Number interior point method

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 the SDP problems arising from the variational calculation, in which we are interested, the theoretical number of floating-point operations required by parallel Primal-Dual interior-point method-based software scales as... 

Theoretical Number of Floating-Point Operations per Iteration (FLOPI), Maximum Number of Major Iterations, and Memory Usage for the Parallel Primal-Dual Interior-Point Method (pPDIPM) and for the First-Order Method (RRSDP) Applied to Primal and Dual SDP Formulations". 

We can also conclude that if we employ the Primal-Dual interior-point method, the dual SDP formulation provides a more reduced mathematical description of the variational calculation of the 2-RDM than employing the primal SDP formulation. The former formulation also allows us to reach a faster computational solution. On the other hand, the number of floating-point operations and the memory storage of RRSDP do not depend on the primal or dual SDP formulations. 

The truly remarkable thing about the interior point method is that the number of iterations (Newton steps) is almost independent of problem size. For all models solved to date, the number of iterations has been less than 100, and is usually between 20 and 40. (Note, however, that one Newton step involves much more computation than one simplex step.) There are theoretictil and empirical reasons to believe that the number of iterations increases with the log of the number of variables, log( ). Indeed, Marsten et al. (1990) report a family of problems with from 35,000 to 2,000,000 variables for which a regression of iterations vs. log(n) gave an = 0.979. 

To give some comparison between the interior point method and the simplex method, consider the following set of multiperiod oil refinery planning models. The number of periods is the number of days in the planning horizon. This is a class of problems, as mentioned earlier, that becomes particularly hard for the simplex method as the number of periods increases. In Table 1, OBI is an implementation of the interior point method and XMP is an implementation of the simplex method. They were both written entirely in FORTRAN by the same programmer and run on the same computer, a DECstation 3100. 

A number of optimization techniques can be directly applied to QP, such as Newton method, conjugate gradient, and primal dual interior-point method. But in fact, those methods are very hard to use, so they are not widely used in SVM. 

We have used sensitivity equation methods (Leis and Kramer, 1985) for gradient evaluation as these are simple and efficient for problems with few parameters and constraints. In general, the balance in efficiency between sensitivity and adjoint methods depends on the type of problem being addressed. Adjoint methods are particularly advantageous for optimal control problems in which the inputs are represented as a large number of piecewise constant input values and few interior point constraints exist. Sensitivity methods are preferable for problems with few parameters and many constraints. 

The Attic method is different from the Interior Point in that it does not make constraints inviolable through a barrier. While it does not have to use vertices at each iteration, as per Simplex methods, it often limits or prevents an explosion in the number of vertices to be sequentially analyzed. 

The so called pulse and/or stepwise transient methods [622,623] are found beneficial where the thermophysical parameters can be jointly found from the temperature function and the temperature response upon the thermal disturbance applied to the measured sample. The specimen consists of three parts, see Fig. 79, where the planar heat source is clamped between the first and the second parts. The heat pulse is produced by the Joule heat effect in a planar electrical resistor and the temperature response is scanned by thermocouples to distinguish the transient temperature, T(h,t) where h is the sample separating distance and t is the observation time. The standard one-point evaluation procedure considers a maximum of the temperature response for calculation of the thermophysical parameters involved, namely, the specific heat, Cp = Q/V(2jrephTm), thermal diflusivity, q = h /2tm and thermal conductivity, A = Qh/(2V 2jietmT,n where Tm is the maximum of temperature response at the allied time tm and e denotes the Euler number and p density. A simplified but useful industrial modification is called the hot ball method [623] and is based on the combined generation of the heat flux (within the ball skeleton attached to the measured specimen) from an interior point-heat-source upon a simultaneous sensing the temperature by a thermometer placed parallel in the center of the heat source. 

We obtain almost a 5% error with our semianalytical solution. The computation time taken for the semianalytical method depends on the total number of interior node points (N+M). By using a = 0.25 without changing N and M, we obtain the following results ... 

---