Minimizing $ell^infty$ norm of complex vector
I have an $n$-dimensional complex vector space, and I want to minimize the $L_infty$ norm of a point that is constrained to an $m$-dimensional affine subspace. That is,
Given $mathbf{z} in mathbb{C}^n$ and $mathbf{M}inmathbb{C}^{ntimes m}$, find $underset{mathbf xinmathbb{C}^m}{argmin} |mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x}|_infty$.
The columns of $mathbf{M}$ are orthonormal with $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{M}=mathbf{I}$, and $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{z} = mathbf{0}$. In my application, the columns of $mathbf{M}$ are taken from an $ntimes n$ Fourier matrix in such a way that $mathbf{M}mathbf{M}^*$ is real symmetric.
One approach is to require $left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright| le lambda$ and minimize the upper bound $lambda$. In the case where all of the variables are real, this gives a linear program. In the problem as posed, we can square both sides and rename the upper bound variable to get $min{Lambda} text{ s.t. }forall i, left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright|^2 le lambda^2 triangleq Lambda$, which corresponds to a quadratically-constrained linear program. Taking the Lagrange dual leads (if I am not mistaken) to
$max_u inf_{Lambda,mathbf{x}} left( Lambda + sum_{j=1}^n u_j (left|(mathbf{z} + mathbf{M} mathbf{x})_jright|^2 - Lambda) right)$ s.t. $u_i ge 0$,
which evaluates to
$max_u sum_{j=1}^n u_j left|(mathbf{z} - mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U}^+ mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z})_jright|^2$ s.t. $u_i ge 0, sum_{i=1}^n u_i = 1$, where $U_{ij}=delta_{ij} u_i$.
The pseudo-inverse came from solving the expression $-mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z} = mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{M} mathbf{x}$ (which arises while infimizing the Lagrange dual function). I think the idea is that $n-m$ of the $u_i$ will be zero, so that the expression becomes feasible. That makes sense from a complementary slackness perspective.
I've tried plowing through the remaining maximization. However, I didn't gain any insight, and I don't see how to deal with the non-differentiability of the pseudo-inverse around $u_i=0$. Is this the point where I should just throw gradient ascent at the dual problem and hope for the best? Or is there a better way? Thanks for any pointers.
complex-numbers convex-optimization
add a comment |
I have an $n$-dimensional complex vector space, and I want to minimize the $L_infty$ norm of a point that is constrained to an $m$-dimensional affine subspace. That is,
Given $mathbf{z} in mathbb{C}^n$ and $mathbf{M}inmathbb{C}^{ntimes m}$, find $underset{mathbf xinmathbb{C}^m}{argmin} |mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x}|_infty$.
The columns of $mathbf{M}$ are orthonormal with $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{M}=mathbf{I}$, and $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{z} = mathbf{0}$. In my application, the columns of $mathbf{M}$ are taken from an $ntimes n$ Fourier matrix in such a way that $mathbf{M}mathbf{M}^*$ is real symmetric.
One approach is to require $left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright| le lambda$ and minimize the upper bound $lambda$. In the case where all of the variables are real, this gives a linear program. In the problem as posed, we can square both sides and rename the upper bound variable to get $min{Lambda} text{ s.t. }forall i, left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright|^2 le lambda^2 triangleq Lambda$, which corresponds to a quadratically-constrained linear program. Taking the Lagrange dual leads (if I am not mistaken) to
$max_u inf_{Lambda,mathbf{x}} left( Lambda + sum_{j=1}^n u_j (left|(mathbf{z} + mathbf{M} mathbf{x})_jright|^2 - Lambda) right)$ s.t. $u_i ge 0$,
which evaluates to
$max_u sum_{j=1}^n u_j left|(mathbf{z} - mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U}^+ mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z})_jright|^2$ s.t. $u_i ge 0, sum_{i=1}^n u_i = 1$, where $U_{ij}=delta_{ij} u_i$.
The pseudo-inverse came from solving the expression $-mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z} = mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{M} mathbf{x}$ (which arises while infimizing the Lagrange dual function). I think the idea is that $n-m$ of the $u_i$ will be zero, so that the expression becomes feasible. That makes sense from a complementary slackness perspective.
I've tried plowing through the remaining maximization. However, I didn't gain any insight, and I don't see how to deal with the non-differentiability of the pseudo-inverse around $u_i=0$. Is this the point where I should just throw gradient ascent at the dual problem and hope for the best? Or is there a better way? Thanks for any pointers.
complex-numbers convex-optimization
1
if you are not particularly looking for a closed solution, you can solve it using a convex package. Minimizing the $l-infty$ norm is a standard problem and it is done using Second Order Cone Programming. Please look at this link google.com/…
– dineshdileep
Feb 22 '13 at 10:49
add a comment |
I have an $n$-dimensional complex vector space, and I want to minimize the $L_infty$ norm of a point that is constrained to an $m$-dimensional affine subspace. That is,
Given $mathbf{z} in mathbb{C}^n$ and $mathbf{M}inmathbb{C}^{ntimes m}$, find $underset{mathbf xinmathbb{C}^m}{argmin} |mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x}|_infty$.
