ArticlePDF Available

On an exact penality result and new constraint qualifications for mathematical programs with vanishing constraints

Authors:

Abstract

In this paper, we considered the mathematical programs with vanishing constraints or MPVC. We proved that an MPVC-tailored penalty function, introduced in [5], is still exact under a very weak and new constraint qualification. Most importantly, this constraint qualification is shown to be strictly stronger than MPVC-Abadie constraint qualification.
minxRnf(x)
s.t. gi(x)60i= 1,2, ..., m,
hj(x)=0j= 1,2, ..., l,
Hi(x)>0i= 1,2, ..., q,
Gi(x)Hi(x)60i= 1,2, ..., q.
f:RnR, gi:RnR, hi:RnR, Gi:Rn
R, Hi:RnR
Gi(x)60
Hi(x)=0 C
Pα(x) = f(x)+α[
m
X
i=1
max{0, gi(x)}+
l
X
j=1
|hj(x)|+
q
X
i=1
max{0,Hi(x),min{Gi(x), Hi(x)}}]
l1g h
P1
α(x) = f(x) + α
q
X
i=1
max{−Hi(x),0}+α
q
X
i=1
max{Gi(x)Hi(x),0}.
l1
l1
I00
l1
Pα(x)
x
Ig:= {i|gi(x)=0},
I+:= {i|Hi(x)>0}, I0:= {i|Hi(x)=0},
I+0 := {i|Hi(x)>0, Gi(x)=0}, I+:= {i|Hi(x)>0Gi(x)<0},
I0+ := {i|Hi(x)=0, Gi(x)>0}, I0:= {i|Hi(x)=0, Gi(x)<0},
I00 := {i|Hi(x) = 0 , Gi(x)=0}.
CRnxC
C x
TC(x) := {dRn| ∃{xk} →Cx,{tk} ↓ 0 : xkx
tk
d}
:= {dRn| ∃{dk} → d, {tk} ↓ 0 : x+tkdkCkN},
{xk} →Cx{xk}x
xkCkN
dTC(x)C x
CRnxC
C x
NF
C(x) := TC(x).
CRnxC
C x
NC(x) := {dRn| ∃{xk} →Cx, dkNF
C(xk) : dkd}.
Φ : RnRmgphΦ := {(x, y)|y
Φ(x)}xRnδ > 0B(x, δ) := {yRn| kyxk< δ}
k.kl1
x∈ C
{∇gi(x)|iIg} ∪ {∇hi(x)|i= 1, ..., p} ∪ {∇Gi(x)|iI+0 I00}
∪ {∇Hi(x)|iI0}
x∈ C
hi(x) (i= 1, ..., p),Hi(x) (iI0+ I00)
dRn
hi(x)d= 0 (i= 1, ..., p),Hi(x)Td= 0 (iI0+ I00),
gi(x)Td < 0 (iIg),Hi(x)Td > 0 (iI0),
Gi(x)Td < 0 (iI+0 I00).
x∈ C
(λ, µ, ηH, ηG)6= 0
(i) Pm
i=1 λigi(x)+Pl
i=1 µihi(x)+Pq
i=1 ηG
iGi(x)Pq
i=1 ηH
iHi(x)=0
(ii) λi>0iIg, λi= 0 i /Ig
and ηG
i= 0 iI+I0I0+, ηG
i>0iI+0 I00,
ηH
i= 0 iI+, ηH
i>0iI0and ηH
iis free iI0+,
ηH
iηG
i= 0 iI00.
x∈ C
TC(x) = LMP V C (x)
LMP V C (x)
LMP V C (x) = {dRn| ∇gi(x)Td0iIg,
hi(x)Td= 0 i= 1, ..., p,
Hi(x)Td= 0 iI0+,
Hi(x)Td0iI00 I0,
Gi(x)Td0iI+0}.
x∈ C
(λ, µ, ηH, ηG)6= 0
(i) Pm
i=1 λigi(x)+Pl
i=1 µihi(x)+Pq
i=1 ηG
iGi(x)Pq
i=1 ηH
iHi(x)=0
(ii) λi>0iIg, λi= 0 i /Ig
and ηG
i= 0 iI+I0I0+, ηG
i>0iI+0 I00,
ηH
i= 0 iI+, ηH
i>0iI0and ηH
iis free iI0+,
ηH
iηG
i= 0 iI00.
