337 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
337 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
<!-- vim: set ts=2 sw=2 et tw=80: -->
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
title: Midterm -- Optimization Methods
|
|
author: Claudio Maggioni
|
|
header-includes:
|
|
- \usepackage{amsmath}
|
|
- \usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
- \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
|
- \usepackage[margin=2.5cm]{geometry}
|
|
- \usepackage[ruled,vlined]{algorithm2e}
|
|
- \usepackage{float}
|
|
- \floatplacement{figure}{H}
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
|
|
# Exercise 1
|
|
|
|
## Point 1
|
|
|
|
### Question (a)
|
|
|
|
As already covered in the course, the gradient of a standard quadratic form at a
|
|
point $x_0$ is equal to:
|
|
|
|
$$ \nabla f(x_0) = A x_0 - b $$
|
|
|
|
Plugging in the definition of $x_0$ and knowing that $\nabla f(x_m) = A x_m - b
|
|
= 0$ (according to the first necessary condition for a minimizer), we obtain:
|
|
|
|
$$ \nabla f(x_0) = A (x_m + v) - b = A x_m + A v - b = b + \lambda v - b =
|
|
\lambda v $$
|
|
|
|
### Question (b)
|
|
|
|
The steepest descent method takes exactly one iteration to reach the exact
|
|
minimizer $x_m$ starting from the point $x_0$. This can be proven by first
|
|
noticing that $x_m$ is a point standing in the line that first descent direction
|
|
would trace, which is equal to:
|
|
|
|
$$g(\alpha) = - \alpha \cdot \nabla f(x_0) = - \alpha \lambda v$$
|
|
|
|
For $\alpha = \frac{1}{\lambda}$, and plugging in the definition of $x_0 = x_m +
|
|
v$, we would reach a new iterate $x_1$ equal to:
|
|
|
|
$$x_1 = x_0 - \alpha \lambda v = x_0 - v = x_m + v - v = x_m $$
|
|
|
|
The only question that we need to answer now is why the SD algorithm would
|
|
indeed choose $\alpha = \frac{1}{\lambda}$. To answer this, we recall that the
|
|
SD algorithm chooses $\alpha$ by solving a linear minimization option along the
|
|
step direction. Since we know $x_m$ is indeed the minimizer, $f(x_m)$ would be
|
|
obviously strictly less that any other $f(x_1 = x_0 - \alpha \lambda v)$ with
|
|
$\alpha \neq \frac{1}{\lambda}$.
|
|
|
|
Therefore, since $x_1 = x_m$, we have proven SD
|
|
converges to the minimizer in one iteration.
|
|
|
|
## Point 2
|
|
|
|
The right answer is choice (a), since the energy norm of the error indeed always
|
|
decreases monotonically.
|
|
|
|
To prove that this is true, we first consider a way to express any iterate $x_k$
|
|
in function of the minimizer $x_s$ and of the missing iterations:
|
|
|
|
$$x_k = x_s + \sum_{i=k}^{N} \alpha_i A^i p_0$$
|
|
|
|
This formula makes use of the fact that step directions in CG are all
|
|
A-orthogonal with each other, so the k-th search direction $p_k$ is equal to
|
|
$A^k p_0$, where $p_0 = -r_0$ and $r_0$ is the first residual.
