skip to main content
article
Free Access

Procedures for optimization problems with a mixture of bounds and general linear constraints

Published:28 August 1984Publication History
First page image

References

  1. 1 BARTELS, R. H. A penalty linear programming method using reduced-gradient basis-exchange techniques. Linear Algebra and its Applics. 29, (1980), 17-32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. 2 BIG6S, M.C. Constrained minimization using recursive equality quadratic programming. In Numerical Methods for Non-Linear Optimization, F. A. Lootsma, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1972, pp. 411-428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3 BUCKLEY, A.G. An alternative implementation of Goldfarb's minimization algorithm. Math. Program 8 (1975), 207-231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4 COX, M. G. The least squares solution of overdetermined linear equations having band or augmented band structure. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 1, (1981), 3-22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. 5 DANTZIG, G.B. Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6 GENTLEMAN, M. Least squares computations by Givens transformations without square roots. J Inst. Maths. Applics. 12, (1973) 329-336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 7 GILL, P. E., GOLUB, G. H., MURRAY, W., AND SAUNDERS, M.A. Methods for updating matrix factorizations. Math. Comput 28, (1974), 505-535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. 8 GILL, P. S., AND MURRAY, W. A numerically stable form of the simplex algorithm. LinearAlg. Applics 7, (1973), 99-138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. 9 GILL, P. S., AND MURRAY, W. Newton-type methods for unconstrained and linearly constrained optimization. Math. Program. 27, (1974), 311-350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10 GILL, P. S., AND MURRAY, W. Linearly constrained problems, including linear and quadratic programming. In The State of the Art in Numerical Analys~s, D. Jacobs, Ed., Academic, New York, 1977, pp. 313-361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 GILL, P. E., MURRAY, W., PICKEN, S. M., AND LONG, S. S.R. Subroutine LCMNA, ref. no. E4/35/0. National Physlcal Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, U.K. 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12 GILL, P. E., MURRAY, W, SAUNDERS, M. A., AND WRIGHT, M. H. User's guide for SOL/QPSOL: a Fortran package for quadratw programming. Rap. SOL 83-7, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Calif. 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. 13 GILL, P. E., MURRAY, W., SAUNDERS, S . A., AND WRIGHT, M. H. User's guide for SOL/NPSOL: a Fortran package for nonlinear programming. Rep. SOL 83-1, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Calif., 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. 14 GILL, P. E., MURRAY, W., AND WRIGHT, M.H. Practical Optimization, Academic Press, New York, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15 HAMMARLING, S, A note on modifications to the Givens plane rotation, J. Inst. Maths. Applics. 13, (1974), 215-218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 16 HAN, S.-P. Superhnearly convergent variable metric algorithms for general nonlinear programming problems, Math. Program 11, (1976), 263-282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17 LAWSON, C. L., HANSON, R. J., KINCAID, D. R., AND KROGH, F. T. Basic linear algebra subprograms for Fortran usage. ACM Trans. Math. So#w. 5, 3 (Sept. 1979), 308-323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18 MIFFLIN, R. A stable method for solving certain constrained least-squares problems. Math. Program. 16, (1979), 141-158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 19 MURRAY, W. An algorithm for constrained minimization. In Optimization, R. Fletcher, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1969, pp. 247-258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20 MURRAY, W., AND WRIGHT, M.H. Computation of the search direction in constrained optimization algorithms. Math. Program. Study 16, (1982), 62-83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 21 MURTAGH, B. A., AND SAUNDERS, M.A. Large-scale linearly constrained optimization. Math. Program. 14, (1978), 41-72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22 MURTAGH, B. A., AND SAUNDERS, M.A. A projected Lagrangian algorithm and its implementation for sparse nonlinear constraints. Math. Program. Study 16, (1982), 84-117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. 23 POWELL, M. J.D. A fast algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimization calculations. Rep. DAMTP 77/NA 2, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24 POWELL, S. A development of the product form algorithm for the simplex method using reduced transformation vectors. Math. Program Study 4, (1975), 93-107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. 25 ROBINSON, S. M. A quadratically convergent algorithm for general nonlinear programming problems. Math. Program. 3, (1972), 145-156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26 ROSEN, J. B. The gradient projectmn method for nonlinear programming. Part I--Linear constraints. SIAM J. Appl Math. 8, (1960), 181-217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. 27 ROSEN, J. B., AND KREUSER, J. A gradient projection algorithm for nonlinear constraints. In Numerical Methods for Non-Linear Optimzzation, F. A. Lootsma, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1972, pp. 297-300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28 STEWART, G.W. Introductwn to Matrix Computations. Academic, New York, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29 STOER, J. On the numerical solution of constrained least-squares problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 8, 1971, 382-411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 30 WILKINSON, J.H. The Algebraic' E~genvalue Problem. Oxford University Press, New York, 1965. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 31 ZOUTENDIJK, G. A product-form algorithm using contracted transformation vectors. In Integer and Nonhnear Programming, J Abadie, Ed., Elsevier North-Holland, New York, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Procedures for optimization problems with a mixture of bounds and general linear constraints

