DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2007.03888V2 [Math.MG] 29 Nov 2020 N Nlss N a Omlt Ta Olw:Frayconvex Any for Follows: As It Formulate Can One Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2007.03888V2 [Math.MG] 29 Nov 2020 N Nlss N a Omlt Ta Olw:Frayconvex Any for Follows: As It Formulate Can One Analysis STOCHASTIC FORMS OF BRUNN’S PRINCIPLE PETER PIVOVAROV & JESÚS REBOLLO BUENO Abstract. A number of geometric inequalities for convex sets arising from Brunn’s concavity principle have recently been shown to yield lo- cal stochastic formulations. Comparatively, there has been much less progress towards stochastic forms of related functional inequalities. We develop stochastic geometry of s-concave functions to establish local ver- sions of dimensional forms of Brunn’s principle à la Borell, Brascamp- Lieb, and Rinott. To do so, we define shadow systems of s-concave func- tions and revisit Rinott’s approach in the context of multiple integral rearrangement inequalities. 1. Introduction Brunn’s concavity principle underpins a wealth of inequalities in geometry and analysis. One can formulate it as follows: for any convex body K ⊆ Rn and any direction θ, the (n − 1)-volume of slices of K by parallel translates of θ⊥ is 1/(n − 1)-concave on its support, i.e., A(t)= |K ∩ (θ⊥ + tθ)|1/(n−1) (1.1) is concave. A far-reaching extension of this principle in analysis is exem- plified by a family of functional inequalities obtained by Borell [4] and Brascamp-Lieb [6], with an alternate approach put forth by Rinott [34]. These inequalities can be formulated in terms of certain means as follows: for a, b ≥ 0, s ≥ −1/n and λ ∈ (0, 1), set arXiv:2007.03888v2 [math.MG] 29 Nov 2020 s s 1/s s (λa + (1 − λ)b ) if ab =06 Mλ(a, b)= (0 if ab =0, where the cases s ∈ {−1/n, 0, +∞} are defined as limits −1/n +∞ 0 λ 1−λ Mλ (a, b) = min{a, b}, Mλ (a, b) = max{a, b}, Mλ(a, b)= a b . Then for measurable functions f,g,h : Rn → [0, ∞) , 0 <λ< 1, and s ≥ −1/n, if s h(λx1 + (1 − λ)x2) ≥Mλ(f(x1),g(x2)) (1.2) 1 2 P. PIVOVAROV & J. REBOLLO BUENO n for all x1, x2 ∈ R , one has s/(1+ns) h ≥Mλ f, g . (1.3) Rn Rn Rn Z Z Z The Prékopa-Leindler inequality [22, 31, 32] corresponds to the logarithmi- cally concave case s =0; for earlier work on the real line, see Henstock and Macbeath [20]. These principles are now fundamental in analysis, geometry and probability, among other fields. For their considerable impact, we refer the reader to [16] and the references therein. The inequalities (1.3) stem from principles rooted in convexity. Indeed, the standard approach to Brunn’s principle (1.1) connects concavity of the map t 7→ A(t) to the convexity of K through suitable symmetrizations, see e.g., [2]. In [5], Brascamp and Lieb used symmetrization to prove certain cases of (1.3). Subsequently, they provided an alternate inductive approach, based on the Brunn-Minkowski inequality [6]. Rinott provided an alternate proof, starting with epigraphs of convex functions [34]. However, the in- equalities ultimately do not require convexity as they hold for measurable functions. So convexity (or concavity) of the functions involved seems of no importance. In this paper, our focus is on what more can be said when the functions involved do possess some concavity. Our motivation stems from recent work for convex sets in which a “lo- cal” stochastic dominance accompanies an isoperimetric principle. A con- crete example, which can be derived via Brunn’s principle, is the Blaschke- Santaló [38] inequality. The latter says that the volume of the polar of an origin-symmetric convex body K is maximized by a Euclidean ball B under a constraint of equal volume. Proofs via symmetrization depend on vari- ants of (1.3), e.g., Meyer-Pajor [26] and Campi-Gronchi [11]. In [14], the first-named author, together with Cordero-Erausquin, Fradelizi and Paouris, proved a stochastic version in which the dominance applies “locally” to ran- dom polytopes that naturally approximate K and B from within. By re- peated sampling, this recovers the Blaschke-Santaló inequality by the law of large numbers. This example is indicative of recent research on isoperimetric inequalities: when an isoperimetric principle for convex sets can be proved by symmetrization, it is fruitful to instead carry