Arxiv:1902.10921V1 [Math.OC] 28 Feb 2019 Programming Nvriy Ejn,109,P .Ciaemi:Yxia@Buaa and E-Mail: Mathematics China of R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) A survey of hidden convex optimization Yong Xia Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Motivated by the fact that not all nonconvex optimization problems are difficult to solve, we survey in this paper three widely-used ways to reveal the hidden convex structure for different classes of nonconvex optimization problems. Finally, ten open problems are raised. Keywords convex programming quadratic programming quadratic matrix programming fractional programming· Lagrangian dual · semidefinite programming · · · Mathematics Subject Classification (2010) 90C20, 90C25, 90C26, 90C32 1 Introduction Nowadays, convex programming becomes very popular due to not only its various real applications but also the charming property that any local solution also remains global optimality. However, it does not mean that convex programming problems are easy to solve. First, it may be difficult to identify convexity. Actually, deciding whether a quartic polynomials is globally convex is NP-hard [1]. Second, evaluating a convex function is also not always easy. For example, the induced matrix norm Ax p A p = sup k k k k x x p =06 k k This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants arXiv:1902.10921v1 [math.OC] 28 Feb 2019 11822103, 11571029 and Beijing Natural Science Foundation Z180005. Y. Xia LMIB of the Ministry of Education; School of Mathematics and System Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, P. R. China E-mail: [email protected] 2 Yong Xia is a convex function. But evaluating A p is NP-hard if p =1, 2, [35]. Third, convex programming problems mayk bek difficult to solve.6 It has been∞ shown in [20] that the general mixed-binary quadratic optimization problems can be equivalently reformulated as convex programming over the copositive cone Co := A Rn×n : A = AT , xT Ax 0, x 0, x Rn . { ∈ ≥ ∀ ≥ ∈ } Notice that checking whether A Co is NP-Complete [52]. Like a coin has two sides, there∈ are quite a few nonconvex optimization problems could be globally and efficiently solved in polynomial time. The rea- son behind this observation is that most of them belong to the hidden convex optimization, i.e., they admit equivalent convex programming reformulations. In the past two decades, hidden convex optimization problems were studied case by case in literature. In this survey, we summarize three class of ap- proaches to reveal the hidden convex structure, namely, nonlinear transforma- tion, Lagrangian dual and the primal tight convex relaxation. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the most common used nonlinear transformations for different classes of problems. Section 3 shows how Lagrangian duality and its variations achieve zero gap. Section 4 summarizes some classes of nonconvex optimization problems ad- mitting tight primal relaxations. As a concluding remark, ten open problems are raised in Section 5. Rn Throughout the paper, let v( ) be the optimal value of problem ( ). + de- notes the nonnegative orthant in·Rn. For a matrix A, denote by A ·( )0 that A is positive (semi)definite. The trace of A is defined as the sum≻ of its diago- n nal elements, i.e., tr(A)= i=1 Aii. λmin(A) and λmax(A) denote the minimal and maximal eigenvalues of A, respectively. In is the identity matrix of order T P n. x = √x x stands for the ℓ2 norm of a vector x. diag(x1,..., xn) returns k k T n a diagonal matrix with diagonal elements x1,...,xn. e = (1, 1,..., 1) R . Denote by conv Ω the convex hull of Ω. E denotes the number of elements∈ in the set E. For{ a} real value x,[x] returns| | the largest integer less than or equal to x. 2 Nonlinear transformation In this section, we survey some nonlinear transformation approaches widely used in convexifying different classes of nonconvex optimization problems. 