The columns of $mathbf{M}$ are orthonormal with $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{M}=mathbf{I}$, and $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{z} = mathbf{0}$. In my application, the columns of $mathbf{M}$ are taken from an $ntimes n$ Fourier matrix in such a way that $mathbf{M}mathbf{M}^*$ is real symmetric.
One approach is to require $left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright| le lambda$ and minimize the upper bound $lambda$. In the case where all of the variables are real, this gives a linear program. In the problem as posed, we can square both sides and rename the upper bound variable to get $min{Lambda} text{ s.t. }forall i, left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright|^2 le lambda^2 triangleq Lambda$, which corresponds to a quadratically-constrained linear program. Taking the Lagrange dual leads (if I am not mistaken) to
$max_u inf_{Lambda,mathbf{x}} left( Lambda + sum_{j=1}^n u_j (left|(mathbf{z} + mathbf{M} mathbf{x})_jright|^2 - Lambda) right)$ s.t. $u_i ge 0$,
which evaluates to
$max_u sum_{j=1}^n u_j left|(mathbf{z} - mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U}^+ mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z})_jright|^2$ s.t. $u_i ge 0, sum_{i=1}^n u_i = 1$, where $U_{ij}=delta_{ij} u_i$.
The pseudo-inverse came from solving the expression $-mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z} = mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{M} mathbf{x}$ (which arises while infimizing the Lagrange dual function). I think the idea is that $n-m$ of the $u_i$ will be zero, so that the expression becomes feasible. That makes sense from a complementary slackness perspective.
I've tried plowing through the remaining maximization. However, I didn't gain any insight, and I don't see how to deal with the non-differentiability of the pseudo-inverse around $u_i=0$. Is this the point where I should just throw gradient ascent at the dual problem and hope for the best? Or is there a better way? Thanks for any pointers.
complex-numbers convex-optimization
I have an $n$-dimensional complex vector space, and I want to minimize the $L_infty$ norm of a point that is constrained to an $m$-dimensional affine subspace. That is,
Given $mathbf{z} in mathbb{C}^n$ and $mathbf{M}inmathbb{C}^{ntimes m}$, find $underset{mathbf xinmathbb{C}^m}{argmin} |mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x}|_infty$.
The columns of $mathbf{M}$ are orthonormal with $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{M}=mathbf{I}$, and $mathbf{M}^*mathbf{z} = mathbf{0}$. In my application, the columns of $mathbf{M}$ are taken from an $ntimes n$ Fourier matrix in such a way that $mathbf{M}mathbf{M}^*$ is real symmetric.
One approach is to require $left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright| le lambda$ and minimize the upper bound $lambda$. In the case where all of the variables are real, this gives a linear program. In the problem as posed, we can square both sides and rename the upper bound variable to get $min{Lambda} text{ s.t. }forall i, left|(mathbf{z}+mathbf{M}mathbf{x})_iright|^2 le lambda^2 triangleq Lambda$, which corresponds to a quadratically-constrained linear program. Taking the Lagrange dual leads (if I am not mistaken) to
$max_u inf_{Lambda,mathbf{x}} left( Lambda + sum_{j=1}^n u_j (left|(mathbf{z} + mathbf{M} mathbf{x})_jright|^2 - Lambda) right)$ s.t. $u_i ge 0$,
which evaluates to
$max_u sum_{j=1}^n u_j left|(mathbf{z} - mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U}^+ mathbf{M} mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z})_jright|^2$ s.t. $u_i ge 0, sum_{i=1}^n u_i = 1$, where $U_{ij}=delta_{ij} u_i$.
The pseudo-inverse came from solving the expression $-mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{z} = mathbf{M}^* mathbf{U} mathbf{M} mathbf{x}$ (which arises while infimizing the Lagrange dual function). I think the idea is that $n-m$ of the $u_i$ will be zero, so that the expression becomes feasible. That makes sense from a complementary slackness perspective.
I've tried plowing through the remaining maximization. However, I didn't gain any insight, and I don't see how to deal with the non-differentiability of the pseudo-inverse around $u_i=0$. Is this the point where I should just throw gradient ascent at the dual problem and hope for the best? Or is there a better way? Thanks for any pointers.
complex-numbers convex-optimization
complex-numbers convex-optimization
edited 2 days ago
A.Γ.
