Convex optimisation with nonconvex constraint function
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered Nov 30 '16 at 23:04
hardmathhardmath
28.8k95296
28.8k95296
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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