Constraints vertex points

A new random number is used for each calculation resulting in a component level within its own compositional limits. The final component level is then calculated as one minus the summation of the previously determined values. If the final component is not within its own constraint limits, the process is reinitiated with a new calculation of the first component value. Each set of feasible formulation levels generated in this manner corresponds to one vertex point. The Box recommendation of using twice the number of vertices as components was followed for the formulation optimization. 

After each reflection or expansion step, the component levels of the new vertex point are tested to assure compliance within the individual lower and upper constraints. If during the search procedure a constraint limit is violated by a particular component, a correction factor is calculated to force the component value to remain in the feasible space at the boundary limit value. For a constraint being violated by component I, this correction factor is computed as ... 

If the matrix Q is positive semidefinite (positive definite) when projected into the null space of the active constraints, then (3-98) is (strictly) convex and the QP is a global (and unique) minimum. Otherwise, local solutions exist for (3-98), and more extensive global optimization methods are needed to obtain the global solution. Like LPs, convex QPs can be solved in a finite number of steps. However, as seen in Fig. 3-57, these optimal solutions can lie on a vertex, on a constraint boundary, or in the interior. A number of active set strategies have been created that solve the KKT conditions of the QP and incorporate efficient updates of active constraints. Popular methods include null space algorithms, range space methods, and Schur complement methods. As with LPs, QP problems can also be solved with interior point methods [see Wright (1996)]. 

For Figure 7.1, this point occurs for c = 5, and the optimal values of x are x1 = 0.5, x2 = 1.5. Note that the maximum value occurs at a vertex of the constraint set. If the problem seeks to minimize/, the minimum is at the origin, which is again a vertex. If the objective function were / = 2x1 + 2jc2, the line / = Constant would be parallel to one of the constraint boundaries, x1 + x2 = 2. In this case the maximum occurs at two extreme points, (xx = 0.5, x2 = 1.5) and (xx = 2, x2 = 0) and, in fact, also occurs at all points on the, line segment joining these vertices. 

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. 

As shown in Fig. 1.2, to solve this problem we need only analytical geometry. The constraints (1.29) restrict the solution to a convex polyhedron in the positive quadrant of the coordinate system. Any point of this region satisfies the inequalities (1.29), and hence corresponds to a feasible vector or feasible solution. The function (1.30) to be maximized is represented by its contour lines. For a particular value of z there exists a feasible solution if and only if the contour line intersects the region. Increasing the value of z the contour line moves upward, and the optimal solution is a vertex of the polyhedron (vertex C in this example), unless the contour line will include an entire segment of the boundary. In any case, however, the problem can be solved by evaluating and comparing the objective function at the vertices of the polyhedron. 

A sufficient condition that the RI be determined by a vertex critical point is that the feasible region R be convex. (Of course, a special case of this is when all the feasibility constraints are linear see Section III,B.) Unfortunately, when flow rates or heat transfer coefficients are included in the uncertainty range, the feasible region can be nonconvex (see Examples 1 and 2 and Section III,C,3). Thus, current algorithms for calculating the RI are limited to temperature uncertainties only. 

The three-dimensional gamut-constraint method assumes that a canonical illuminant exists. The method first computes the convex hull TLC of the canonical illuminant. The points of the convex hull are then scaled using the set of image pixels. Here, the convex hull would be rescaled by the inverse of the two pixel colors cp and Cbg. The resulting hulls are then intersected and a vertex with the largest trace is selected from the hull. The following result would be obtained for the intersection of the maps Mn-... 

For the n-dimensional case, the region that is defined by the set of hyperplanes resulting from the linear constraints represents a convex set of all points which satisfy the constraints of the problem. If this is a bounded set, the enclosed space is a convex polyhedron, and, for the case of monotonically increasing or decreasing values of the objective function, the maximum or minimum value of the objective function will always be associated with a vertex... 

The outer-approximation algorithm (Section II.A) took six iterations to identify this solution, with a projection factor, e, of. 05 on the disturbance amplitude. Both vertex and nonvertex constraint maximizers were identified, confirming the need to consider nonvertex maximizers. The variables that contributed nonvertex maximizers were the step switching times (several times) and the measurement lags (once). Robustness was verified with respect to all vertex combinations of uncertain values and a random selection of interior points (ivert = 1, nrand y = 1000). 

Maximize each constraint separately in a local vertex search Generate a random initial point... 

Fig. 1 gives some geometric intuition about the mathematical structure of the problem and the way this structure can be used to find an optimal solution. The profit function is a plane and the highest point is the vertex A = 10, B = 20 with a profit of P = 110. The intersection of the profit function and planes of P = constant gives a line on the profit function plane as shown for P = 96. This diagram emphasizes the fact that the profit function is a plane, and the maximum profit will be at the highest point on the plane and located on the boundary at the intersection of constraint equations, a vertex. 

After mixing with the entrainer C, the new feed becomes the point m,. The mixing operation is represented by the segment f,-C, the position of m, depending on the ratio entrainer/initial mixture given by the lever rule. Suppose that we would like to separate A of good purity by a first split. The distillate is described by the point d, close to the vertex of A. The bottom product is marked by the point b, collinear with d, and m,. Both d, and b, will be situated on the same residue curve. In addition, the position of b, must obey a hard constraint imposed by the distillation boundary it cannot go beyond. Thus, high purity A can be obtained, but the maximum recovery is dictated by the distillation boundary. 

The following sections will describe how it is possible to compute the stoichiometric subspace by identifying the bounding constraints in extent space that form the feasible region, which is a function of the reaction stoichiometry and feed point. From this information, it is possible to compute the vertices of the region via vertex enumeration, which is described in Section 8.2.2.2. 

If the positions of the extreme points of S can be identified in extent space, then Equation 8.1 may be invoked to solve for the corresponding points in concentration space. Computing the extreme points of a convex polytope, defined by a set of hyperplane constraints, is termed vertex enumeration. 

The vertex enumeration problem involves computing the extreme points of the convex polytope, defined by the inequality constraints. 

Show that vertex enumeration and facet enumeration are duals of each other by converting the extreme points from Example 2(a) to a system of inequality constraints. Use the vert2con () function. 

The new point on the roof is generally not a vertex and the number of active constraints for each iteration is usually smaller than the number of constraints required for a vertex. When the procedure is iterated, the number of active constraints only sometimes equals the dimension of the linear programming problem wy. 

---