• Aucun résultat trouvé

Unified smoothing functions for absolute value equation associated with second-order cone

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Unified smoothing functions for absolute value equation associated with second-order cone"

Copied!
22
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Applied Numerical Mathematics

www.elsevier.com/locate/apnum

Unified smoothing functions for absolute value equation associated with second-order cone

Chieu Thanh Nguyen

a

, B. Saheya

b

,

1

, Yu-Lin Chang

a

, Jein-Shan Chen

a

,∗,

2

aDepartmentofMathematics,NationalTaiwanNormalUniversity,Taipei11677,Taiwan

bCollegeofMathematicalScience,InnerMongoliaNormalUniversity,Hohhot010022,InnerMongolia,PRChina

a rt i c l e i n f o a b s t ra c t

Articlehistory:

Received19February2018 Receivedinrevisedform12July2018 Accepted30August2018

Availableonline3September2018

Keywords:

Second-ordercone Absolutevalueequations SmoothingNewtonalgorithm

Inthispaper,weexploreaunifiedwaytoconstructsmoothingfunctionsforsolvingtheab- solutevalueequationassociatedwithsecond-ordercone(SOCAVE).Numericalcomparisons arepresented,whichillustratewhat kindsofsmoothingfunctions workwell alongwith thesmoothingNewtonalgorithm.Inparticular,thenumericalexperimentsshowthatthe wellknownlossfunctionwidelyusedinengineeringcommunityistheworstoneamong theconstructedsmoothingfunctions,whichindicatesthattheotherproposedsmoothing functionscanbeemployedforsolvingengineeringproblems.

©2018IMACS.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

1. Introduction

Recently,thepaper[36] investigatesafamilyofsmoothingfunctionsalongwithasmoothing-typealgorithmtotacklethe absolutevalueequationassociatedwithsecond-ordercone(SOCAVE)andshowstheefficiencyofsuchapproach.Motivated bythisarticle,wecontinuetoasktwonaturalquestions.(i)Whetherthereareothersuitablesmoothingfunctionsthatcan be employedforsolvingtheSOCAVE?(ii)IsthereaunifiedwaytoconstructsmoothingfunctionsforsolvingtheSOCAVE?

Inthispaper,weprovideaffirmativeanswersforthesetwoqueries.Inordertosmoothlyconveythestoryofhowwefigure outtheanswers,webeginwithrecallingwheretheSOCAVEcomesfrom.

Thestandardabsolutevalueequation(AVE)isintheformof

Ax

+

B

|

x

| =

b

,

(1)

where A

Rn×n, B

Rn×n, B

=

0,andb

Rn.Here

|

x

|

meansthecomponentwiseabsolutevalue ofvectorx

Rn.When B

= −

I,whereI istheidentitymatrix,theAVE(1) reducestothespecialform:

Ax

− |

x

| =

b

.

It isknownthat theAVE(1) wasfirst introducedby Rohnin [40],butwas termedby Mangasarian[34].Duringthe past decade,therehasbeenmanyresearcherspayingattentiontothisequation,forexample,Caccetta,QuandZhou[1],Huand

*

Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](C.T. Nguyen),[email protected](B. Saheya),[email protected](Y.-L. Chang), [email protected](J.-S. Chen).

1 Theauthor’sworkissupportedbyNaturalScienceFoundationofInnerMongolia(AwardNumber:2017MS0125).

2 Theauthor’sworkissupportedbyMinistryofScienceandTechnology,Taiwan.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2018.08.019

0168-9274/©2018IMACS.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

(2)

Huang[12],JiangandZhang[19],KetabchiandMoosaei[20],Mangasarian[26–33],MangasarianandMeyer[34],Prokopyev [37],andRohn[42].

