Removing artificial constraints

List three factors for which artificial constraints are often imposed. What are the values of these constraints If necessary, could the artificial constraints be removed easily, or with difficulty ... 

Hz > 1 active inequality constraints are removed. We can decide to remove them either because they became passive or in order to enter the feasible space, exploit the sparsity of the rows to be factorized or prevent degeneracy problems. The selected nz rows are the last of the nw factorized rows. They are replaced by a new active inequality constraint and nz — 1 artificial constraints. 

The first constraint is a real constraint whereas the second constraint is artificial as mentioned above, when some artificial constraints are present, it is advisable not to force the removal of the real constraints. With hi = 0, the first constraint is still satisfied. The second constraint can use h2 with the same sign of I2, for example, h2 = 1. The system (10.17) becomes... 

There is another important difference too when it comes to the possible removal of some constraints. In fact, at each iteration if the working point is not an attic vertex, no constraints are removed if the working point is an attic vertex, several constraints can be simultaneously removed where possible and useful, and the constraints removed are replaced by artificial constraints. This limits the explosion of the intermediate vertices under analysis and the degeneracy problem. 

The reason behind the first point should be clear if a constraint with Aj < 0 is removed, all the constraints subsequently inserted into the matrix are not necessarily roof constraints even though they have A > 0 at the working vertex, since their insertions were conditioned by the existing constraints with Aj < 0 they are, however, replaced by artificial constraints and therefore the number of iterations to achieve a new vertex does not increase. Conversely, the constraints with a matrix row index smaller than the first constraint removed are reasonably... 

The working point is neither the initial point nor an attic vertex since some constraints are artificial. In this instance, it is not important to know whether the point is potentially degenerate or not. In any case, one artificial constraint at a time is removed and a real constraint is inserted until an attic vertex is atitieved even though the step of some iterations is nuD. If n > ny in the attic vertex, the working point is potentially degenerate. 

These limitations of the theory suggest that a more general statistical theory is necessary if the artificial constraint that applicability is limited to situations where Ni(r ) < 1 is to be removed. In making such a theory, we retain the assumption that Ni(r is an average value given by Equation 5.22. However, we now explicitly introduce a binomial distribution to account for the variation from the mean number of antifoam entities associated with any given bubble size. 

Hartree s original idea of the self-consistent field involved only the direct Coulomb interaction between electrons. This is not inconsistent with variational theory [163], but requires an essential modification in order to correspond to the true physics of electrons. In neglecting electronic exchange, the pure Coulombic Hartree mean field inherently allowed an electron to interact with itself, one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of pre-quantum theories. Hartree simply removed the self-interaction by fiat, at the cost of making the mean field different for each electron. Orbital orthogonality, necessary to the concept of independent electrons, could only be imposed by an artificial variational constraint. The need for an ad hoc self-interaction correction (SIC) persists in recent theories based on approximate local exchange potentials. 

Pitfalls of PCA analysis mostly arise from systematic errors, which makes any spectrum appear different from the other spectra even if no chemical difference is present. These artificial differences will appear in the PCA results usually as at least one additional factor. As each additional factor decreases the ability to distinguish between useful factors with Raman information and those with noise, clustering could be lost or artificial clustering could be created. Some typical problems are as follows drifts in either axis (wave-number or intensity) during the collection of the data inconsistent background removal unfiltered cosmic spikes. Because of the exceptionally high intensity of a cosmic spike and the fact that they are completely random in position and occurrence, these anomalies create an additional factor for each occurrence. Transformation of factors in FA is another troublesome point. Mathematical methods which take into account bandwidths and constraints that intensity be real (non-negative) provide some aid [23,24]. 

---