out the symmetrization on product probability spaces. Multiple integral rearrangement inequalities of Rogers [35], Brascamp-Lieb-Luttinger [7], and Christ [13] then enter the picture and yield stronger stochastic formulations. This builds on princi- ples in stochastic geometry e.g., [9, 10, 19]; see [14, 28, 29, 33] for further background. While there is much work on stochastic isoperimetric inequalities for con- vex sets, there are far fewer results about random functions. In [30], we STOCHASTIC FORMS OF BRUNN’S PRINCIPLE 3 Figure 1. Stochastic approximation of a log-conave function f by its least log-concave majorant [f]N above a random sam- ple under the graph of f. initiated work on the Prékopa-Leindler inequality for random log-concave functions. Here we will show that the full family of inequalities (1.3) actu- ally have “local” stochastic strengthenings for functions f that are s-concave, i.e. f s is concave on its support; when s < 0, this means that f s is con- vex. To formulate our main result, for each s-concave function f, we sample independent random vectors (X1,Z1),..., (XN ,ZN ) distributed uniformly under the graph of f according to Lebesgue measure. We associate random functions [f]N , supported on the convex hull conv{X1,...,XN }, defined by 1/s inf{z :(x, z) ∈ Pf,N }, if s< 0 z [f]N (x)= sup{e :(x, z) ∈ Pf,N }, if s =0, 1/s sup{z :(x, z) ∈ Pf,N }, if s> 0, where s s conv{(X1,Z1),..., (XN ,ZN )}, if s =06 . Pf,N = (conv{(X1, log Z1),..., (XN , log ZN )}, if s =0. In other words, when s = 0 or s > 0, [f]N is the least log-concave or s-concave function, respectively, satisfying [f]N (Xi) ≥ Zi; similarly, when s< 0, [f]N is the greatest s-concave function with [f]N (Xi) ≤ Zi. See Figure 1 for the case s =0. With this notation, we can state our main result, which we formulate in terms of the sup-convolution s (f ⋆λ,s g)(v) = sup{Mλ(f(x1),g(x2)) : v = λx1 + (1 − λ)x2} and the symmetric decreasing rearrangements f ∗ and g∗ of f and g, respec- tively (defined in (2.1)). 4 P. PIVOVAROV & J. REBOLLO BUENO Theorem 1.1. Let s ∈ (−1/n, ∞) and let f,g : Rn → [0, ∞) be integrable s-concave functions and N,M >n +1. Then for α> 0, ∗ ∗ P ([f]N ⋆λ,s [g]M )(v)dv >α ≥ P ([f ]N ⋆λ,s [g ]M )(v)dv >α . Rn Rn Z Z When N, M →∞ one gets ∗ ∗ (f ⋆λ,s g)(v)dv ≥ (f ⋆λ,s g )(v)dv. (1.5) Rn Rn Z Z As mentioned, Brascamp and Lieb’s first approach to cases of (1.3) used rear- rangements. Recent interest in rearranged strengthenings for this and other means in (1.3) have been studied by Melbourne [25] for general functions. Roysdon and Xing have studied Lp variants of the Borell-Brascamp-Lieb inequality [37]. Our treatment will also allow for other means (see Remark 8.1). We focus on s-concave functions because in this case there is a stronger local stochastic dominance. Special cases of Theorem 1.1, namely s =1/q (q ∈ N) were treated in [30]. The approach used multiple integral rearrangement inequalities (as discussed above) and, additionally, built on ideas of Artstein-Avidan, Klartag and Milman [3] on moving from convex sets to log-concave functions. Here a new key step is inspired by Rinott’s approach to (1.3) via epigraphs of convex functions [34]; the latter has recently been used in a dual setting by Artstein- Avidan, Florentin and Segal [1] for a new Prékopa-Leindler inequality. Another new tool developed in this paper is that of linear parameter systems for s-concave functions. Linear parameter systems along a direction θ ∈ Sn−1 are families of convex sets of the form Kt = conv{xi + λitθ : i ∈ I}, t ∈ [a, b], n where I is an index set, {xi}i∈I ⊆ R and {λi}i∈I ⊆ R are bounded sets. Rogers and Shephard [36] proved the fundamental fact that the volume of Kt is a convex function of t. This was extended to the more general notion of shadow systems by Shephard [41]. Shadow systems encorporate key features of Steiner symmetrization and have been successfully used in a variety of isoperimetric type inequalities, developed especially by Campi and Gronchi, e.g., [11, 12]; for other examples, see [15, 39, 27, 43] or [40] and the references therein. The proof of Theorem 1.1 relies on extending linear parameter systems to s-concave functions. Let I be an index set, and {(xi + λitθ, zi)}i∈I ⊆ Rn × [0, ∞) a collection of points lying under the graph of an integrable s- concave function and set wi(t)= xi +λitθ, i ∈ I. Analogous to the definition of [f]N , we define, for s ≥ 0, ft,s to be the least s-concave function above STOCHASTIC FORMS OF BRUNN’S PRINCIPLE 5 {wi(t)}; similarly, for s < 0, we define ft,s to be the greatest s-concave function beneath the points {wi(t)} (see §5). In this setting, we show that t 7→ ft,s(v)dv Rn Z is convex. Just as linear parameter systems can be viewed as special shadow systems, the same applies to s-concave functions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Choquet Theorem for Random Upper Semicontinuous Functions