WeelaboratemoreaboutthedevelopmentsoftheAVE.MangasarianandMeyer[34] showthattheAVE(1) isequivalent to the bilinear program, the generalized LCP (linear complementarity problem), and to the standard LCP provided 1 is not an eigenvalue of A.Withthese equivalent reformulations,they also show that the AVE(1) is NP-hard in its general formandprovide existence results.Prokopyev [37] furtherimproves theabove equivalence whichindicates that theAVE (1) can be equivalently recast asLCP withoutany assumptionon A and B,andalso provides a relationship withmixed integer programming. Ingeneral, if solvable, the AVE(1) can have eitherunique solution ormultiple (e.g.,exponentially many) solutions.Indeed,various sufficiency conditionson solvabilityandnon-solvabilityofthe AVE(1) withunique and multiplesolutions arediscussedin [34,37,41].Some variantsofthe AVE,like theabsolutevalueequation associatedwith second-orderconeandtheabsolutevalueprograms,areinvestigatedin[14] and[45],respectively.

Recently, another type of absolutevalue equation, a natural extension ofthe standard AVE (1), is considered [14,35, 36].Morespecificallythefollowingabsolutevalueequation associatedwithsecond-ordercones,abbreviatedasSOCAVE,is studied:

Ax

+

B

|

x

| =

b

,

(2)

where A

,

B

Rn×n andb

Rn arethesame asthosein(1);

|

x

|

denotesthe absolutevalueof xcoming fromthesquare root of the Jordan product “

of x and x. What is the difference betweenthe standard AVE (1) and the SOCAVE (2)?

Their mathematical formats look the same. In fact, the main difference is that

|

x

|

in the standard AVE (1) means the componentwise

|

xi

|

ofeach xi

R,i.e.,

|

x

| = ( |

x1

| , |

x2

| , · · · , |

xn

| )

T

Rn;however,

|

x

|

intheSOCAVE(2) denotesthevector satisfying

x2

:= √

x

xassociatedwithsecond-orderconeunderJordanproduct.Tounderstanditsmeaning,we needto introducethedefinitionofsecond-ordercone(SOC).Thesecond-orderconeinRn

(

n

1

)

,alsocalledtheLorentz cone,is definedas

Kn

:=

(

x1

,

x2

) ∈ R × R

n1

|

x2

x1

,

where

·

denotestheEuclideannorm.Ifn

=

1,thenKnisthesetofnonnegativerealsR+.Ingeneral,a generalsecond- orderconeKcouldbetheCartesianproductofSOCs,i.e.,

K

:=

Kn1

× · · · ×

Knr

.

Forsimplicity,wefocusonthesingleSOCKnbecausealltheanalysiscanbecarriedovertothesettingofCartesianproduct.

TheSOCisaspecialcaseofsymmetricconesandcanbeanalyzedunderJordanproduct,see[9].Inparticular,foranytwo vectorsx

= (

x1

,

x2

)

R

×

Rn1and y

= (

y1

,

y2

)

R

×

Rn1,theJordanproductofxandy associatedwithKnisdefinedas

x

y

:=

xTy y1x2

+

x1y2

.

TheJordanproduct,unlikescalarormatrixmultiplication,isnotassociative,whichisamainsourceofcomplicationinthe analysisofoptimizationproblemsinvolvedSOC,see[5,6,10] andreferencesthereinformoredetails. Theidentityelement underthis Jordanproduct is e

= (

1

,

0

, ...,

0

)

T

Rn. Withthesedefinitions, x2 means theJordan product ofx withitself, i.e.,x2

:=

x

x;and

xwithx

Kn denotestheuniquevectorsuchthat

x

◦ √

x

=

x.Inotherwords,thevector

|

x

|

inthe SOCAVE(2) iscomputedby

|

x

| := √

x

x

.

Asremarkedintheliterature,thesignificanceoftheAVE(1) arisesfromthefactthattheAVEiscapableofformulating manyoptimizationproblemssuchaslinearprograms,quadraticprograms,bimatrixgames,andsoon.Likewise,theSOCAVE (2) plays a similar role in various optimization problemsinvolving second-order cones. There hasbeen manynumerical methodsproposed forsolving thestandardAVE(1) andtheSOCAVE(2).Please referto [36] fora quickreview.Basically, wefollowthesmoothingNewtonalgorithmemployedin[36] todealwiththeSOCAVE(2).Thiskindofalgorithmhasbeen apowerfultoolforsolvingmanyotheroptimizationproblems,includingsymmetricconecomplementarityproblems[21,23, 24],the systemofinequalitiesundertheorder inducedby symmetriccone [17,25,46], andso on.Itis alsoemployed for thestandard AVE(1) in [18,43]. Thenewupshotofthispaperliesondiscoveringmoresuitable smoothingfunctionsand exploringaunifiedwaytoconstructsmoothingfunctions.Ofcourse,thenumericalperformanceamongdifferentsmoothing functionsarecompared.Thesearetotallynewtotheliteratureandarethemaincontributionofthispaper.

Toclosethissection, werecall somebasicconcepts andbackgroundmaterials regardingthesecond-ordercone,which willbe used inthe subsequentanalysis. Moredetails can be foundin [5,6,9,10,14]. First, werecall theexpression ofthe spectraldecompositionofxwithrespecttoSOC.Forx

= (

x1

,

x2

)

R

×

Rn1,thespectraldecompositionofxwithrespectto SOCisgivenby

x

= λ

1

(

x

)

u(x1)

+ λ

2

(

x

)

u(x2)

,

(3)

(3)

where

λ

i

(

x

) =

x1

+ (

1

)

i

x2

fori

=

1

,

2 and

u(xi)

=

⎧ ⎪

⎪ ⎩

1 2

1

, (

1

)

i xxT2

2

T

if

x2

=

0

,

1 2

1

, (

1

)

i

ω

T

T if

x2

=

0

,

(4)

with

ω

Rn1 beinganyvector satisfying

ω =

1.Thetwo scalars

λ

1

(

x

)

and

λ

2

(

x

)

are calledspectral valuesof x;while thetwovectorsu(x1)andu(x2)arecalledthespectralvectorsofx.Moreover,itisobviousthatthespectraldecompositionof x

Rnisuniqueifx2

=

0.Itisknownthatthespectralvaluesandspectralvectorspossesthefollowingproperties:

(i) u(x1)

u(x2)

=

0 andu(xi)

u(xi)

=

u(xi)fori

=

1

,

2;

(ii)

u(x1)

2

=

u(x2)

2

=

12 and

x

2

=

12

21

(

x

) + λ

22

(

x

))

.

Nextistheconceptabouttheprojectionontosecond-ordercone.Letx+denotetheprojectionofxontoKn,andx be theprojectionof

xontothedualcone

(K

n

)

ofKn,wherethedualcone

(K

n

)

isdefinedby

(K

n

)

:= {

y

Rn

|

x

,

y

0

,

x

Kn

}

.Infact,thedualconeofKn isitself,i.e.,

(

Kn

)

=

Kn.DuetothespecialstructureofKn,theexplicitformulaof projectionofx

= (

x1

,

x2

)

R

×

Rn1ontoKn isobtainedin[5,6,8–10] asbelow:

x+

=

⎧ ⎨

x ifx

Kn

,

0 ifx

∈ −

Kn

,

u otherwise

,

where u

=

x1+x2

2 x1+x2

2

x2

x2

.

Similarly,theexpressionofxcanbewrittenoutas

x

=

⎧ ⎨

0 ifx

Kn

,

x ifx

∈ −

Kn

,

w otherwise

,

where w

=

⎣ −

x12x2

x1x2 2

x2

x2

.

Itiseasytoverifythatx

=

x+

+

x−and

x+

=

1

(

x

))

+u(x1)

+

2

(

x

))

+u(x2) x

= (−λ

1

(

x

))

+u(x1)

+ (−λ

2

(

x

))

+u(x2)

,

where

( α )

+

=

max

{

0

, α }

for

α

R.As fortheexpression of

|

x

|

associatedwithSOC.There is analternative wayvia the so-calledSOC-functiontoobtaintheexpressionof

|

x

|

,whichcanbefoundin[2,3].Inanycase,itcomesoutthat

|

x

| =

1

(

x

))

+

+ (λ

1

(

x

))

+

u(x1)

+

2

(

x

))

+

+ (λ

2

(

x

))

+

u(x2)

= λ

1

(

x

)

u(x1)

+ λ

2

(

x

)

u(x2)

.

2. UnifiedsmoothingfunctionsforSOCAVE

AsmentionedinSection1,weemploythesmoothingNewtonmethodforsolvingtheSOCAVE(2),whichneedsasmooth- ingfunctiontoworkwith.Indeed,a familyofsmoothingfunctionswasalreadyconsideredin[36].Inthissection,welook into what kindsofsmoothingfunctionscan be employed towork withthe smoothingNewton algorithmfor solvingthe SOCAVE(2).

Definition2.1.Afunction

φ :

R++

×

R

Riscalledasmoothingfunctionof

|

t

|

ifitsatisfiesthefollowing:

(i)

φ

iscontinuouslydifferentiableat

( μ ,

t

)

R++

×

R; (ii) lim

μ0

φ ( μ ,

t

) = |

t

|

foranyt

R.

Givenasmoothingfunction

φ

,wefurtherdefineavector-valuedfunction

:

R++

×

Rn

Rnas

( μ ,

x

) = φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

u(x1)

+ φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

u(x2) (5)

where

μ ∈

R++isaparameter,

λ

1

(

x

)

,

λ

2

(

x

)

arethespectralvaluesofx,andu(x1),u(x2)arethespectral vectorsofx.Conse- quently,

isalsosmoothonR++

×

Rn.Moreover,itiseasytoverifythat

lim

μ0+

( μ ,

x

) = | λ

1

(

x

) |

u(x1)

+ | λ

2

(

x

) |

u(x2)

= |

x

|

(4)

whichmeans eachfunction

( μ ,

x

)

servesasa smoothingfunctionof

|

x

|

associatedwithSOC.Withthisobservation, for theSOCAVE(2),wefurtherdefinethefunction H

( μ ,

x

) :

R++

×

Rn

R

×

Rn by

H

( μ ,

x

) =

μ

Ax

+

B

( μ ,

x

)

b

,μ ∈ R

++andx

∈ R

n

.

(6)

Proposition2.1.Supposethatx

= (

x1

,

x2

)

R

×

Rn1hasthespectraldecompositionasin(3)–(4).LetH

:

R++

×

Rn

Rnbe definedasin(6).Then,

(a) H

( μ ,

x

) =

0ifandonlyifxsolvestheSOCAVE(2);

(b) H iscontinuouslydifferentiableat

( μ ,

x

)

R++

×

RnwiththeJacobianmatrixgivenby H

( μ ,

x

) =

1 0

B∂(μμ,x) A

+

B∂(μx,x)

(7)

where

∂( μ ,

x

)

μ =

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

μ

u

(1)

x

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

μ

u

(2) x

,

∂( μ ,

x

)

x

=

⎧ ⎪

⎪ ⎨

⎪ ⎪

∂φ(μ,x1)

x1 I if x2

=

0

,

b c

xT2 x2 cxx2

2 aI

+ (

b

a

)

xx2xT2

22

if x2

=

0

,

with

a

= φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) λ

2

(

x

)λ

1

(

x

) ,

b

=

1

2

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x1

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x1

,

(8)

c

=

1 2

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x1

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x1

.

Proof. (a)First,weobservethat

H

( μ ,

x

) =

0

⇐⇒ μ =

0 and Ax

+

B

( μ ,

x

)

b

=

0

⇐⇒

Ax

+

B

|

x

| −

b

=

0 and

μ =

0

.

ThisindicatesthatxisasolutiontotheSOCAVE(2) ifandonlyif

( μ ,

x

)

isasolutiontoH

( μ ,

x

) =

0.

(b)Since

( μ ,

x

)

iscontinuously differentiable onR++

×

Rn,itisclearthat H

( μ ,

x

)

iscontinuously differentiableon R++

×

Rn.Thus,itremainstocomputetheJacobianmatrixofH

( μ ,

x

)

.Notethat

( μ ,

x

) = φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

u(x1)

+ φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

u(x2)

=

⎧ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎩

1 2

φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) + φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

xx2T

2

+ φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

xxT2

2

ifx2

=

0

,

1

2

φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) + φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) ω

T

+ φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

)) ω

T

ifx2

=

0

=

1 2

⎧ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎪

⎪ ⎩

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ⎢

φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) + φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

) (− φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) + φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

)))

xx¯2

2

.. .

(− φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) + φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

)))

x¯xn

2

⎥ ⎥

⎥ ⎥

ifx2

=

0

,

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ⎣

φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) + φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

0

.. .

0

⎥ ⎥

⎥ ⎦

ifx2

=

0

,

(5)

wherex2

:=

x2

, · · · , ¯

xn

)

Rn1,

ω = ( ω

2

, · · · , ω

n

)

Rn1.Fromchainrule,itistrivialthat

( μ ,

x

)

μ =

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

μ

u

(1)

x

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

μ

u

(2) x Inordertocompute ∂(μ,x)

x ,forsimplicity,wedenote

( μ ,

x

) :=

1 2

⎢ ⎢

⎢ ⎣ τ

1

( μ ,

x

) τ

2

( μ ,

x

)

.. . τ

n

( μ ,

x

)

⎥ ⎥

⎥ ⎦ .

Toproceed,wediscusstwocases.

(i)Forx2

=

0,wecompute

τ

1

( μ ,

x

)

x1

= ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x1

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x1

= ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

∂λ

1

(

x

)

∂λ

1

(

x

)

x1

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

∂λ

2

(

x

)

∂λ

2

(

x

)

x1

= ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

∂λ

1

(

x

) + ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

∂λ

2

(

x

) :=

2b

and

τ

1

( μ ,

x

)

x

¯

i

= ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x

¯

i

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x

¯

i

= ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

∂λ

1

(

x

)

∂λ

1

(

x

)

x

¯

i

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

∂λ

2

(

x

)

∂λ

2

(

x

)

x

¯

i

= − ∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

∂λ

1

(

x

)

¯

xi

x2

+ ∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

∂λ

2

(

x

)

¯

xi

x2

=

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

∂λ

2

(

x

)∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

∂λ

1

(

x

)

x

¯

i

x2

=

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x1

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x1

x

¯

i

x2

:=

2c x

¯

i

x2

,

i

=

2

,· · · ,

n

.

Moreover,

τ

i

( μ ,

x

)

x1

=

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x1

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x1

x

¯

i

x2

=

2c

¯

xi

x2

,

i

=

2

, · · · ,

n

.

Similarly,wehave

τ

2

( μ ,

x

)

x

¯

2

=

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x

¯

2

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

¯

x2

x

¯

2

x2

+ (φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)))

x¯2

x2

x

¯

2

=

2b

¯

x2

· ¯

x2

x2

2

+ (φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)))

1

x2

x

¯

2

· ¯

x2

x2

3

=

2a

+

2

(

b

a

) ¯

x2

· ¯

x2

x2

2

,

whereameansa

:= φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

λ

2

(

x

)λ

1

(

x

)

.Ingeneral,mimickingthesamederivationyields

τ

i

( μ ,

x

)

x

¯

j

=

2a

+

2

(

b

a

)

x¯xi·¯xi

22 ifi

=

j

,

2

(

b

a

)

x¯xi·¯xj

22 ifi

=

j

.

Tosumup,weobtain

( μ ,

x

)

x

=

b c

xT2 x2 cxx2

2 aI

+ (

b

a

)

x2x2T

x22

whichisthedesiredresult.

(6)

(ii)Forx2

=

0,itiscleartosee

τ

1

( μ ,

x

)

x1

=

2

∂φ ( μ ,

x1

)

x1 and

τ

1

( μ ,

x

)

x

¯

i

=

0 fori

=

2

,· · · ,

n

.

Since

τ

i

( μ ,

x

) =

0 fori

=

2

, · · · ,

n,itgives τi(μ,x)

x1

=

0.Moreover,

τ

2

( μ ,

x

)

¯

x2

=

lim

¯ x20

τ

2

( μ ,

x1

,

x

¯

2

,

0

, · · · ,

0

)τ

2

( μ ,

x1

,

0

, · · · ,

0

)

¯

x2

=

lim

¯ x20

φ ( μ ,

x1

+ |¯

x2

|) − φ ( μ ,

x1

− |¯

x2

|)

