkar.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A.V. Fiacco and G.P. McCormick,Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques (Wiley, New York, 1968). Unabridged corrected republication published in Classics in Applied Mathematics, SIAM (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  2. A.V. Fiacco,Introduction to Sensitivity and Stability Analysis in Nonlinear Programming (Academic Press, New York, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.E. Gill, W. Murray, M.A. Saunders, J.A. Tomlin and M.H. Wright, On projected Newton barrier methods for linear programming and an equivalence to Karmarkar's projective method, Technical Report SOL 85-11, Systems Optimization Laboratory, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Karmarkar, A new polynomial time algorithm for linear programming, Combinatorica (1984) 373–395.

  5. G.P. McCormick, The continuous Projective SUMT method for convex programming, Technical Paper Serial T-507, Institute for Management Science and Engineering, George Washington University (1986).

  6. G.P. McCormick, The discrete Projective SUMT method for convex programming, Technical Paper Serial T-509, Institute for Management Science and Engineering, George Washington University (1986).

  7. G.P. McCormick, The Projective SUMT method for convex programming, Math. Oper. Res. 14(2) (1989) 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Research supported by Grant ECS-86195859 and NSF N00014-85-K-0052, Office of Naval Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fiacco, A.V. Perturbed variations of penalty function methods. Ann Oper Res 27, 371–380 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055202

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055202

Keywords

Navigation