|
|
|
|
Given that definition of iterates, we're able to express the error after
|
|
iteration $k$ $e_k$ in a similar fashion:
|
|
|
|
$$e_k = x_k - x_s = \sum_{i=k}^{N} \alpha_i A^i p_0$$
|
|
|
|
We then recall the definition of energy norm $\|e_k\|_A$:
|
|
|
|
$$\|e_k\|_A = \sqrt{\langle Ae_k, e_k \rangle}$$
|
|
|
|
We then want to show that $\|e_k\|_A = \|x_k - x_s\|_A > \|e_{k+1}\|_A$, which
|
|
in turn is equivalent to claim that:
|
|
|
|
$$\langle Ae_k, e_k \rangle > \langle Ae_{k+1}, e_{k+1} \rangle$$
|
|
|
|
Knowing that the dot product is linear w.r.t. either of its arguments, we pull
|
|
out the sum term related to the k-th step (i.e. the first term in the sum that
|
|
makes up $e_k$) from both sides of $\langle Ae_k, e_k \rangle$,
|
|
obtaining the following:
|
|
|
|
$$\langle Ae_{k+1}, e_{k+1} \rangle + \langle \alpha_k A^{k+1} p_0, e_k \rangle
|
|
+ \langle Ae_{k+1},\alpha_k A^k p_0 \rangle > \langle Ae_{k+1}, e_{k+1}
|
|
\rangle$$
|
|
|
|
which in turn is equivalent to claim that:
|
|
|
|
$$\langle \alpha_k A^{k+1} p_0, e_k \rangle
|
|
+ \langle Ae_{k+1},\alpha_k A^k p_0 \rangle > 0$$
|
|
|
|
From this expression we can collect term $\alpha_k$ thanks to linearity of the
|
|
dot-product:
|
|
|
|
$$\alpha_k (\langle A^{k+1} p_0, e_k \rangle
|
|
+ \langle Ae_{k+1}, A^k p_0 \rangle) > 0$$
|
|
|
|
and we can further "ignore" the $\alpha_k$ term since we know that all
|
|
$\alpha_i$s are positive by definition:
|
|
|
|
$$\langle A^{k+1} p_0, e_k \rangle
|
|
+ \langle Ae_{k+1}, A^k p_0 \rangle > 0$$
|
|
|
|
Then, we convert the dot-products in their equivalent vector to vector product
|
|
form, and we plug in the definitions of $e_k$ and $e_{k+1}$:
|
|
|
|
$$p_0^T (A^{k+1})^T (\sum_{i=k}^{N} \alpha_i A^i p_0) +
|
|
p_0^T (A^{k})^T (\sum_{i=k+1}^{N} \alpha_i A^i p_0) > 0$$
|
|
|
|
We then pull out the sum to cover all terms thanks to associativity of vector
|
|
products:
|
|
|
|
$$\sum_{i=k}^N (p_0^T (A^{k+1})^T A^i p_0) \alpha_i+ \sum_{i=k+1}^N
|
|
(p_0^T (A^{k})^T A^i p_0) \alpha_i > 0$$
|
|
|
|
We then, as before, can "ignore" all $\alpha_i$ terms since we know by
|
|
definition that
|
|
they are all strictly positive. We then recalled that we assumed that A is
|
|
symmetric, so $A^T = A$. In the end we have to show that these two
|
|
inequalities are true:
|
|
|
|
$$p_0^T A^{k+1+i} p_0 > 0 \; \forall i \in [k,N]$$
|
|
$$p_0^T A^{k+i} p_0 > 0 \; \forall i \in [k+1,N]$$
|
|
|
|
To show these inequalities are indeed true, we recall that A is symmetric and
|
|
positive definite. We then consider that if a matrix A is SPD, then $A^i$ for
|
|
any positive $i$ is also SPD[^1]. Therefore, both inequalities are trivially
|
|
true due to the definition of positive definite matrices.
|
|
|
|
[^1]: source: [Wikipedia - Definite Matrix $\to$ Properties $\to$
|
|
Multiplication](
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_matrix#Multiplication)
|
|
|
|
Thanks to this we have indeed proven that the delta $\|e_k\|_A - \|e_{k+1}\|_A$
|
|
is indeed positive and thus as $i$ increases the energy norm of the error
|
|
monotonically decreases.
|
|
|
|
# Question 2
|
|
|
|
## Point 1
|
|
|
|
### (a) For which kind of minimization problems can the trust region method be used? What are the assumptions on the objective function?