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 46 (2007) 3–16 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijar On Choquet theorem for random upper semicontinuous functions Hung T. Nguyen a, Yangeng Wang b,1, Guo Wei c,* a Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA b Department of Mathematics, Northwest University, Xian, Shaanxi 710069, PR China c Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, Pembroke, NC 28372, USA Received 16 May 2006; received in revised form 17 October 2006; accepted 1 December 2006 Available online 29 December 2006 Abstract Motivated by the problem of modeling of coarse data in statistics, we investigate in this paper topologies of the space of upper semicontinuous functions with values in the unit interval [0,1] to define rigorously the concept of random fuzzy closed sets. Unlike the case of the extended real line by Salinetti and Wets, we obtain a topological embedding of random fuzzy closed sets into the space of closed sets of a product space, from which Choquet theorem can be investigated rigorously. Pre- cise topological and metric considerations as well as results of probability measures and special prop- erties of capacity functionals for random u.s.c. functions are also given. Ó 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Choquet theorem; Random sets; Upper semicontinuous functions 1. Introduction Random sets are mathematical models for coarse data in statistics (see e.g. [12]). A the- ory of random closed sets on Hausdorff, locally compact and second countable (i.e., a * Corresponding author.
    [Show full text]
  • ABOUT STATIONARITY and REGULARITY in VARIATIONAL ANALYSIS 1. Introduction the Paper Investigates Extremality, Stationarity and R
    1 ABOUT STATIONARITY AND REGULARITY IN VARIATIONAL ANALYSIS 2 ALEXANDER Y. KRUGER To Boris Mordukhovich on his 60th birthday Abstract. Stationarity and regularity concepts for the three typical for variational analysis classes of objects { real-valued functions, collections of sets, and multifunctions { are investi- gated. An attempt is maid to present a classification scheme for such concepts and to show that properties introduced for objects from different classes can be treated in a similar way. Furthermore, in many cases the corresponding properties appear to be in a sense equivalent. The properties are defined in terms of certain constants which in the case of regularity proper- ties provide also some quantitative characterizations of these properties. The relations between different constants and properties are discussed. An important feature of the new variational techniques is that they can handle nonsmooth 3 functions, sets and multifunctions equally well Borwein and Zhu [8] 4 1. Introduction 5 The paper investigates extremality, stationarity and regularity properties of real-valued func- 6 tions, collections of sets, and multifunctions attempting at developing a unifying scheme for defining 7 and using such properties. 8 Under different names this type of properties have been explored for centuries. A classical 9 example of a stationarity condition is given by the Fermat theorem on local minima and max- 10 ima of differentiable functions. In a sense, any necessary optimality (extremality) conditions de- 11 fine/characterize certain stationarity (singularity/irregularity) properties. The separation theorem 12 also characterizes a kind of extremal (stationary) behavior of convex sets. 13 Surjectivity of a linear continuous mapping in the Banach open mapping theorem (and its 14 extension to nonlinear mappings known as Lyusternik-Graves theorem) is an example of a regularity 15 condition.
