Convex optimisation with nonconvex constraint function












1












$begingroup$


May I ask for a convex optimisation problem (convex/concave objective with convex feasible region), if some of the constraint function is not convex, is kkt still sufficient and necessary for optimality (under slater condition)?






optimization convex-optimization non-convex-optimization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    With constraint qualification, KKT will be necessary, in general not sufficient.
    $endgroup$
    – user251257
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The condition "some of the constraint function is not convex" is not sufficient information to rule out a possiblility of rewriting the problem so that it becomes a convex optimization problem. As you seem to point out, the key would be arranging for the feasible reason to be convex (which might or might not be the case when one or more constraint functions are not convex, as stated).
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you manage to find a KKT point where no non-convex constraints are active then it is the global minimum.
    $endgroup$
    – A.Γ.
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:15












  • $begingroup$
    It's not a convex optimization problem if even one of the constraint functions is nonconvex. That is the case even if the feasible region is a convex set.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:36












  • $begingroup$
    I don't think you can reasonably claim adherence to a Slater condition with a non-convex constraint, at least not in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:39


















1












$begingroup$


May I ask for a convex optimisation problem (convex/concave objective with convex feasible region), if some of the constraint function is not convex, is kkt still sufficient and necessary for optimality (under slater condition)?






optimization convex-optimization non-convex-optimization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    With constraint qualification, KKT will be necessary, in general not sufficient.
    $endgroup$
    – user251257
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The condition "some of the constraint function is not convex" is not sufficient information to rule out a possiblility of rewriting the problem so that it becomes a convex optimization problem. As you seem to point out, the key would be arranging for the feasible reason to be convex (which might or might not be the case when one or more constraint functions are not convex, as stated).
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you manage to find a KKT point where no non-convex constraints are active then it is the global minimum.
    $endgroup$
    – A.Γ.
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:15












  • $begingroup$
    It's not a convex optimization problem if even one of the constraint functions is nonconvex. That is the case even if the feasible region is a convex set.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:36












  • $begingroup$
    I don't think you can reasonably claim adherence to a Slater condition with a non-convex constraint, at least not in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:39
















1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


May I ask for a convex optimisation problem (convex/concave objective with convex feasible region), if some of the constraint function is not convex, is kkt still sufficient and necessary for optimality (under slater condition)?






optimization convex-optimization non-convex-optimization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




May I ask for a convex optimisation problem (convex/concave objective with convex feasible region), if some of the constraint function is not convex, is kkt still sufficient and necessary for optimality (under slater condition)?






optimization convex-optimization non-convex-optimization




optimization convex-optimization non-convex-optimization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 10 '18 at 6:56









Rodrigo de Azevedo

12.9k41857




12.9k41857










asked Nov 28 '16 at 19:55









user112758user112758

1826




1826








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    With constraint qualification, KKT will be necessary, in general not sufficient.
    $endgroup$
    – user251257
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The condition "some of the constraint function is not convex" is not sufficient information to rule out a possiblility of rewriting the problem so that it becomes a convex optimization problem. As you seem to point out, the key would be arranging for the feasible reason to be convex (which might or might not be the case when one or more constraint functions are not convex, as stated).
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you manage to find a KKT point where no non-convex constraints are active then it is the global minimum.
    $endgroup$
    – A.Γ.
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:15












  • $begingroup$
    It's not a convex optimization problem if even one of the constraint functions is nonconvex. That is the case even if the feasible region is a convex set.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:36












  • $begingroup$
    I don't think you can reasonably claim adherence to a Slater condition with a non-convex constraint, at least not in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:39
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    With constraint qualification, KKT will be necessary, in general not sufficient.
    $endgroup$
    – user251257
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The condition "some of the constraint function is not convex" is not sufficient information to rule out a possiblility of rewriting the problem so that it becomes a convex optimization problem. As you seem to point out, the key would be arranging for the feasible reason to be convex (which might or might not be the case when one or more constraint functions are not convex, as stated).
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you manage to find a KKT point where no non-convex constraints are active then it is the global minimum.
    $endgroup$
    – A.Γ.
    Nov 28 '16 at 20:15












  • $begingroup$
    It's not a convex optimization problem if even one of the constraint functions is nonconvex. That is the case even if the feasible region is a convex set.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:36












  • $begingroup$
    I don't think you can reasonably claim adherence to a Slater condition with a non-convex constraint, at least not in general.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Grant
    Nov 29 '16 at 3:39










1




1




$begingroup$
With constraint qualification, KKT will be necessary, in general not sufficient.
$endgroup$
– user251257
Nov 28 '16 at 20:01




$begingroup$
With constraint qualification, KKT will be necessary, in general not sufficient.
$endgroup$
– user251257
Nov 28 '16 at 20:01




1




1




$begingroup$
The condition "some of the constraint function is not convex" is not sufficient information to rule out a possiblility of rewriting the problem so that it becomes a convex optimization problem. As you seem to point out, the key would be arranging for the feasible reason to be convex (which might or might not be the case when one or more constraint functions are not convex, as stated).
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Nov 28 '16 at 20:01




$begingroup$
The condition "some of the constraint function is not convex" is not sufficient information to rule out a possiblility of rewriting the problem so that it becomes a convex optimization problem. As you seem to point out, the key would be arranging for the feasible reason to be convex (which might or might not be the case when one or more constraint functions are not convex, as stated).
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Nov 28 '16 at 20:01




