|
| 1 | +### A Pluto.jl notebook ### |
| 2 | +# v0.20.17 |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | +using Markdown |
| 5 | +using InteractiveUtils |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +# ╔═╡ a509f9d8-9c6d-11f0-3db9-cb5fe2e85d64 |
| 8 | +md"""# Constrained Optimization (Equality & Inequality KKT) |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +[⬅ Back to Class 02 Overview](class02_overview.jl) |
| 11 | +
|
| 12 | +[⬅ Previous: Unconstrained Minimization](class02_unconstrained_min.jl) |
| 13 | +
|
| 14 | +[➡ Next: Methods (Penalty/ALM/IPM)](class02_methods_barrier_alm.jl) |
| 15 | +
|
| 16 | +**In this section you will:** |
| 17 | +
|
| 18 | +* Build the **geometry** of equality constraints and the **KKT** conditions. |
| 19 | +* See the **Newton-on-KKT** linear system (saddle point) and when it’s well-posed. |
| 20 | +* Contrast **full Newton** vs. **Gauss–Newton** on the KKT system. |
| 21 | +* Extend to **inequality constraints** and understand **complementarity**. |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +""" |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +# ╔═╡ 57cd6d88-ea7e-4f5c-bc17-7fc65fb78e95 |
| 26 | +md"""## Equality-constrained minimization: geometry and conditions |
| 27 | +
|
| 28 | +**Problem:** |
| 29 | +[ |
| 30 | +\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^n} f(x) \quad \text{s.t.}\quad C(x)=0,\ \ C:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^m. |
| 31 | +] |
| 32 | +
|
| 33 | +**Geometric picture.** At an optimum on the manifold (C(x)=0), the negative gradient must lie in the tangent space: |
| 34 | +[ |
| 35 | +\nabla f(x^\star)\ \perp\ \mathcal{T}_{x^\star}={p:\ J_C(x^\star)p=0}. |
| 36 | +] |
| 37 | +Equivalently, the gradient is a linear combination of the constraint normals: |
| 38 | +[ |
| 39 | +\nabla f(x^\star)+J_C(x^\star)^{!T}\lambda^\star=0,\qquad C(x^\star)=0\quad(\lambda^\star\in\mathbb{R}^m). |
| 40 | +] |
| 41 | +
|
| 42 | +**Lagrangian.** (L(x,\lambda)=f(x)+\lambda^{!T}C(x)). |
| 43 | +""" |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +# ╔═╡ b7763163-fc68-4c56-bac9-c37de527858f |
| 46 | +md""" |
| 47 | +## Equality constraints: picture first |
| 48 | +
|
| 49 | +**Goal.** Minimize (f(x)) while staying on the surface (C(x)=0). |
| 50 | +
|
| 51 | +* **Feasible set as a surface.** Think of (C(x)=0) as a smooth surface embedded in (\mathbb{R}^n) (a manifold). |
| 52 | +* **Move without breaking the constraint.** Tangent directions are the “along-the-surface” moves keeping (C(x)) unchanged to first order. |
| 53 | +* **What must be true at the best point.** At (x^\star), there’s no downhill direction within the tangent space. |
| 54 | +* **Normals enter the story.** If the gradient can’t point along the surface, it must be balanced by the normals ({J_C(x^\star)_{i:}^{!T}}), producing multipliers (\lambda^\star). |
| 55 | +""" |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +# ╔═╡ 8a08b045-3a1b-4601-a081-27a6a22d05e6 |
| 58 | +md""" |
| 59 | +## From the picture to KKT (equality only) |
| 60 | +
|
| 61 | +For a regular local minimum: |