(iii) {xk} → xkN
m
X
i=1
λigi(xk) +
p
X
i=1
µihi(xk) +
q
X
i=1
ηG
iGi(xk)
q
X
i=1
ηH
iHi(xk)>0.
x∈ C
(λ, µ, ηH, ηG)6= 0
(i) Pm
i=1 λigi(x)+Pl
i=1 µihi(x)+Pq
i=1 ηG
iGi(x)Pq
i=1 ηH
iHi(x)=0
(ii) λi>0iIg, λi= 0 i /Ig
and ηG
i= 0 iI+I0I0+, ηG
i>0iI+0 I00,
ηH
i= 0 iI+, ηH
i>0iI0and ηH
iis free iI0+,
ηH
iηG
i= 0 iI00.
(iii) {xk} → xkN
λi>0λigi(xk)>0{i= 1, ..., m},
µi6= 0 µihi(xk)>0{i= 1, ..., p},
ηH
i6= 0 ηH
iHi(xk)<0{i= 1, ..., q},
ηG
i>0ηG
iGi(xk)>0{i= 1, ..., q}.
⇒ ⇒
⇒ ⇒
min f(x)
g(x) = x1x260,
H(x) = x1>0,
G(x)H(x) = x1x260,
x= (0,0) (0,0)
x= (0,0) H(x) = 1
0
d= (d1, d2)TR2
g(x)Td=11d1
d2<0,
H(x)Td=1 0 d1
d2= 0,
G(x)Td=0 1 d1
d2<0.
d2>0d2<0
λ1
1+ηG0
1ηH1
0=0
0,
λ>0, ηG>0ηHηG= 0 λ=ηG=ηH= 0
R2
min x2
1+x2
2
g(x) = x10,
H(x) = x20,
G(x)H(x) = x1x20.
x= (0,0) x
x(λ, ηG, ηH)6= 0
λ1
0+ηG1
0ηH0
1=0
0,
λ>0, ηG>0ηHηG= 0
(λ, ηG, ηH) = c(1,1,0) c > 0
x
λxk
1+ηG(xk
1)ηHxk
2=cxk
1cxk
10=0,
{xk} → x
min f(x) s.t. F(x),
F(x) :=
gi(x)i=1,...,m
hi(x)i=1,...,l
Gi(x)
Hi(x)i=1,...,q
∆ :=
(−∞,0]m
{0}l
q
Ω := {(a, b)R2|b0, ab 0}.
Pα(x) := f(x) + αdist(F(x))
Pα(x) := f(x)+α
m
X
i=1
dist(−∞,0](gi(x)) +
l
X
j=1
dist{0}(hj(x)) +
q
X
i=1
dist(Gl(x), Hl(x))
,
Pα(x) := f(x) + α ||g+(x)||1+||h(x)||1+
q
X
i=1
dist(Gl(x), Hl(x))!,
distS(x)l1x S g+(x) = max{0, g(x)}
g+
Pα(x) = f(x)+α
m
X
i=1
|g+
i(x)|+
l
X
j=1
|hj(x)|+
q
X
i=1
max{0,Hi(x),min{Gi(x), Hi(x)}}
.
x∈ C
xδ, c > 0
distC(x)6c ||h(x)||1+||g+(x)||1+
q
X
i=1
dist(Gl(x), Hl(x))!
