Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The "second-order cone" in SOCP arises from the constraints, which are equivalent to requiring the affine function (+, +) to lie in the second-order cone in +. [ 1 ] SOCPs can be solved by interior point methods [ 2 ] and in general, can be solved more efficiently than semidefinite programming (SDP) problems. [ 3 ]
In LP, the objective and constraint functions are all linear. Quadratic programming are the next-simplest. In QP, the constraints are all linear, but the objective may be a convex quadratic function. Second order cone programming are more general. Semidefinite programming are more general. Conic optimization are even more general - see figure ...
Examples of include the positive orthant + = {:}, positive semidefinite matrices +, and the second-order cone {(,): ‖ ‖}. Often f {\displaystyle f\ } is a linear function, in which case the conic optimization problem reduces to a linear program , a semidefinite program , and a second order cone program , respectively.
There are two main relaxations of QCQP: using semidefinite programming (SDP), and using the reformulation-linearization technique (RLT). For some classes of QCQP problems (precisely, QCQPs with zero diagonal elements in the data matrices), second-order cone programming (SOCP) and linear programming (LP) relaxations providing the same objective value as the SDP relaxation are available.
Every variable is associated a bucket of constraints; the bucket of a variable contains all constraints having the variable has the highest in the order. Bucket elimination proceed from the last variable to the first. For each variable, all constraints of the bucket are replaced as above to remove the variable.
The order of differencing can be reversed for the time step (i.e., forward/backward followed by backward/forward). For nonlinear equations, this procedure provides the best results. For linear equations, the MacCormack scheme is equivalent to the Lax–Wendroff method .
In the second part, test functions with their respective Pareto fronts for multi-objective optimization problems (MOP) are given. The artificial landscapes presented herein for single-objective optimization problems are taken from Bäck, [ 1 ] Haupt et al. [ 2 ] and from Rody Oldenhuis software. [ 3 ]
Equivalently, the second-order conditions that are sufficient for a local minimum or maximum can be expressed in terms of the sequence of principal (upper-leftmost) minors (determinants of sub-matrices) of the Hessian; these conditions are a special case of those given in the next section for bordered Hessians for constrained optimization—the ...