| 62 | +
|
| 63 | +1. **Feasibility:** (C(x^\star)=0). |
| 64 | +2. **Stationarity:** (\nabla f(x^\star) + J_C(x^\star)^{!T}\lambda^\star = 0). |
| 65 | +
|
| 66 | +**Lagrangian viewpoint.** Define (L(x,\lambda)=f(x)+\lambda^{!T}C(x)). At a solution, (x^\star) is stationary for (L) w.r.t. (x), while (C(x^\star)=0) ensures feasibility. |
| 67 | +
|
| 68 | +**Interpreting (\lambda^\star).** Each (\lambda_i^\star) reflects how strongly the (i)-th constraint “pushes back”; it’s also a sensitivity of the optimal value to perturbations in (C_i). |
| 69 | +""" |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +# ╔═╡ 907459d1-4a09-441c-a989-71ff687da873 |
| 72 | +md""" |
| 73 | +## KKT system for equalities (first order) & Newton on KKT |
| 74 | +
|
| 75 | +**KKT (FOC):** |
| 76 | +[ |
| 77 | +\nabla_x L(x,\lambda)=\nabla f(x)+J_C(x)^{!T}\lambda=0,\qquad C(x)=0. |
| 78 | +] |
| 79 | +
|
| 80 | +**Newton on KKT (linearize both blocks):** |
| 81 | +[ |
| 82 | +\begin{bmatrix} |
| 83 | +\nabla^2 f(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{m}\lambda_i,\nabla^2 C_i(x) & ; J_C(x)^{!T}[2pt] |
| 84 | +J_C(x) & ; 0 |
| 85 | +\end{bmatrix} |
| 86 | +\begin{bmatrix}\Delta x\ \Delta\lambda\end{bmatrix} |
| 87 | +=- |
| 88 | +\begin{bmatrix} |
| 89 | +\nabla f(x)+J_C(x)^{!T}\lambda[2pt] C(x) |
| 90 | +\end{bmatrix}. |
| 91 | +] |
| 92 | +
|
| 93 | +**Notes.** This is a symmetric **saddle-point** system. Practical solves use block elimination (Schur complement) and sparse factorizations. |
| 94 | + """ |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +# ╔═╡ aec59d16-c254-43b6-aee2-6261823fb7c3 |
| 97 | +md""" |
| 98 | +## Newton on KKT: practice & safeguards |
| 99 | +
|
| 100 | +**Works best when:** |
| 101 | +
|
| 102 | +* (J_C(x^\star)) has **full row rank** (regularity). |
| 103 | +* The **reduced Hessian** is **positive definite**. |
| 104 | +* A **globalization** (e.g., merit/penalty line search) and mild **regularization** are present. |
| 105 | +
|
| 106 | +**Common safeguards:** |
| 107 | +
|
| 108 | +* **Regularize** the ((1,1)) block (e.g., (+\beta I)) to ensure a good search direction. |
| 109 | +* **Merit/penalty line search** balancing feasibility vs. optimality. |
| 110 | +* **Scaling** constraints to improve conditioning of the KKT system. |
| 111 | +""" |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +# ╔═╡ a14a100c-5c92-42cc-899d-8c6eb0619368 |
| 114 | +md""" |
| 115 | +## Gauss–Newton vs. full Newton (equality case) |
| 116 | +
|
| 117 | +* **Full Newton Lagrangian Hessian:** |
| 118 | + [ |
| 119 | + \nabla_{xx}^2 L(x,\lambda)=\nabla^2 f(x)+\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i,\nabla^2 C_i(x). |
| 120 | + ] |
| 121 | +* **Gauss–Newton approximation:** drop the constraint-curvature term: |
| 122 | + [ |
| 123 | + H_{\text{GN}}(x)\approx \nabla^2 f(x). |
| 124 | + ] |
| 125 | +
|
| 126 | +**Trade-offs.** |
| 127 | +
|
| 128 | +* **Full Newton:** fewer iterations near the solution; costlier steps; less robust far away. |
| 129 | +* **Gauss–Newton:** cheaper per step and often more stable; may need more iterations but competitive in wall-clock on many problems. |