                  Recommendations

                  Reviews

                  Donald G. M. Anderson

                  In linearly constrained optimization problems, two types of constraints may be distinguished: simple bounds (upper and/or lower) on individual variables; and general linear equality, or inequality constraints involving several variables. In methods based on an active-set strategy, one attempts to identify the subset of these constraints which are satisfied as equalities at the optimum, and to solve the corresponding reduced equality constrained problem. From stage to stage during the course of the iteration, the tentatively identified active set will change, in general; certain auxiliary quantities required to generate the next iterant, which depend on the active set, must change correspondingly. One could choose to treat simple bounds on the same footing as general constraints. But there are potential advantages to be gained by recognizing their presence should a significant number of them enter the active set at any stage, because variables assigned their values by active bound constraints need not be determined in the course of solving (normally approximately) the reduced problem at that stage. The auxiliary quantities involve the gradient and Hessian of the objective function whose extremum subject to the active constraints is sought, or approximations thereto. Common to a broad class of methods and problems is the need for additional information most easily obtained from a suitable factorization of a matrix specified by the tentative active set, for a factorization of a reduced Hessian matrix, and for quantities related thereto. This paper is devoted to the selection of suitable factorizations, and the design and implementation of an algorithm for updating these factorizations when the active set changes. Stable and efficient updating techniques are proposed for the four canonical changes: adjoining or deleting a simple bound or a general linear constraint. Other changes can be treated as a sequence of such canonical changes. The implementation is designed for moderate numbers of active constraints with no special sparsity structure beyond that characteristic of simple bounds. Some variants of and alternatives to the techniques proposed are discussed briefly. With the exception of a few minor misprints, the paper is clearly and carefully written. With the possible exception of linear objective functions, the linear programming problem, such techniques seem likely to be part of many future state-of-the-art codes. The authors have apparently produced such codes for quadratic and nonlinear programming problems.

                  Andre Walter Pollock

                  The authors of this paper describe their procedures for updating matrix factorizations as the set of active constraints changes in a linearly constrained optimization problem. The authors show that improved computational efficiency and reduced data storage can be achieved by (1) special treatment of simple bound constraints; (2) a so-called TQ factorization of the active constraint set; and, when the objective function is nonlinear; (3) a Cholesky factorization of the projected Hessian. The paper details in symbolic notation the updating procedures for adding or deleting either a bound or a general linear constraint. Readers interested in applying these procedures, but unfamiliar with the notation, might appreciate some well-chosen numerical examples.

                  Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

                  Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in

                  Full Access

                  • Published in

                    cover image ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software
                    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software  Volume 10, Issue 3
                    Sept. 1984
                    136 pages
                    ISSN:0098-3500
                    EISSN:1557-7295
                    DOI:10.1145/1271
                    Issue’s Table of Contents

                    Copyright © 1984 ACM

                    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                    Publisher

                    Association for Computing Machinery

                    New York, NY, United States

                    Publication History

                    • Published: 28 August 1984
                    Published in toms Volume 10, Issue 3

                    Permissions

                    Request permissions about this article.

                    Request Permissions

                    Check for updates

                    Qualifiers

                    • article

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader