4.6 Article

On the use of the energy norm in trust-region and adaptive cubic regularization subproblems

期刊

COMPUTATIONAL OPTIMIZATION AND APPLICATIONS
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 533-554

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10589-017-9929-2

关键词

Nonlinear optimization; Unconstrained optimization; Trust-region algorithm; Adaptive regularized framework using cubics; Line search algorithm; Energy norm; Krylov subspace methods; Conjugate gradient

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider solving unconstrained optimization problems by means of two popular globalization techniques: trust-region (TR) algorithms and adaptive regularized framework using cubics (ARC). Both techniques require the solution of a so-called subproblem in which a trial step is computed by solving an optimization problem involving an approximation of the objective function, called the model. The latter is supposed to be adequate in a neighborhood of the current iterate. In this paper, we address an important practical question related with the choice of the norm for defining the neighborhood. More precisely, assuming here that the Hessian B of the model is symmetric positive definite, we propose the use of the so-called energy norm-defined by vertical bar vertical bar x vertical bar vertical bar(B) = root x(T) B-x for all x is an element of R-n -in both TR and ARC techniques. We show that the use of this norm induces remarkable relations between the trial step of both methods that can be used to obtain efficient practical algorithms. We furthermore consider the use of truncated Krylov subspace methods to obtain an approximate trial step for large scale optimization. Within the energy norm, we obtain line search algorithms along the Newton direction, with a special backtracking strategy and an acceptability condition in the spirit of TR/ARC methods. The new line search algorithm, derived by ARC, enjoys a worst-case iteration complexity of O(is an element of(-3/2)) We show the good potential of the energy norm on a set of numerical experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据