    [Show full text]
  • EE364 Review Session 2
    EE364 Review EE364 Review Session 2 Convex sets and convex functions • Examples from chapter 3 • Installing and using CVX • 1 Operations that preserve convexity Convex sets Convex functions Intersection Nonnegative weighted sum Affine transformation Composition with an affine function Perspective transformation Perspective transformation Pointwise maximum and supremum Minimization Convex sets and convex functions are related via the epigraph. • Composition rules are extremely important. • EE364 Review Session 2 2 Simple composition rules Let h : R R and g : Rn R. Let f(x) = h(g(x)). Then: ! ! f is convex if h is convex and nondecreasing, and g is convex • f is convex if h is convex and nonincreasing, and g is concave • f is concave if h is concave and nondecreasing, and g is concave • f is concave if h is concave and nonincreasing, and g is convex • EE364 Review Session 2 3 Ex. 3.6 Functions and epigraphs. When is the epigraph of a function a halfspace? When is the epigraph of a function a convex cone? When is the epigraph of a function a polyhedron? Solution: If the function is affine, positively homogeneous (f(αx) = αf(x) for α 0), and piecewise-affine, respectively. ≥ Ex. 3.19 Nonnegative weighted sums and integrals. r 1. Show that f(x) = i=1 αix[i] is a convex function of x, where α1 α2 αPr 0, and x[i] denotes the ith largest component of ≥ ≥ · · · ≥ ≥ k n x. (You can use the fact that f(x) = i=1 x[i] is convex on R .) P 2. Let T (x; !) denote the trigonometric polynomial T (x; !) = x + x cos ! + x cos 2! + + x cos(n 1)!: 1 2 3 · · · n − EE364 Review Session 2 4 Show that the function 2π f(x) = log T (x; !) d! − Z0 is convex on x Rn T (x; !) > 0; 0 ! 2π .
    [Show full text]
  • NP-Hardness of Deciding Convexity of Quartic Polynomials and Related Problems
    NP-hardness of Deciding Convexity of Quartic Polynomials and Related Problems Amir Ali Ahmadi, Alex Olshevsky, Pablo A. Parrilo, and John N. Tsitsiklis ∗y Abstract We show that unless P=NP, there exists no polynomial time (or even pseudo-polynomial time) algorithm that can decide whether a multivariate polynomial of degree four (or higher even degree) is globally convex. This solves a problem that has been open since 1992 when N. Z. Shor asked for the complexity of deciding convexity for quartic polynomials. We also prove that deciding strict convexity, strong convexity, quasiconvexity, and pseudoconvexity of polynomials of even degree four or higher is strongly NP-hard. By contrast, we show that quasiconvexity and pseudoconvexity of odd degree polynomials can be decided in polynomial time. 1 Introduction The role of convexity in modern day mathematical programming has proven to be remarkably fundamental, to the point that tractability of an optimization problem is nowadays assessed, more often than not, by whether or not the problem benefits from some sort of underlying convexity. In the famous words of Rockafellar [39]: \In fact the great watershed in optimization isn't between linearity and nonlinearity, but convexity and nonconvexity." But how easy is it to distinguish between convexity and nonconvexity? Can we decide in an efficient manner if a given optimization problem is convex? A class of optimization problems that allow for a rigorous study of this question from a com- putational complexity viewpoint is the class of polynomial optimization problems. These are op- timization problems where the objective is given by a polynomial function and the feasible set is described by polynomial inequalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Monotonic Transformations: Cardinal Versus Ordinal Utility
