What is the advantage of adding $log$ Barrier to solve a Linear program?












6












$begingroup$


Let $A in mathbb{R}^{n times m}$, $b in mathbb{R}^{n}$, and $x in mathbb{R}^{m}$. Let $Ax leq b$ be the set of linear inequalities which can be written as $a_i^Tx-b_i leq 0 ,,,,forall i= 1, ldots , m$. Consider the following linear program



$$
min_{Ax leq b} c^Tx tag{1}
$$
where $c in mathbb{R}^{m}$ is an arbitrary vector. If this problem has a solution, then according to representation theorem (or Weyl-Minkowski) the solution happens at vertices of the constraint set.
Convex optimization on page 499 says $f(x)=-sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx)$ is a self-concordant $log$ barrier function for linear inequalities. So, the above constraint problem can be an unconstraint problem as
$$
min_{x in mathbb{R}^{m}} c^Tx -sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx) tag{2}
$$



Let the solutions of (1) and (2) be $x_1^ast$ and $x_2^ast$ respectively.



1- Are the solutions the same ($x_1^ast=x_2^ast$)? (I mean, Barrier bans the algorithm to approach to the boundary of the constraint set because it goes to infinity. However, the solution is on the boundary. How can (2) catch the solution?)

2- In terms of iterations and algorithm complexity which one is superior? I know for (2) we can use Newton's method to find the answer but how using Newton's method accelerate the algorithm?



3- Can we analytically show that the two problems are the same or one has superiority to the other?



Please address my questions carefully by providing rigorous proofs.






optimization convex-analysis convex-optimization linear-programming







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, thanks, yes!
    $endgroup$
    – jjjjjj
    Jan 17 at 0:02
















6












$begingroup$


Let $A in mathbb{R}^{n times m}$, $b in mathbb{R}^{n}$, and $x in mathbb{R}^{m}$. Let $Ax leq b$ be the set of linear inequalities which can be written as $a_i^Tx-b_i leq 0 ,,,,forall i= 1, ldots , m$. Consider the following linear program



$$
min_{Ax leq b} c^Tx tag{1}
$$
where $c in mathbb{R}^{m}$ is an arbitrary vector. If this problem has a solution, then according to representation theorem (or Weyl-Minkowski) the solution happens at vertices of the constraint set.
Convex optimization on page 499 says $f(x)=-sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx)$ is a self-concordant $log$ barrier function for linear inequalities. So, the above constraint problem can be an unconstraint problem as
$$
min_{x in mathbb{R}^{m}} c^Tx -sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx) tag{2}
$$



Let the solutions of (1) and (2) be $x_1^ast$ and $x_2^ast$ respectively.



1- Are the solutions the same ($x_1^ast=x_2^ast$)? (I mean, Barrier bans the algorithm to approach to the boundary of the constraint set because it goes to infinity. However, the solution is on the boundary. How can (2) catch the solution?)

2- In terms of iterations and algorithm complexity which one is superior? I know for (2) we can use Newton's method to find the answer but how using Newton's method accelerate the algorithm?



3- Can we analytically show that the two problems are the same or one has superiority to the other?



Please address my questions carefully by providing rigorous proofs.






optimization convex-analysis convex-optimization linear-programming







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, thanks, yes!
    $endgroup$
    – jjjjjj
    Jan 17 at 0:02














6












6








6


2



$begingroup$


Let $A in mathbb{R}^{n times m}$, $b in mathbb{R}^{n}$, and $x in mathbb{R}^{m}$. Let $Ax leq b$ be the set of linear inequalities which can be written as $a_i^Tx-b_i leq 0 ,,,,forall i= 1, ldots , m$. Consider the following linear program



$$
min_{Ax leq b} c^Tx tag{1}
$$
where $c in mathbb{R}^{m}$ is an arbitrary vector. If this problem has a solution, then according to representation theorem (or Weyl-Minkowski) the solution happens at vertices of the constraint set.
Convex optimization on page 499 says $f(x)=-sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx)$ is a self-concordant $log$ barrier function for linear inequalities. So, the above constraint problem can be an unconstraint problem as
$$
min_{x in mathbb{R}^{m}} c^Tx -sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx) tag{2}
$$



Let the solutions of (1) and (2) be $x_1^ast$ and $x_2^ast$ respectively.



1- Are the solutions the same ($x_1^ast=x_2^ast$)? (I mean, Barrier bans the algorithm to approach to the boundary of the constraint set because it goes to infinity. However, the solution is on the boundary. How can (2) catch the solution?)