|
|
|
|
### (b) Write down the quadratic model around a current iterate xk and explain the meaning of each term.
|
|
|
|
$$m(p) = f + g^T p + \frac12 p^T B p \;\; \text{ s.t. } \|p\| < \Delta$$
|
|
|
|
$\Delta$ is the trust region radius.
|
|
$p$ is the trust region step.
|
|
$g$ is the gradient at the current iterate $x_k$.
|
|
$B$ is the hessian at the current iterate $x_k$.
|
|
|
|
### (c) What is the role of the trust region radius?
|
|
|
|
Limit confidence of model. I.e. it makes the model refrain from taking wide
|
|
quadratic steps when the quadratic model is considerably different from the real
|
|
objective function.
|
|
|
|
### (d) Explain Cauchy point, sufficient decrease and Dogleg method, and the connection between them.
|
|
|
|
Cauchy point provides sufficient decrease, but makes method like linear method.
|
|
|
|
Dogleg method allows for mixing purely linear iteration and purely quadratic one
|
|
along the "dogleg" path picking the furthest point inside or on the edge of the
|
|
region.
|
|
|
|
Dogleg uses cauchy point if the trust region does not allow for a proper dogleg
|
|
step since it is too slow.
|
|
|
|
Cauchy provides linear convergence and dogleg superlinear.
|
|
|
|
### (e) Write down the trust region ratio and explain its meaning.
|
|
|
|
$$\rho_k = \frac{f(x_k) - f(x_k + p_k)}{m_k(0) - m_k(p_k)}$$
|
|
|
|
Real decrease over predicted decrease
|
|
|
|
Test "goodness" of model.
|
|
|
|
### (f) Does the energy decrease monotonically when Trust Region method is employed? Justify your answer.
|
|
|
|
## Point 2
|
|
|
|
The trust region algorithm is the following:
|
|
|
|
\begin{algorithm}[H]
|
|
\SetAlgoLined
|
|
Given $\hat{\Delta} > 0, \Delta_0 \in (0,\hat{\Delta})$,
|
|
and $\eta \in [0, \frac14)$\;
|
|
|
|
\For{$k = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$}{%
|
|
Obtain $p_k$ by using Cauchy or Dogleg method\;
|
|
$\rho_k \gets \frac{f(x_k) - f(x_k + p_k)}{m_k(0) - m_k(p_k)}$\;
|
|
\uIf{$\rho_k < \frac14$}{%
|
|
$\Delta_{k+1} \gets \frac14 \Delta_k$\;
|
|
}\Else{%
|
|
\uIf{$\rho_k > \frac34$ and $\|\rho_k\| = \Delta_k$}{%
|
|
$\Delta_{k+1} \gets \min(2\Delta_k, \hat{\Delta})$\;
|
|
}
|
|
\Else{%
|
|
$\Delta_{k+1} \gets \Delta_k$\;
|
|
}}
|
|
\uIf{$\rho_k > \eta$}{%
|
|
$x_{k+1} \gets x_k + p_k$\;
|
|
}
|
|
\Else{
|
|
$x_{k+1} \gets x_k$\;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
\caption{Trust region method}
|
|
\end{algorithm}
|
|
|
|
The Cauchy point algorithm is the following:
|
|
|
|
\begin{algorithm}[H]
|
|
\SetAlgoLined
|
|
Input $B$ (quadratic term), $g$ (linear term), $\Delta_k$\;
|
|
\uIf{$g^T B g \geq 0$}{%
|
|
$\tau \gets 1$\;
|
|
}\Else{%
|
|
$\tau \gets \min(\frac{\|g\|^3}{\Delta_k \cdot g^T B g}, 1)$\;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
$p_k \gets -\tau \cdot \frac{\Delta_k}{\|g\|^2 \cdot g}$\;
|
|
\Return{$p_k$}
|
|
\caption{Cauchy point}
|
|
\end{algorithm}
|
|
|
|
Finally, the Dogleg method algorithm is the following:
|
|
|
|
\begin{algorithm}[H]
|
|
\SetAlgoLined
|
|
Input $B$ (quadratic term), $g$ (linear term), $\Delta_k$\;
|
|
$p_N \gets - B^{-1} g$\;
|
|
|
|
\uIf{$\|p_N\| < \Delta_k$}{%
|
|
$p_k \gets p_N$\;
|
|
}\Else{%
|
|
$p_u = - \frac{g^T g}{g^T B g} g$\;
|
|
|
|
\uIf{$\|p_u\| > \Delta_k$}{%
|
|
compute $p_k$ with Cauchy point algorithm\;
|
|
}\Else{%
|
|
solve for $\tau$ the equality $\|p_u + \tau * (p_N - p_u)\|^2 =
|
|
\Delta_k^2$\;
|
|
$p_k \gets p_u + \tau \cdot (p_N - p_u)$\;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
\caption{Dogleg method}
|
|
\end{algorithm}
|
|
|
|
## Point 3
|
|
|
|
The trust region, dogleg and Cauchy point algorithms were implemented
|
|
respectively in the files `trust_region.m`, `dogleg.m`, and `cauchy.m`.