xB(x, δ/2)
x
f xL > 0
xPα
x
δand c
distC(x)cdist(F(x)),
xB(x, δ) > 0 2 < δ f
xB(x,2)∩ C f x
L f B(x,2)
xB(x, )
xπΠC(x) = {z∈ C | distC(x) = ||zc||1}ΠC(x)
xC
||xπx||1≤ ||xx||1⇒ ||xπx||1≤ ||xπx||1+||xx||12,
f(x)f(xπ)f(x) + L||xπx||1
=f(x) + LdistC(x)
=f(x) + cL distF(x)
Pα¯α=cL
min x2
1+x2
2
g(x) = x10,
H(x) = x20,
G(x)H(x) = x1x20.
x= (0,0) x
Pα(x) = x2
1+x2
2+α[max{0, g(x)}+ max{0,H(x),min{G(x), H (x)}}]
x= (0,0) α>0Pα(x)
x
min f(x) s.t. F (x)
f F
min f(x) s.t. F (x) + p
pRt, t =m+l+q
M(p) := {xRn|F(x) + p}
C=F1(∆) = M(0).
Φ : Rp
Rq(u, v)gphΦ
Φ (u, v)U u V v
L0
Φ(u0)VΦ(u) + L||uu0||Bu0U
B:= B(0,1)
xM(0)
M(0, x)gphM.
δ > 0c > 0
distF1(∆)(x)6cdist(F(x))
xB(x, δ)
x
x
F0(x)Tλ= 0 λN(F(x))λ= 0.
N(a, b) =
ξ
ζ
ξ=0=ζ;if a > 0, b < 0
ξ= 0, ζ >0 ; if a > 0, b = 0
ζ>0, ξ ·ζ= 0 ; if a =0=b
ξ60, ζ = 0 ; if a = 0, b < 0
ξR, ζ = 0 ; if a = 0, b > 0
,
N(−∞,0](a) =
{0};a < 0
[0,) ; a= 0
φ;a > 0
,
N{0}(0) = R.
N(F(x))
N(F(x)) =
m
Y
i=1
N(−∞,0](gi(x)) ×
p
Y
i=1
N{0}(hi(x)) ×
q
Y
i=1
N(Gi(x, Hi(x)).
m
X
i=1
λigi(x) +
p
X
i=1
µihi(x) +
q
X
i=1
ηG
iGi(x)
q
X
i=1
ηH
iHi(x)=0,
λiN(−∞,0](gi(x)) i= 1, ..., m,
µiN{0}(hi(x)) i= 1, ..., p,
(ηG
i,ηH
i)∈ −N(Gi(x), Hi(x)) i= 1, ..., q,
=(λ, µ, ηG, ηH) = 0,
M(0, x)gphM
xM(0)
x
T(F(x)) =
m
Y
i=1
T(−∞,0](gi(x)) ×
p
Y
i=1
T{0}(hi(x)) ×
q
Y
i=1
T(Gi(x), Hi(x)).
⊇ ⊆
dgiT(−∞,0](gi(x)), dhiT{0}(hi(x))
(dGi, dHi)T(Gi(x), Hi(x))
d:= (dgi, i=1,...,m, dhi, i=1,...,p ,(dGi, dHi)i=1,...,q).
dk
gidgi, tk
gi0 with gi(x) + tk
gidk
gi0,
dk
hidhi, tk
hi0 with hi(x) + tk
hidk
gi= 0,
(dk
Gi, dk
Hi)(dGi, dHi), tk
GiHi0 with (Hi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Hi)0
and (Gi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Gi)(Hi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Hi)0,
kN
dk:= dk
gi, i=1,...,m, dk
hi, i=1,...,p,(dk
Gi, dk
Hi)i=1,...,qd.
dT(F(x))
tk0F(x) + tkdk,kN
tk:= min{tk
gi,i=1,...,m, tk
GiHi,1,...,q},
kNtk0F(x) + tkdk,kN
kNx
i= 1, ..., m dk
gi<0dk
gi0
dk
gi<0
gi(x) + tkdk
gi< gi(x)0,
dk
gi0
gi(x) + tkdk
gigi(x) + tk
gidk
gi0.
hi(x) = 0 tk
hi>0,i= 1, ..., p dk
hi= 0
hi(x) + tkdk
hi= 0.