1




1




$begingroup$
If you manage to find a KKT point where no non-convex constraints are active then it is the global minimum.
$endgroup$
– A.Γ.
Nov 28 '16 at 20:15






$begingroup$
If you manage to find a KKT point where no non-convex constraints are active then it is the global minimum.
$endgroup$
– A.Γ.
Nov 28 '16 at 20:15














$begingroup$
It's not a convex optimization problem if even one of the constraint functions is nonconvex. That is the case even if the feasible region is a convex set.
$endgroup$
– Michael Grant
Nov 29 '16 at 3:36






$begingroup$
It's not a convex optimization problem if even one of the constraint functions is nonconvex. That is the case even if the feasible region is a convex set.
$endgroup$
– Michael Grant
Nov 29 '16 at 3:36














$begingroup$
I don't think you can reasonably claim adherence to a Slater condition with a non-convex constraint, at least not in general.
$endgroup$
– Michael Grant
Nov 29 '16 at 3:39






$begingroup$
I don't think you can reasonably claim adherence to a Slater condition with a non-convex constraint, at least not in general.
$endgroup$
– Michael Grant
Nov 29 '16 at 3:39












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

So long as the (min) objective function is convex and the feasible region is convex, then the solution is not affected by some (or all) constraints being written in a non-convex form.



The constraints affect the solution's validity only by their description of the feasible region. In particular a non-convex constraint can be added to a problem, and if the new constraint happens to be satisfied on the feasible region already determined by earlier constraints, it does not affect the solution at all.



In other cases one might express a convex feasible region using a non-convex function. For example, we might have constraints:



$$ begin{align*} x &ge 0 \
sqrt{x} &le 2 end{align*} $$



Because these constraints define the convex region $x in [0,4]$, the choice to present that feasible region using the non-convex square root function does not invalidate the use of criteria suitable for convex optimization problems. One can in principle always rewrite the constraints that determine a convex region using convex functions.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2034786%2fconvex-optimisation-with-nonconvex-constraint-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    So long as the (min) objective function is convex and the feasible region is convex, then the solution is not affected by some (or all) constraints being written in a non-convex form.



    The constraints affect the solution's validity only by their description of the feasible region. In particular a non-convex constraint can be added to a problem, and if the new constraint happens to be satisfied on the feasible region already determined by earlier constraints, it does not affect the solution at all.



    In other cases one might express a convex feasible region using a non-convex function. For example, we might have constraints:



    $$ begin{align*} x &ge 0 \
    sqrt{x} &le 2 end{align*} $$



    Because these constraints define the convex region $x in [0,4]$, the choice to present that feasible region using the non-convex square root function does not invalidate the use of criteria suitable for convex optimization problems. One can in principle always rewrite the constraints that determine a convex region using convex functions.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      So long as the (min) objective function is convex and the feasible region is convex, then the solution is not affected by some (or all) constraints being written in a non-convex form.



      The constraints affect the solution's validity only by their description of the feasible region. In particular a non-convex constraint can be added to a problem, and if the new constraint happens to be satisfied on the feasible region already determined by earlier constraints, it does not affect the solution at all.



      In other cases one might express a convex feasible region using a non-convex function. For example, we might have constraints:



      $$ begin{align*} x &ge 0 \
      sqrt{x} &le 2 end{align*} $$



      Because these constraints define the convex region $x in [0,4]$, the choice to present that feasible region using the non-convex square root function does not invalidate the use of criteria suitable for convex optimization problems. One can in principle always rewrite the constraints that determine a convex region using convex functions.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        So long as the (min) objective function is convex and the feasible region is convex, then the solution is not affected by some (or all) constraints being written in a non-convex form.



        The constraints affect the solution's validity only by their description of the feasible region. In particular a non-convex constraint can be added to a problem, and if the new constraint happens to be satisfied on the feasible region already determined by earlier constraints, it does not affect the solution at all.



        In other cases one might express a convex feasible region using a non-convex function. For example, we might have constraints:



        $$ begin{align*} x &ge 0 \
        sqrt{x} &le 2 end{align*} $$



        Because these constraints define the convex region $x in [0,4]$, the choice to present that feasible region using the non-convex square root function does not invalidate the use of criteria suitable for convex optimization problems. One can in principle always rewrite the constraints that determine a convex region using convex functions.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        So long as the (min) objective function is convex and the feasible region is convex, then the solution is not affected by some (or all) constraints being written in a non-convex form.



        The constraints affect the solution's validity only by their description of the feasible region. In particular a non-convex constraint can be added to a problem, and if the new constraint happens to be satisfied on the feasible region already determined by earlier constraints, it does not affect the solution at all.



        In other cases one might express a convex feasible region using a non-convex function. For example, we might have constraints:



        $$ begin{align*} x &ge 0 \
        sqrt{x} &le 2 end{align*} $$



        Because these constraints define the convex region $x in [0,4]$, the choice to present that feasible region using the non-convex square root function does not invalidate the use of criteria suitable for convex optimization problems. One can in principle always rewrite the constraints that determine a convex region using convex functions.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 30 '16 at 23:04









        hardmathhardmath

        28.8k95296




        28.8k95296






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2034786%2fconvex-optimisation-with-nonconvex-constraint-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Image
            Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
            Read more

            In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
            Read more

            How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

            Image
            1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
            Read more