| 130 | +""" |
| 131 | + |
| 132 | +# ╔═╡ 300c917e-e61c-4881-82d0-bc79ace66795 |
| 133 | +md""" |
| 134 | +## Solving the KKT system: Schur complement (intuition) |
| 135 | +
|
| 136 | +Given |
| 137 | +[ |
| 138 | +\begin{bmatrix} H & A^{!T}\ A & 0\end{bmatrix} |
| 139 | +\begin{bmatrix}\Delta x\ \Delta\lambda\end{bmatrix} |
| 140 | +=- |
| 141 | +\begin{bmatrix} g\ c\end{bmatrix}, |
| 142 | +] |
| 143 | +with (H\approx \nabla_{xx}^2 L), (A=J_C(x)), (g=\nabla f+J_C^{!T}\lambda), (c=C(x)). |
| 144 | +
|
| 145 | +* Eliminate (\Delta x): (\Delta x = -H^{-1}(g + A^{!T}\Delta\lambda)). |
| 146 | +* Schur system in (\Delta\lambda): |
| 147 | + [ |
| 148 | + (A H^{-1} A^{!T}),\Delta\lambda = c + A H^{-1} g. |
| 149 | + ] |
| 150 | +* Then recover (\Delta x). |
| 151 | + Exploit **sparsity**: factor (H) once per iteration; reuse structure across iterations. |
| 152 | +
|
| 153 | +""" |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +# ╔═╡ 28a43bca-618a-4fec-a7eb-ad7a734ceac5 |
| 156 | +md""" |
| 157 | +## Inequality-constrained minimization and KKT |
| 158 | +
|
| 159 | +**Problem:** (\min f(x)\ \text{s.t.}\ c(x)\ge 0,\ \ c:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^p). |
| 160 | +
|
| 161 | +**KKT (FOC):** |
| 162 | +[ |
| 163 | +\begin{aligned} |
| 164 | +&\text{Stationarity:} && \nabla f(x)-J_c(x)^{!T}\lambda=0,\ |
| 165 | +&\text{Primal feasibility:} && c(x)\ge 0,\ |
| 166 | +&\text{Dual feasibility:} && \lambda\ge 0,\ |
| 167 | +&\text{Complementarity:} && \lambda^{!T}c(x)=0\quad(\lambda_i c_i(x)=0,\ \forall i). |
| 168 | +\end{aligned} |
| 169 | +] |
| 170 | +
|
| 171 | +**Interpretation.** |
| 172 | +
|
| 173 | +* **Active** constraints: (c_i(x)=0\Rightarrow \lambda_i) can be nonzero (acts like an equality). |
| 174 | +* **Inactive** constraints: (c_i(x)>0\Rightarrow \lambda_i=0) (no influence on stationarity). |
| 175 | +""" |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +# ╔═╡ 3b6300c0-d69f-4004-9b91-41116d0ce832 |
| 178 | +md""" |
| 179 | +## Complementarity: intuition & Newton’s challenge |
| 180 | +
|
| 181 | +**What (\lambda_i c_i(x)=0) means.** |
| 182 | +
|
| 183 | +* Tight constraint ((c_i=0)) → can press back ((\lambda_i\ge 0)). |
| 184 | +* Loose constraint ((c_i>0)) → no force ((\lambda_i=0)). |
| 185 | +
|
| 186 | +**Why naïve Newton struggles.** |
| 187 | +
|
| 188 | +* Complementarity brings **nonsmoothness** and **inequalities** ((\lambda\ge 0), (c(x)\ge 0)). |
| 189 | +* Equality-style Newton can violate nonnegativity or bounce across the boundary. |
| 190 | +
|
| 191 | +**Two main strategies (preview).** |
| 192 | +
|
| 193 | +* **Active-set:** guess actives → solve equality-constrained subproblem → update the set. |
| 194 | +* **Barrier / PDIP / ALM:** smooth or relax complementarity, use damped Newton, and drive the relaxation to zero. |
| 195 | + |
| 196 | +""" |
| 197 | + |
| 198 | +# ╔═╡ ab782dbb-5f3c-404f-87b7-091b4382b0aa |
| 199 | +md""" |
| 200 | +## Globalization with constraints: merit functions |
| 201 | +
|