¯

x2

¯

x2

x2

|

=

lim

¯ x20

φ ( μ ,

x1

+ |¯

x2

|) − φ ( μ ,

x1

− |¯

x2

|)

x2

|

=

lim

¯ x20

∂φ ( μ ,

x1

+ |¯

x2

| )

∂(

x2

| )∂φ ( μ ,

x1

− |¯

x2

| )

∂(

x2

| ) (

as L’Hopital’s rule

)

=

lim

¯ x20

∂φ ( μ ,

x1

+ |¯

x2

|)

∂(

x1

+ |¯

x2

|) + ∂φ ( μ ,

x1

− |¯

x2

|)

∂(

x1

− |¯

x2

|)

=

2

∂φ ( μ ,

x1

)

x1

.

Thus,weobtain

τ

i

( μ ,

x

)

x

¯

j

=

2∂φ(μx,x1)

1 ifi

=

j

,

0 ifi

=

j

,

whichisequivalenttosaying

∂( μ ,

x

)

x

= ∂φ ( μ ,

x1

)

x1 I

.

Fromalltheabove,weconcludethat

∂( μ ,

x

)

x

=

⎧ ⎪

⎪ ⎨

⎪ ⎪

∂φ(μ,x1)

x1 I ifx2

=

0

,

b c

xT2 x2 cxx2

2 aI

+ (

b

a

)

x2x

T

x222

ifx2

=

0

.

Thus,theproofiscomplete. 2

Now,we areready toanswerthe question aboutwhatkindofsmoothingfunctionscan beadopted inthesmoothing typealgorithm.Twotechnicallemmasareneededtowardstheanswer.

Lemma2.1.SupposethatM

,

N

Rn×n.Let

σ

min

(

M

)

denotetheminimumsingularvalueofM,and

σ

max

(

N

)

denotethemaximum singularvalueofN.Then,thefollowinghold.

(a)

σ

min

(

M

) > σ

max

(

N

)

ifandonlyif

σ

min

(

MTM

) > σ

max

(

NTN

)

. (b) If

σ

min

(

MTM

) > σ

max

(

NTN

)

,thenMTM

NTN ispositivedefinite.

Proof. Theproofisstraightforwardorcanbefoundinusualtextbookofmatrixanalysis,soweomitithere. 2

Lemma2.2.LetA

,

S

Rn×nandA besymmetric.SupposethattheeigenvaluesofA andS STarearrangedinnon-increasingorder.

Then,foreachk

=

1

,

2

, · · · ,

n,thereexistsanonnegativerealnumber

θ

ksuchthat

λ

min

(

S ST

)θ

k

λ

max

(

S ST

)

and

λ

k

(

S A ST

) = θ

k

λ

k

(

A

).

Proof. Pleasesee[11,Corollary4.5.11] foraproof. 2

We point out that the crucial key, which guarantees a smoothing function can be employed in the smoothing type algorithm,isthenonsingularity oftheJacobian matrix H

( μ ,

x

))

givenin(7).Asbelow,we provideunderwhatcondition theJacobianmatrix H

( μ ,

x

))

isnonsingular.

(7)

Theorem2.1.ConsideraSOCAVE(2) with

σ

min

(

A

) > σ

max

(

B

)

.LetH bedefinedasin(6).Supposethat

φ :

R++

×

R

Risa smoothingfunctionof

|

t

|

.If

1

dtd

φ ( μ ,

t

)

1issatisfied,thentheJacobianmatrixH

( μ ,

x

)

isnonsingularforany

μ >

0.

Proof. From the expression of H

( μ ,

x

)

givenas in(7), we know that H

( μ ,

x

)

is nonsingularif andonly if the matrix A

+

B∂(μx,x) isnonsingular.Thus,itsufficestoshowthatthematrix A

+

B∂(μx,x) isnonsingularundertheconditions.

Supposenot,thatis,thereexistsavector0

=

v

Rn suchthat

A

+

B

( μ ,

x

)

x

v

=

0

whichimpliesthat

vTATA v

=

vT

∂( μ ,

x

)

x

T

BTB

( μ ,

x

)

x v

.