Hi(x)>0Gi(x)=0 Gi(x)<0
Gi(x)=0 iI+0 dk
HidHitk
GiHi0
Hi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Hi>0 ; kNsufficiently large.
Hi(x) + tkdk
Hi>0kN
Gi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Gi0 ; kN,
dk
Gi0
Gi(x) + tkdk
Gi0 ; kNsufficiently large,
Hi(x) + tkdk
HiGi(x) + tkdk
Gi0,
F(x) + tkdkkN
Gi(x)<0iI+Hi(x) + tkdk
Hi>0k
Hi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Hi>0
(Gi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Hi)0,by eq (11),
(Gi(x) + tkdk
Hi)0 ; for all sufficiently large k.
Hi(x) + tkdk
HiGi(x) + tkdk
Gi0 ; for all sufficiently large k,
iI+F(x) + tkdkkN
Hi(x) = 0 dk
Hi0Hi(x) +
tkdk
Hi0kNGi(x)
dk
Hi
dk
Hi>0
Gi(x) + tk
GiHidk
Gi0 ; iI0+ I0I00 ,
Gi(x) + tkdk
Gi0 ; for sufficiently large kN,
Hi(x) + tkdk
HiGi(x) + tkdk
Gi0,
iI0+ I0I00
dk
Hi= 0 Hi(x) + tkdk
Hi= 0
Hi(x) + tkdk
HiGi(x) + tkdk
Gi= 0,
iI0+ I0I00 F(x)+ tkdk
kN
x
x
x
M(p) (0, x)F
TC(x) = LC(x),
LC(x)Cx
LC(x) = {dRn| ∇F(x)TdT(F(x))}.
T(F(x)) =
m
Y
i=1
T(−∞,0](gi(x)) ×
p
Y
i=1
T{0}(hi(x)) ×
q
Y
i=1
T(Gi(x, Hi(x)).
LC(x)
LC(x) = {dRn| ∇gi(x)TdT(−∞,0](gi(x)) i= 1, ..., m,
hi(x)TdT{0}(hi(x)) i= 1, ..., p,
(Gi(x)Td, Hi(x)Td)T(Gi(x), Hi(x)) i= 1, ..., q}
={dRn| ∇gi(x)Td0iIg,
hi(x)Td= 0 i= 1, ..., p,
Hi(x)Td= 0 iI0+,
Hi(x)Td0iI00 I0,
Gi(x)Td0iI+0}
=LMP V C (x).
LMP V C
TC(x) = LC(x) = LMP V C (x)
x
min f(x) = |x1|+|x2|
g(x) = x1+x20,
H(x) = x10,
G(x)H(x) = x1(x2
1x2
2)0.
x= (0,0) x
xTC(x) = C=LMP V C (x)C
Pα(x)x= (0,0)
x
x
M P V C MF C Q
M P V C GMF C Q
M P V C generalized pseudonormality
M P V C generalized quasinormality
M P V C ACQ =Calmness of M (p)at (0, x) =exactness of Pα.
Pα
l1
l1
Article
Full-text available
We consider a numerical approach for the solution of a difficult class of optimization problems called mathematical programs with vanishing constraints. The basic idea is to reformulate the characteristic constraints of the program via a nonsmooth function and to eventually smooth it and regularize the feasible set with the aid of a certain smoothing- and regularization parameter t>0 such that the resulting problem is more tractable and coincides with the original program for t=0. We investigate the convergence behavior of a sequence of stationary points of the smooth and regularized problems by letting t tend to zero. Numerical results illustrating the performance of the approach are given. In particular, a large-scale example from topology optimization of mechanical structures with local stress constraints is investigated.
Article
Full-text available
We consider a special class of optimization problems that we call a Mathematical Programme with Vanishing Constraints. It has a number of important applications in structural and topology optimization, but typically does not satisfy standard constraint qualifications like the linear independence and the Mangasarian–Fromovitz constraint qualification. We therefore investigate the Abadie and Guignard constraint qualifications in more detail. In particular, it follows from our results that also the Abadie constraint qualification is typically not satisfied, whereas the Guignard constraint qualification holds under fairly mild assumptions for our particular class of optimization problems.