    Natalia Lazzati Mathematics for Economics (Part I) Note 10: Quasiconcave and Pseudoconcave Functions Note 10 is based on Madden (1986, Ch. 13, 14) and Simon and Blume (1994, Ch. 21). Monotonic transformations: Cardinal Versus Ordinal Utility A utility function could be said to measure the level of satisfaction associated to each commodity bundle. Nowadays, no economist really believes that a real number can be assigned to each commodity bundle which expresses (in utils?) the consumer’slevel of satisfaction with this bundle. Economists believe that consumers have well-behaved preferences over bundles and that, given any two bundles, a consumer can indicate a preference of one over the other or the indi¤erence between the two. Although economists work with utility functions, they are concerned with the level sets of such functions, not with the number that the utility function assigns to any given level set. In consumer theory these level sets are called indi¤erence curves. A property of utility functions is called ordinal if it depends only on the shape and location of a consumer’sindi¤erence curves. It is alternatively called cardinal if it also depends on the actual amount of utility the utility function assigns to each indi¤erence set. In the modern approach, we say that two utility functions are equivalent if they have the same indi¤erence sets, although they may assign di¤erent numbers to each level set. For instance, let 2 2 u : R+ R where u (x) = x1x2 be a utility function, and let v : R+ R be the utility function ! ! v (x) = u (x) + 1: These two utility functions represent the same preferences and are therefore equivalent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ekeland Variational Principle, the Bishop-Phelps Theorem, and The
    The Ekeland Variational Principle, the Bishop-Phelps Theorem, and the Brøndsted-Rockafellar Theorem Our aim is to prove the Ekeland Variational Principle which is an abstract result that found numerous applications in various fields of Mathematics. As its application to Convex Analysis, we provide a proof of the famous Bishop- Phelps Theorem and some related results. Let us recall that the epigraph and the hypograph of a function f : X ! [−∞; +1] (where X is a set) are the following subsets of X × R: epi f = f(x; t) 2 X × R : t ≥ f(x)g ; hyp f = f(x; t) 2 X × R : t ≤ f(x)g : Notice that, if f > −∞ on X then epi f 6= ; if and only if f is proper, that is, f is finite at at least one point. 0.1. The Ekeland Variational Principle. In what follows, (X; d) is a metric space. Given λ > 0 and (x; t) 2 X × R, we define the set Kλ(x; t) = f(y; s): s ≤ t − λd(x; y)g = f(y; s): λd(x; y) ≤ t − sg ⊂ X × R: Notice that Kλ(x; t) = hyp[t − λ(x; ·)]. Let us state some useful properties of these sets. Lemma 0.1. (a) Kλ(x; t) is closed and contains (x; t). (b) If (¯x; t¯) 2 Kλ(x; t) then Kλ(¯x; t¯) ⊂ Kλ(x; t). (c) If (xn; tn) ! (x; t) and (xn+1; tn+1) 2 Kλ(xn; tn) (n 2 N), then \ Kλ(x; t) = Kλ(xn; tn) : n2N Proof. (a) is quite easy.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2103.15804V4 [Math.AT] 25 May 2021
    Decorated Merge Trees for Persistent Topology Justin Curry, Haibin Hang, Washington Mio, Tom Needham, and Osman Berat Okutan Abstract. This paper introduces decorated merge trees (DMTs) as a novel invariant for persistent spaces. DMTs combine both π0 and Hn information into a single data structure that distinguishes filtrations that merge trees and persistent homology cannot distinguish alone. Three variants on DMTs, which empha- size category theory, representation theory and persistence barcodes, respectively, offer different advantages in terms of theory and computation. Two notions of distance|an interleaving distance and bottleneck distance|for DMTs are defined and a hierarchy of stability results that both refine and generalize existing stability results is proved here. To overcome some of the computational complexity inherent in these dis- tances, we provide a novel use of Gromov-Wasserstein couplings to compute optimal merge tree alignments for a combinatorial version of our interleaving distance which can be tractably estimated. We introduce computational frameworks for generating, visualizing and comparing decorated merge trees derived from synthetic and real data. Example applications include comparison of point clouds, interpretation of persis- tent homology of sliding window embeddings of time series, visualization of topological features in segmented brain tumor images and topology-driven graph alignment. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Decorated Merge Trees Three Different Ways3 3. Continuity and Stability of Decorated Merge Trees 10 4. Representations of Tree Posets and Lift Decorations 16 5. Computing Interleaving Distances 20 6. Algorithmic Details and Examples 24 7. Discussion 29 References 30 Appendix A. Interval Topology 34 Appendix B. Comparison and Existence of Merge Trees 35 Appendix C.