2.1 A univariate example Univariate examples are not always as simple as converting the concave func- tion √x to y( 0) by introducing the one-to-one mapping x = y2 with y 0. The approach≥ [77] for reducing the duality gap for box constrained noncon-≥ vex quadratic program requires solving the following nonconvex subproblem 2 (G) max φ(θ) := min a1θ,a2δ (θ) , (1) θ { } Hidden convex optimization 3 where a1, a2 are two positive scalars, 2 2 δ (θ) = min (xi yi) − i I J ∈X∪ s.t. x C, yi [ 1, 1], i I, ∈ ∈ − ∈ √1 θ ωiyi 1, i J, − ≤ ≤ ∈ C is a linear manifold and ωi 1, 1 is given. The objective function φ(θ) (1) is not concave and thus (G)∈ {− is a} nonconvex minimization. Introducing σ = √1 θ, one can reformulate (G) as the following convex program: − max σ √a2 (x y) s.t. · − √a1, √a1 σ ≤ · 1 yi 1, i I, − ≤ ≤ ∈ σ ωiyi 1, i J, ≤ ≤ ∈ x C, σ 0. ∈ ≥ 2.2 p-th power approach Consider the following constrained nonconvex optimization problems: (P) min f(x): gi(x) bi,i =1,...,m, x S , { ≤ ∈ } where f(x), gi(x) (i =1, 2,...,m) are strictly positive over S and S is closed, bounded, connected and of a full dimension. It is known [41] that if the per- turbation function w(y) := min f(x): gi(x) yi,i =1,...,m, x S x∈S { ≤ ∈ } is locally convex in a closed and non-degenerate neighbourhood of b, then there is no duality gap between (P ) and its Lagrangian dual in the sense that the inner minimization is local and the outer maximization is in the neighbourhood of the optimal Lagrangian multiplier. In order to achieve such a zero duality gap, Li [43] first introduced the p-th power transformation: p p p (Pp) min f (x): g (x) b ,i =1,...,m, x S . { i ≤ i ∈ } Under some additional assumptions, Li [43] showed that, for a sufficiently large p p, the perturbation function of (Pp) is a convex function of y for any y in a neighbourhood of b. For more applications of the p-th power formulation, we refer to [45,46] and references therein. More generalizations of the p-th power convexification approach are further studied in [44,75]. Recently, a novel shifted p-th power reformulation is introduced in [84]: p p (Pp,µ) min f(x) : (gi(x)+ µi) (bi + µi) ,i =1,...,m, x S . { ≤ ∈ } 4 Yong Xia Surprisingly, under the same assumptions, there is a parametric vector µ Rm such that p = 3 is sufficient to guarantee the convexity of the perturbation∈ p function of (Pp,µ) in terms of (y+µ) with y lying in a neighbourhood of b. Be- sides, the assumption on the strict positiveness of f(x) and gi(x) is redundant in this new reformulation. For more details, we refer to [84]. 2.3 Minimal-volumn ellipsoid cover Consider the geometric problem of finding n-dimensional ellipsoid of minimal volume covering a set of m given points ai, i =1,...,m: −1 (MVE) minQ,x un det(Q ) T s.t. (x ai) Q(x ai) 1,i =1, . , m, p− − ≤ n where un is the volume of the unit ball in R and the objective is the n- dimensional volume. 1 By first introducing M = Q 2 (which is well defined as Q 0) and z = Mx, and then taking a logarithmic transformation for the objective≻ function, we can reformulate the nonconvex optimization problem (MVE) as the following convex program [70]: minM,z un log det(M) − T s.t. (z Mai) (z Mai) 1,i =1, . , m, − − ≤ where the fact det(Q−1) = (det(M))−2 is used. 2.4 Multiplicative programming Consider the linear multiplicative programming [40]: T T (LMP) maxx∈C (d1 x + c1)(d2 x + c2) T s.t. d x + ci 0, i =1, 2, i ≥ where C is a convex set. (LMP) is NP-hard [51] to solve if replacing the max- imization with minimization. The objective function of (LMP) is nonconcave but quasiconcave [40]. The hidden convexity of (LMP) is viewed by the equiv- alent convex programming problem in the sense that both sharing the same optimal solution: T T maxx∈C log(d1 x + c1) + log(d2 x + c2) T s.t. d x + ci 0, i =1, 2. i ≥ Hidden convex optimization 5 Moreover, we notice that (LMP) has the following new second-order cone programming representation: maxx∈C z T s.t. d x + ci 0, i =1, 2, i ≥ s dT x + c , t dT x + c , ≤ 1 1 ≤ 2 2 s t − s + t. 2z ≤ 2.5 Geometric programming Geometric program was first introduced in the book [26]. It is an optimization problem of the form (GP) min f0(x) s.t. fi(x) 1, i =1, . , m, (2) ≤ gj(x)=1, j =1, . , p, (3) n aij where gj (j =1,...,p) are monomials, i.e. the form cj i=1 xi with cj > 0, and fi (i =0,...,m) are posynomials, i.e., the sum of several monomials. We also assume that the constraints (2)-(3) implicitly implyQ that all the variables are positive. Obviously, the general (GP) is a nonconvex optimization problem. One can verify that introducing logarithmic change of variables yi = log(xi) and log- arithmic transformations of fi(x) yields a convex programming reformulation of (GP): y min log f0(e ) (4) y s.t. log fi(e ) 0, i =1, . , m, (5) y ≤ log gj (e )=0, j =1, . , p, (6) y yi where (e )i = e . 2.6 Fractional programming Consider the linear fractional program cT x + α (LF) min f(x)= (7) dT x + β s.t.