Article
Full-text available
Mathematical programs with equilibrium (or complementarity) constraints (MPECs) form a difficult class of optimization problems. The feasible set has a very special structure and violates most of the standard constraint qualifications. Therefore, one typically applies specialized algorithms in order to solve MPECs. One very prominent class of specialized algorithms are the regularization (or relaxation) methods. The first regularization method for MPECs is due to Scholtes [SIAM J. Optim., 11 (2001), pp. 918-936], but in the meantime, there exist a number of different regularization schemes which try to relax the difficult constraints in different ways. However, almost all regularization methods converge to C-stationary points only, which is a very weak stationarity concept. An exception is a recent method by Kadrani, Dussault, and Benchakroun [SIAM J. Optim., 20 (2009), pp. 78-103], whose limit points are shown to be M-stationary. Here we provide a new regularization method which also converges to M-stationary points. The assumptions to prove this result are, in principle, significantly weaker than for all other relaxation schemes. Furthermore, our relaxed problem has a much more favorable geometric shape than the one proposed by Kadrani, Dussault, and Benchakroun.
Article
In this paper, we study the difficult class of optimization problems called the mathematical programs with vanishing constraints or MPVC. Extensive research has been done for MPVC regarding stationary conditions and constraint qualifications using geometric approaches. We use the Fritz John approach for MPVC to derive the M-stationary conditions under weak constraint qualifications. An enhanced Fritz John type stationary condition is also derived for MPVC, which provides the notion of enhanced M-stationarity under a new and weaker constraint qualification: MPVC-generalized quasinormality. We show that this new constraint qualification is even weaker than MPVC-CPLD. A local error bound result is also established under MPVC-generalized quasinormality.
Article
Recently, Hoheisel et al. (Nonlinear Anal 72(5):2514–2526, 2010) proved the exactness of the classical (Formula presented.) penalty function for the mathematical programs with vanishing constraints (MPVC) under the MPVC-linearly independent constraint qualification (MPVC-LICQ) and the bi-active set being empty at a local minimum (Formula presented.) of MPVC. In this paper, by relaxing the two conditions in the above result, we show that the (Formula presented.) penalty function is still exact at a local minimum (Formula presented.) of MPVC under the MPVC-generalized pseudonormality and a new assumption. Our (Formula presented.) exact penalty result includes the one of Hoheisel et al. as a special case.
Chapter
In Chapter 1 we introduced configuration space as a space in which the robot maps to a point. The mathematical structure of this space, however, is not completely straightforward, and deserves some specific consideration. The purpose of this chapter and the next one is to provide the reader with a general understanding of this structure when the robot is a rigid object not constrained by any kinematic or dynamic constraint. This chapter mainly focuses on topological and differential properties of the configuration space. More detailed algebraic and geometric properties related to the mapping of the obstacles into configuration space will be investigated in Chapter 3.
Chapter
The planning methods described in the previous three chapters aim at capturing the global connectivity of the robot’s free space into a condensed graph that is subsequently searched for a path. The approach presented in this chapter proceeds from a different idea. It treats the robot represented as a point in configuration space as a particle under the influence of an artificial potential field U whose local variations are expected to reflect the “structure” of the free space. The potential function is typically (but not necessarily) defined over free space as the sum of an attractive potential pulling the robot toward the goal configuration and a repulsive potential pushing the robot away from the obstacles. Motion planning is performed in an iterative fashion. At each iteration, the artificial force F(q)=U(q) \vec{F}(q) = - \vec{\nabla }U(q) induced by the potential function at the current configuration is regarded as the most promising direction of motion, and path generation proceeds along this direction by some increment.
Article
The notion of calmness, which was introduced by Clarke and Rockafellar for constrained optimization, is considered. An equivalence to the technique of exact penalization due to Eremin and Zangwill is established. It is then shown that calmness is satisfied on a dense subset of the domain of the optimal value function.