    [Show full text]
  • On Nonconvex Subdifferential Calculus in Banach Spaces1
    Journal of Convex Analysis Volume 2 (1995), No.1/2, 211{227 On Nonconvex Subdifferential Calculus in Banach Spaces1 Boris S. Mordukhovich, Yongheng Shao Department of Mathematics, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected] Received July 1994 Revised manuscript received March 1995 Dedicated to R. T. Rockafellar on his 60th Birthday We study a concept of subdifferential for general extended-real-valued functions defined on arbitrary Banach spaces. At any point considered this basic subdifferential is a nonconvex set of subgradients formed by sequential weak-star limits of the so-called Fr´echet "-subgradients of the function at points nearby. It is known that such and related constructions possess full calculus under special geometric assumptions on Banach spaces where they are defined. In this paper we establish some useful calculus rules in the general Banach space setting. Keywords : Nonsmooth analysis, generalized differentiation, extended-real-valued functions, nonconvex calculus, Banach spaces, sequential limits 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 49J52; Secondary 58C20 1. Introduction It is well known that for studying local behavior of nonsmooth functions one can suc- cessfully use an appropriate concept of subdifferential (set of subgradients) which replaces the classical gradient at points of nondifferentiability in the usual two-sided sense. Such a concept first appeared for convex functions in the context of convex analysis that has had many significant applications to the range of problems in optimization, economics, mechanics, etc. One of the most important branches of convex analysis is subdifferen- tial calculus for convex extended-real-valued functions that was developed in the 1960's, mainly by Moreau and Rockafellar; see [23] and [25, 27] for expositions and references.
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Algebra Review
    CSE 203B: Convex Optimization Week 4 Discuss Session 1 Contents • Convex functions (Ref. Chap.3) • Review: definition, first order condition, second order condition, operations that preserve convexity • Epigraph • Conjugate function • Dual norm 2 Review of Convex Function • Definition ( often simplified by restricting to a line) • First order condition: a global underestimator • Second order condition • Operations that preserve convexity • Nonnegative weighted sum • Composition with affine function • Pointwise maximum and supremum • Composition • Minimization See Chap 3.2, try to prove why the convexity • Perspective is preserved with those operations. 3 Epigraph • 훼-sublevel set of 푓: 푅푛 → 푅 퐶훼 = 푥 ∈ 푑표푚 푓 푓 푥 ≤ 훼} sublevel sets of a convex function are convex for any value of 훼. • Epigraph of 푓: 푅푛 → 푅 is defined as 퐞퐩퐢 푓 = (푥, 푡) 푥 ∈ 푑표푚 푓, 푓 푥 ≤ 푡} ⊆ 푅푛+1 • A function is convex iff its epigraph is a convex set. 4 Relation between convex sets and convex functions • A function is convex iff its epigraph is a convex set. • Consider a convex function 푓 and 푥, 푦 ∈ 푑표푚 푓 푡 ≥ 푓 푦 ≥ 푓 푥 + 훻푓 푥 푇(푦 − 푥) epi 풇 First order condition for convexity • The hyperplane supports epi 풇 at (푥, 푓 푥 ), for any 푡 푥 푦, 푡 ∈ 퐞퐩퐢 푓 ⇒ 훻푓 푥 푇 푦 − 푥 + 푓 푥 − 푡 ≤ 0 훻푓 푥 푇 푦 푥 ⇒ − ≤ 0 −1 푡 푓 푥 Supporting hyperplane, derived from first order condition 5 Pointwise Supremum • If for each 푦 ∈ 푈, 푓(푥, 푦): 푅푛 → 푅 is convex in 푥, then function 푔(푥) = sup 푓(푥, 푦) 푦∈푈 is convex in 푥.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 3: Convex Sets and Functions 3.1 Convex Sets
    EE 227A: Convex Optimization and Applications January 24, 2012 Lecture 3: Convex Sets and Functions Lecturer: Laurent El Ghaoui Reading assignment: Chapters 2 (except x2.6) and sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 of BV. You can also look at section 3.1 of the web textbook. 3.1 Convex Sets Definition. A subset C of Rn is convex if and only if it contains the line segment between any two points in it: 8 x1; x2 2 C; 8 θ1 ≥ 0; θ2 ≥ 0; θ1 + θ2 = 1 : θ1x1 + θ2x2 2 C: Some important special cases of convex sets are the following. • The set is said to be an affine subspace if it contains the entire line passing through any two points. This corresponds to the condition above, with θ1; θ2 arbitrary. Subspaces and affine subspaces are convex. • The set is said to be a convex cone if the condition above holds, but with the restriction θ1 + θ2 = 1 removed. Examples. • The convex hull of a set of points fx1; : : : ; xmg is defined as ( m m ) X m X Co(x1; : : : ; xm) := λixi : λ 2 R+ ; λi = 1 ; i=1 i=1 and is convex. The conic hull: ( m ) X m λixi : λ 2 R+ i=1 is a convex cone. • For a 2 Rn, and b 2 R, the hyperplane H = fx : aT x = bg is affine. The half-space fx : aT x ≤ bg is convex. 3-1 EE 227A Lecture 3 | January 24, 2012 Sp'12 n×n n • For a square, non-singular matrix R 2 R , and xc 2 R , the ellipsoid fxc + Ru : kuk2 ≤ 1g is convex.
