Active set methods

In this work, we developed the safeguard active-set method by modifying the active-set method for thermodynamic equilibrium in order to include the classical nucleation theory. At tn, assume that the partition ( (r ), M(t ), N(t ) and the crystallization time tciyst(t ) forM(t ) are known. For a new feed vector and RH at Vu compute W(tn+i), M(t i), N(t + )) and tciyst(t +i) as follows ... 

The Simplex and Attic methods can be seen as different strategies of active set methods applied to the special problem of linear function and linear constraints. 

Of the problems that active set methods might encounter in nonlinear cases, only two still apply to the linear programming problem zigzagging (or jamming) and cycling in a subset of active constraints. 

The seminal idea on which active set methods are based is rather simple and is the same, albeit with several variants, as the one adopted in the Attic method as well as in the Simplex method for linear programming starting from a point where certain constraints are active (all the equality constraints and some inequality constraints), we search for the solution to this problem as if all the constraints are equalities. During the search, it, however, may be necessary to insert other inequality constraints that were previously passive and/or remove certain active inequality constraints as they are considered useless based on their Lagrange parameters. The procedure continues until KKT conditions are fulfilled. 

In past. Active Set Methods were overlapped to Feasible Direction Methods. Recently, other methods have been added to the Feasible Direction Methods category and do not adopt the technique used by the Active Set Methods to find d . For instance, they exploit a barrier on variable bounds and inequality constraints to consistently limit the search within the feasible region. 

The pros and cons of Active Set Methods that are also included in the Feasible Direction Methods or Reduced-step method category are dear. 

With three inequality constraints, we have 2 possibilities. Clearly, it is not a good strategy to check all of them. A good program based on Active Set Methods that starts from a feasible point vwll consider neither constraint (13.8) nor, probably, constraint (13.9). 

Chapter 13 illustrates the problem of constrained optimization by introducing the active set methods. Successive linear programming (SLP), projection, reduced direction search, SQP methods are described, implemented, and adopted to solve several practical examples of constrained linear/nonlinear optimization, including the solution of the Maratos effect. 

Because tiie constraints of (5.123) are linear, it is easier to identify how far one may move before violating them. Quadratic problems such as (5.123) thus can be solved efficiently with specialized techniques. For more on this topic (interior point, active set methods), consult Nocedal Wright (1999) or view the documentation for fmincon. 

---