|
|
|
|
## Point 4
|
|
|
|
### Taylor expansion
|
|
|
|
The Taylor expansion up the second order of the function is the following:
|
|
|
|
$$f(x_0, w) = f(x_0) + \langle\begin{bmatrix}48x^3 - 16xy + 2x - 2\\2y - 8x^2
|
|
\end{bmatrix}, w\rangle + \frac12 \langle\begin{bmatrix}144x^2 -16y + 2 - 16 &
|
|
-16 \\ -16 & 2 \end{bmatrix}w, w\rangle$$
|
|
|
|
### Minimization
|
|
|
|
The code used to minimize the function can be found in the MATLAB script
|
|
`main.m` under section 2.4. The resulting minimizer (found in 10 iterations) is:
|
|
|
|
$$x_m = \begin{bmatrix}1\\4\end{bmatrix}$$
|
|
|
|
### Energy landscape
|
|
|
|
The following figure shows a `surf` plot of the objective function overlayed
|
|
with the iterates used to reach the minimizer:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The code used to generate such plot can be found in the MATLAB script `main.m`
|
|
under section 2.4c.
|
|
|
|
## Point 5
|
|
|
|
### Minimization
|
|
|
|
The code used to minimize the function can be found in the MATLAB script
|
|
`main.m` under section 2.5. The resulting minimizer (found in 25 iterations) is:
|
|
|
|
$$x_m = \begin{bmatrix}1\\5\end{bmatrix}$$
|
|
|
|
### Energy landscape
|
|
|
|
The following figure shows a `surf` plot of the objective function overlayed
|
|
with the iterates used to reach the minimizer:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The code used to generate such plot can be found in the MATLAB script `main.m`
|
|
under section 2.5b.
|
|
|
|
### Gradient norms
|
|
|
|
The following figure shows the logarithm of the norm of the gradient w.r.t.
|
|
iterations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The code used to generate such plot can be found in the MATLAB script `main.m`
|
|
under section 2.5c.
|
|
|
|
Comparing the behaviour shown above with the figures obtained in the previous
|
|
assignment for the Newton method with backtracking and the gradient descent with
|
|
backtracking, we notice that the trust-region method really behaves like a
|
|
compromise between the two methods. First of all, we notice that TR converges in
|
|
25 iterations, almost double of the number of iterations of regular NM +
|
|
backtracking. The actual behaviour of the curve is somewhat similar to the
|
|
Netwon gradient norms curve w.r.t. to the presence of spikes, which however are
|
|
less evident in the Trust region curve (probably due to Trust region method
|
|
alternating quadratic steps with linear or almost linear steps while iterating).
|
|
Finally, we notice that TR is the only method to have neighbouring iterations
|
|
having the exact same norm: this is probably due to some proposed iterations
|
|
steps not being validated by the acceptance criteria, which makes the method mot
|
|
move for some iterations.
|