22.6k32656
22.6k32656
asked Feb 14 '13 at 8:58
iannucciiannucci
664
664
1
if you are not particularly looking for a closed solution, you can solve it using a convex package. Minimizing the $l-infty$ norm is a standard problem and it is done using Second Order Cone Programming. Please look at this link google.com/…
– dineshdileep
Feb 22 '13 at 10:49
add a comment |
1
if you are not particularly looking for a closed solution, you can solve it using a convex package. Minimizing the $l-infty$ norm is a standard problem and it is done using Second Order Cone Programming. Please look at this link google.com/…
– dineshdileep
Feb 22 '13 at 10:49
1
1
if you are not particularly looking for a closed solution, you can solve it using a convex package. Minimizing the $l-infty$ norm is a standard problem and it is done using Second Order Cone Programming. Please look at this link google.com/…
– dineshdileep
Feb 22 '13 at 10:49
if you are not particularly looking for a closed solution, you can solve it using a convex package. Minimizing the $l-infty$ norm is a standard problem and it is done using Second Order Cone Programming. Please look at this link google.com/…
– dineshdileep
Feb 22 '13 at 10:49
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for showing interest; too bad nobody has a nice answer! My stop-gap solution was to do gradient descent on the smooth function $sum_i |(mathbf{z}+mathbf{Mx})_i|^p$ for $p=20$. The runtime of this method is not what I would prefer, but it works.
I spoke briefly with Prof. Demanet at MIT, and got a pointer towards proximal iteration techniques for non-smooth optimization. I haven't figured out how to compute the proximal mapping of the constrained complex $L_infty$ norm, though the unconstrained version (e.g. the solution is zero) has a very elegant mapping.
Another possible solution is second-order cone programming, as suggested in example 2.2.b. of F. Alizadeh, D. Goldfarb, "Cone Programming". I am hoping to learn how well this works when the library finishes compiling.
[Edit -- did not spot the comment by dineshdileep until just now. Thank you!]
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f303852%2fminimizing-ell-infty-norm-of-complex-vector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for showing interest; too bad nobody has a nice answer! My stop-gap solution was to do gradient descent on the smooth function $sum_i |(mathbf{z}+mathbf{Mx})_i|^p$ for $p=20$. The runtime of this method is not what I would prefer, but it works.
I spoke briefly with Prof. Demanet at MIT, and got a pointer towards proximal iteration techniques for non-smooth optimization. I haven't figured out how to compute the proximal mapping of the constrained complex $L_infty$ norm, though the unconstrained version (e.g. the solution is zero) has a very elegant mapping.
Another possible solution is second-order cone programming, as suggested in example 2.2.b. of F. Alizadeh, D. Goldfarb, "Cone Programming". I am hoping to learn how well this works when the library finishes compiling.
[Edit -- did not spot the comment by dineshdileep until just now. Thank you!]
add a comment |
Thanks for showing interest; too bad nobody has a nice answer! My stop-gap solution was to do gradient descent on the smooth function $sum_i |(mathbf{z}+mathbf{Mx})_i|^p$ for $p=20$. The runtime of this method is not what I would prefer, but it works.
I spoke briefly with Prof. Demanet at MIT, and got a pointer towards proximal iteration techniques for non-smooth optimization. I haven't figured out how to compute the proximal mapping of the constrained complex $L_infty$ norm, though the unconstrained version (e.g. the solution is zero) has a very elegant mapping.
Another possible solution is second-order cone programming, as suggested in example 2.2.b. of F. Alizadeh, D. Goldfarb, "Cone Programming". I am hoping to learn how well this works when the library finishes compiling.
[Edit -- did not spot the comment by dineshdileep until just now. Thank you!]
add a comment |
Thanks for showing interest; too bad nobody has a nice answer! My stop-gap solution was to do gradient descent on the smooth function $sum_i |(mathbf{z}+mathbf{Mx})_i|^p$ for $p=20$. The runtime of this method is not what I would prefer, but it works.
I spoke briefly with Prof. Demanet at MIT, and got a pointer towards proximal iteration techniques for non-smooth optimization. I haven't figured out how to compute the proximal mapping of the constrained complex $L_infty$ norm, though the unconstrained version (e.g. the solution is zero) has a very elegant mapping.
Another possible solution is second-order cone programming, as suggested in example 2.2.b. of F. Alizadeh, D. Goldfarb, "Cone Programming". I am hoping to learn how well this works when the library finishes compiling.
[Edit -- did not spot the comment by dineshdileep until just now. Thank you!]
Thanks for showing interest; too bad nobody has a nice answer! My stop-gap solution was to do gradient descent on the smooth function $sum_i |(mathbf{z}+mathbf{Mx})_i|^p$ for $p=20$. The runtime of this method is not what I would prefer, but it works.
I spoke briefly with Prof. Demanet at MIT, and got a pointer towards proximal iteration techniques for non-smooth optimization. I haven't figured out how to compute the proximal mapping of the constrained complex $L_infty$ norm, though the unconstrained version (e.g. the solution is zero) has a very elegant mapping.
Another possible solution is second-order cone programming, as suggested in example 2.2.b. of F. Alizadeh, D. Goldfarb, "Cone Programming". I am hoping to learn how well this works when the library finishes compiling.
[Edit -- did not spot the comment by dineshdileep until just now. Thank you!]
answered Feb 25 '13 at 14:29
iannucciiannucci
664
664
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f303852%2fminimizing-ell-infty-norm-of-complex-vector%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
if you are not particularly looking for a closed solution, you can solve it using a convex package. Minimizing the $l-infty$ norm is a standard problem and it is done using Second Order Cone Programming. Please look at this link google.com/…
– dineshdileep
Feb 22 '13 at 10:49