Constraints feasible starting point

Also, when the constraints are linear, the method always remains in the subspace of the constraints (for a feasible starting point) and dy remains zero. Consequently, for this case the Z BY matrix is unimportant and only the n-m)x n- m) Z BZ matrix needs to be supplied or calculated. While this is not true for nonlinear constraints, it is still convenient to deal only with Z BZ and set Z BY to zero. Moreover, as long as dy remains relatively small, a reasonable superlinear rate of convergence can still be maintained for this decomposition (Nocedal and Overton, 1985). 

Optimization algorithms all require the definitions of the objective function and decision variables, and constraints if applicable. In addition, most solution algorithms require a reasonable initial set of values for the decision variables, preferably a feasible starting point. Optimization algorithms generally follow a pattern ... 

It is often difficult for a nonlinear solver to locate a feasible solution (one that satisfies the constraints), especially when the initial guessed values are poor. When the user provides a feasible starting point, the likelihood of successful convergence to an optimal solution is greatly improved. 

The simplex method is a two-phase procedure for finding an optimal solution to LP problems. Phase 1 finds an initial basic feasible solution if one exists or gives the information that one does not exist (in which case the constraints are inconsistent and the problem has no solution). Phase 2 uses this solution as a starting point and either (1) finds a minimizing solution or (2) yields the information that the minimum is unbounded (i.e., —oo). Both phases use the simplex algorithm described here. 

The simplex algorithm requires a basic feasible solution as a starting point. Such a starting point is not always easy to find and, in fact, none exists if the constraints are inconsistent. Phase 1 of the simplex method finds an initial basic feasible solution or yields the information that none exists. Phase 2 then proceeds from this starting... 

We use a starting point of (0.75, 0). The feasible region is shown in Figure 8.15 as the dashed line segment. At the initial point constraint 1 is strictly satisfied, but constraints 2 and 3 are violated. GRG constructs the phase I objective function as the sum of the absolute values of all constraint violations. For this case the sum of the infeasibilities (sinf) is... 

Locating minima is not always straightforward since a reaction surface is usually complex, and a geometry optimization calculation will only locate minima close to the starting point. It is usually not feasible to systematically explore all possible conformers, so chemical intuition and corroborative evidence from experiment play important roles. A nice example is the identification of the coordination geometry of oxo-iron(IV) intermediate in TauD (22). As mentioned above, during optimization of enzyme active sites, key atoms are sometimes fixed to mimic the constraints that the protein environment exerts on the active site (20). 

Not all linear programming relaxations are close approximations of the discrete problem of interest. Because very complex criterion functions and constraints can be modeled by the hnear part of an ILP, however, it is often the case that an optimal solution to the relaxation (ILP) provides a sound starting point for construction of a good feasible solution to the discrete problem. Such constructions may loosely be termed rounding. ... 

The following figure shows the constraints. If slack variables jc3, x4 and x5 are added respectively to the inequality constraints, you can see from the diagram that the origin is not a feasible point, that is, you cannot start the simplex method by letting x x2 = 0 because then x3 = 20, x4 = -5, and x5 = -33, a violation of the assumption in linear programming that x > 0. What should you do to apply the simplex method to the problem other than start a phase I procedure of introducing artificial variables ... 

SLP convergence is much slower, however, when the point it is converging toward is not a vertex. To illustrate, we replace the objective of the example with x + 2y. This rotates the objective contour counterclockwise, so when it is shifted upward, the optimum is at x = (2.2, 4.4), where only one constraint, jc2 + y2 < 25, is active. Because the number of degrees of freedom at x is 2 — 1 = 1, this point is not a vertex. Figure 8.10 shows the feasible region of the SLP subproblem starting at (2, 5), using step bounds of 1.0 for both Ax and Ay. 

Modification of Constraint Sets at X°. At the calculated feasible point X°, some of the inactive constraints (i.e. will become active. In order to preserve the determinancy features of the system of equations, some of the previously active constraints (i.e. cp t) will become inactive. Starting at the current optimum X where cgpt is the set of active inequality constraints,... 

Set k= 0. Initialize B. Start from a feasible (conservative) operating point (without the constraint controller). 

The second purity constraint over the whole prediction horizon acts as a terminal (stability) constraint, forcing the process to converge towards the optimal cyclic steady state. The goal of feedback control in a standard control approach (i.e. to fulfill the extract purity) is introduced as a constraint here. A feasible path SQP algorithm is used for the optimization (Zhou et al., 1997), which generates a feasible point before it starts to minimize the objective function. 

Barrier function methods are very similar to penalty function methods except that they start at an interior point of the feasible region and set a barrier against leaving the feasible region. In this case, the feasible region must have an interior, so this method is generally restricted to inequality constraints. Consider the nonlinear problem with inequality constraints. 

If we are on a nonvertex, all the real constraints are preserved as active until a new vertex is achieved. For example, by starting from the feasible point (+ + x) and preserving the two active constraints 1 + and 2 + , we obtain the vertex 6(+ + +) (see Figure 10.2). This makes it possible to prevent the continuous insertion and removal of the same constraint throughout the iterations to move from one vertex to another one. 

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). 

---