    [Show full text]
  • OPTIMIZATION and VARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES Basic Statements and Constructions
    1 OPTIMIZATION and VARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES Basic statements and constructions Bernd Kummer; [email protected] ; May 2011 Abstract. This paper summarizes basic facts in both finite and infinite dimensional optimization and for variational inequalities. In addition, partially new results (concerning methods and stability) are included. They were elaborated in joint work with D. Klatte, Univ. Z¨urich and J. Heerda, HU-Berlin. Key words. Existence of solutions, (strong) duality, Karush-Kuhn-Tucker points, Kojima-function, generalized equation, (quasi -) variational inequality, multifunctions, Kakutani Theo- rem, MFCQ, subgradient, subdifferential, conjugate function, vector-optimization, Pareto- optimality, solution methods, penalization, barriers, non-smooth Newton method, per- turbed solutions, stability, Ekeland's variational principle, Lyusternik theorem, modified successive approximation, Aubin property, metric regularity, calmness, upper and lower Lipschitz, inverse and implicit functions, generalized Jacobian @cf, generalized derivatives TF , CF , D∗F , Clarkes directional derivative, limiting normals and subdifferentials, strict differentiability. Bemerkung. Das Material wird st¨andigaktualisiert. Es soll Vorlesungen zur Optimierung und zu Vari- ationsungleichungen (glatt, nichtglatt) unterst¨utzen. Es entstand aus Scripten, die teils in englisch teils in deutsch aufgeschrieben wurden. Daher gibt es noch Passagen in beiden Sprachen sowie z.T. verschiedene Schreibweisen wie etwa cT x und hc; xi f¨urdas Skalarpro- dukt und die kanonische Bilinearform. Hinweise auf Fehler sind willkommen. 2 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 The intentions of this script . .7 1.2 Notations . .7 1.3 Was ist (mathematische) Optimierung ? . .8 1.4 Particular classes of problems . 10 1.5 Crucial questions . 11 2 Lineare Optimierung 13 2.1 Dualit¨atund Existenzsatz f¨urLOP . 15 2.2 Die Simplexmethode .
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-Dissertation-Khajavirad.Pdf
    Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Institute of Technology thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy title Convexification Techniques for Global Optimization of Nonconvex Nonlinear Optimization Problems presented by Aida Khajavirad accepted by the department of mechanical engineering advisor date advisor date department head date approved by the college coucil dean date Convexification Techniques for Global Optimization of Nonconvex Nonlinear Optimization Problems Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mechanical Engineering Aida Khajavirad B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA August 2011 c 2011 - Aida Khajavirad All rights reserved. Abstract Fueled by applications across science and engineering, general-purpose deter- ministic global optimization algorithms have been developed for nonconvex nonlinear optimization problems over the past two decades. Central to the ef- ficiency of such methods is their ability to construct sharp convex relaxations. Current general-purpose global solvers rely on factorable programming tech- niques to iteratively decompose nonconvex factorable functions, through the introduction of variables and constraints for intermediate functional expres- sions, until each intermediate expression can be outer-approximated by a con- vex feasible set. While it is easy to automate, this factorable programming technique often leads to weak relaxations. In this thesis, we develop the theory of several new classes of cutting planes based upon ideas from generalized convexity and convex analysis. Namely, we (i) introduce a new method to outer-approximate convex-transformable func- tions, an important class of generalized convex functions that subsumes many functional forms that frequently appear in nonconvex problems and, (ii) derive closed-form expressions for the convex envelopes of various types of functions that are the building blocks of nonconvex problems.
    [Show full text]