(9)

Forconvenience,wedenoteC

:=

∂(μx,x).Then,itfollowsthat vTATA v

=

vTCTBTBC v.ApplyingLemma2.2,thereexistsa constant

θ ˆ

suchthat

λ

min

(

CTC

) ≤ ˆ θλ

max

(

CTC

)

and

λ

max

(

CTBTBC

) = ˆ θ λ

max

(

BTB

).

Notethatifwecanprovethat

0

λ

min

(

CTC

)λ

max

(

CTC

)

1

,

we willhave

λ

max

(

CTBTBC

)λ

max

(

BTB

)

.Then,bytheassumptionthattheminimumsingular valueof A strictlyexceeds the maximumsingular value of B (i.e.,

σ

min

(

A

) > σ

max

(

B

)

) and applyingLemma2.1,we obtain vTATA v

>

vTCTBTBC v.

Thiscontradictstheidentity(9),whichshowstheJacobianmatrix H

( μ ,

x

)

isnonsingularfor

μ >

0.

Thus, inlightoftheabovediscussion,itsuffices toclaim0

λ

min

(

CTC

)λ

max

(

CTC

)

1.Tothisend,we discusstwo cases.

Case1:Forx2

=

0,wecomputethatC

=

∂φ (μx1,x1)I.Since

1

∂φ (μx1,x1)

1,itisclearthat0

λ(

CTC

)

1 for

μ >

0.Then, theclaimisdone.

Case2:Forx2

=

0,usingthefact thatthe matrixMTM isalways positivesemidefiniteforanymatrix M

Rm×n,we see thattheinequality

λ

min

(

CTC

)

0 alwaysholds.Inordertoprove

λ

max

(

CTC

)

1,weneedtofurtherarguethatthematrix I

CTC ispositivesemidefinite.First,wewriteout

I

CTC

=

1

b2

c2

2bcxx2T2

2bcxx2

2

(

1

a2

)

I

+ (

a2

b2

c2

)

xx2x2T

22

.

If

1

<

∂φ (μx1i(x))

<

1,thenweobtain

b2

+

c2

=

1 2

∂φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

))

x1

2

+

∂φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))

x1

2

<

1

.

Thisindicatesthat1

b2

c2

>

0.Byconsidering

[

1

b2

c2

]

asan1

×

1 matrix,thissays

[

1

b2

c2

]

ispositivedefinite.

Hence,itsSchurcomplementcanbecomputedasbelow:

(

1

a2

)

I

+ (

a2

b2

c2

)

x2x

T 2

x2

2

4b2c2 1

b2

c2

x2xT2

x2

2

= (

1

a2

)

I

x2x2T

x2

2

+

1

b2

c2

4b2c2 1

b2

c2

x2x2T

x2

2

.

(10)

Ontheotherhand,bytheMeanValueTheorem,wehave

φ ( μ , λ

2

(

x

))φ ( μ , λ

1

(

x

)) = ∂φ ( μ , ξ )

∂ξ

2

(

x

)λ

1

(

x

)),

where

ξ

1

(

x

), λ

2

(

x

))

.Toproceed,weneedtofurtherdiscusstwosubcases.

Références

Documents relatifs

In this paper we first study the intrinsic subelliptic structure due to the monotonicity condition, and then deduce, basing on the subelliptic estimate, the Gevrey smoothing

Yet time functions are strictly causal hence can be approximated by temporal functions, which generalizes the result of Bernal and Sanchez to the context of closed cone fields..

We justify the smoothing effect for measure valued solutions to the space homogeneous Boltzmann equation of Maxwellian type cross sections. This is the first rigorous proof of

Vol. By using these identities we obtain isometrical identities and a priori estimates of solutions for the Schrodinger equation.. which yields the analyticity of

Finally, in Section 5 we consider the case of equations with multiplicative stable noise: under smoothness assumptions on the coefficients, we prove the strong Feller property of

cond integral may be examined with the aid of the theory of Abelian asymp- totics of such principal value integrals.. To begin with, we note

Additionally, we demonstrate how theoretical proofs of real-time convex optimization algo- rithms can be used to describe functional properties at the code level, thereby making

In this paper, we reformulate the NP-hard problem of the absolute value equation (AVE) as a horizontal linear complementarity one and then solve it using a smoothing technique..