| 202 | +To balance feasibility and optimality during updates ((x,\lambda)\to(x+\alpha\Delta x,\lambda+\alpha\Delta\lambda)), use a **merit/penalty** function, e.g. |
| 203 | +[ |
| 204 | +\Phi_\mu(x) = f(x) + \mu,|C(x)|*1 \quad \text{(equality case)}, |
| 205 | +] |
| 206 | +or for inequalities, a penalty on **violation** (v(x)=\sum_i \max(0,-c_i(x))). |
| 207 | +Do a **backtracking line search** on (\Phi*\mu) to ensure robust progress. |
| 208 | +
|
| 209 | +*(You’ll see barrier and ALM variants in the next section.)* |
| 210 | + |
| 211 | +""" |
| 212 | + |
| 213 | +# ╔═╡ 0f722888-d66c-47ae-a1ee-1e2b7c9b4a58 |
| 214 | +md""" |
| 215 | +## Conditioning & scaling |
| 216 | +
|
| 217 | +* **Scale constraints** so rows of (J_C) have comparable norms → better KKT conditioning. |
| 218 | +* **Regularize** (H) when indefinite/ill-conditioned (modified Cholesky or (+\beta I)). |
| 219 | +* **Exploit structure:** block-banded, sparse patterns common in trajectory problems. |
| 220 | +* **Warm-starts** from previous solves (e.g., along continuation or time steps) improve robustness. |
| 221 | +""" |
| 222 | + |
| 223 | +# ╔═╡ f4d85409-9095-4bc0-b515-ae283e43f344 |
| 224 | +md""" |
| 225 | +## Where to next |
| 226 | +
|
| 227 | +* Proceed to **Methods: Penalty vs. Augmented Lagrangian vs. Interior-Point** to see practical algorithms that *enforce* the KKT conditions reliably, including complementarity handling for inequalities. |
| 228 | +* Later, we’ll assemble these pieces into **SQP**. |
| 229 | +
|
| 230 | +[➡ Methods (Penalty/ALM/IPM) (next)](class02_methods_barrier_alm.jl) · [⬅ Back to overview](class02_overview.jl) |
| 231 | +""" |
| 232 | + |
| 233 | +# ╔═╡ 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001 |
| 234 | +PLUTO_PROJECT_TOML_CONTENTS = """ |
| 235 | +[deps] |
| 236 | +""" |
| 237 | + |
| 238 | +# ╔═╡ 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000002 |
| 239 | +PLUTO_MANIFEST_TOML_CONTENTS = """ |
| 240 | +# This file is machine-generated - editing it directly is not advised |
| 241 | +
|
| 242 | +julia_version = "1.10.0" |
| 243 | +manifest_format = "2.0" |
| 244 | +project_hash = "da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709" |
| 245 | +
|
| 246 | +[deps] |
| 247 | +""" |
| 248 | + |
| 249 | +# ╔═╡ Cell order: |
| 250 | +# ╠═a509f9d8-9c6d-11f0-3db9-cb5fe2e85d64 |
| 251 | +# ╠═57cd6d88-ea7e-4f5c-bc17-7fc65fb78e95 |
| 252 | +# ╠═b7763163-fc68-4c56-bac9-c37de527858f |
| 253 | +# ╠═8a08b045-3a1b-4601-a081-27a6a22d05e6 |
| 254 | +# ╠═907459d1-4a09-441c-a989-71ff687da873 |
| 255 | +# ╠═aec59d16-c254-43b6-aee2-6261823fb7c3 |
| 256 | +# ╠═a14a100c-5c92-42cc-899d-8c6eb0619368 |
| 257 | +# ╠═300c917e-e61c-4881-82d0-bc79ace66795 |
| 258 | +# ╠═28a43bca-618a-4fec-a7eb-ad7a734ceac5 |
| 259 | +# ╠═3b6300c0-d69f-4004-9b91-41116d0ce832 |
| 260 | +# ╠═ab782dbb-5f3c-404f-87b7-091b4382b0aa |
| 261 | +# ╠═0f722888-d66c-47ae-a1ee-1e2b7c9b4a58 |
| 262 | +# ╠═f4d85409-9095-4bc0-b515-ae283e43f344 |
| 263 | +# ╟─00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001 |
| 264 | +# ╟─00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000002 |
0 commit comments