2- In terms of iterations and algorithm complexity which one is superior? I know for (2) we can use Newton's method to find the answer but how using Newton's method accelerate the algorithm?



3- Can we analytically show that the two problems are the same or one has superiority to the other?



Please address my questions carefully by providing rigorous proofs.






optimization convex-analysis convex-optimization linear-programming







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $A in mathbb{R}^{n times m}$, $b in mathbb{R}^{n}$, and $x in mathbb{R}^{m}$. Let $Ax leq b$ be the set of linear inequalities which can be written as $a_i^Tx-b_i leq 0 ,,,,forall i= 1, ldots , m$. Consider the following linear program



$$
min_{Ax leq b} c^Tx tag{1}
$$
where $c in mathbb{R}^{m}$ is an arbitrary vector. If this problem has a solution, then according to representation theorem (or Weyl-Minkowski) the solution happens at vertices of the constraint set.
Convex optimization on page 499 says $f(x)=-sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx)$ is a self-concordant $log$ barrier function for linear inequalities. So, the above constraint problem can be an unconstraint problem as
$$
min_{x in mathbb{R}^{m}} c^Tx -sum_{i=1}^m log (b_i -a_i^Tx) tag{2}
$$



Let the solutions of (1) and (2) be $x_1^ast$ and $x_2^ast$ respectively.



1- Are the solutions the same ($x_1^ast=x_2^ast$)? (I mean, Barrier bans the algorithm to approach to the boundary of the constraint set because it goes to infinity. However, the solution is on the boundary. How can (2) catch the solution?)

2- In terms of iterations and algorithm complexity which one is superior? I know for (2) we can use Newton's method to find the answer but how using Newton's method accelerate the algorithm?



3- Can we analytically show that the two problems are the same or one has superiority to the other?



Please address my questions carefully by providing rigorous proofs.






optimization convex-analysis convex-optimization linear-programming




optimization convex-analysis convex-optimization linear-programming






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 17 at 0:13









El borito

664216




664216










asked Jan 16 at 23:25









SaeedSaeed

1,149310




1,149310












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, thanks, yes!
    $endgroup$
    – jjjjjj
    Jan 17 at 0:02


















  • $begingroup$
    Ah, thanks, yes!
    $endgroup$
    – jjjjjj
    Jan 17 at 0:02
















$begingroup$
Ah, thanks, yes!
$endgroup$
– jjjjjj
Jan 17 at 0:02




$begingroup$
Ah, thanks, yes!
$endgroup$
– jjjjjj
Jan 17 at 0:02










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$


  1. No, the solutions are not the same. On p. 499, the book is merely presenting an example of a self-concordant function.


  2. When you ask about algorithm complexity for problem (1), which algorithm do you have in mind? At this point in the book's development, it is not clear how to solve problem (1) efficiently. The book will present a strategy that utilizes log-barrier functions in chapter 11.


  3. No, the problems are not equivalent.



You should read chapter 11 (Interior-point methods), and specifically section 11.2, which presents a strategy to minimize $f_0(x)$ subject to the constraints $f_i(x) leq 0, Ax = b$ by solving a sequence of subproblems of the form
begin{align}
text{minimize} & quad f_0(x) + sum_{i=1}^m - (1/t) log(-f_i(x)) \
text{subject to} &quad Ax = b
end{align}
with increasing values of $t$. Newton's method is used to solve each subproblem. As $t$ increases, the solution of the subproblem becomes a better approximation to the solution of the original problem. That is how log-barrier functions are used to solve problems with inequality constraints.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 0:21










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:29










  • $begingroup$
    When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 1:02












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076421%2fwhat-is-the-advantage-of-adding-log-barrier-to-solve-a-linear-program%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$


  1. No, the solutions are not the same. On p. 499, the book is merely presenting an example of a self-concordant function.


  2. When you ask about algorithm complexity for problem (1), which algorithm do you have in mind? At this point in the book's development, it is not clear how to solve problem (1) efficiently. The book will present a strategy that utilizes log-barrier functions in chapter 11.


  3. No, the problems are not equivalent.



You should read chapter 11 (Interior-point methods), and specifically section 11.2, which presents a strategy to minimize $f_0(x)$ subject to the constraints $f_i(x) leq 0, Ax = b$ by solving a sequence of subproblems of the form
begin{align}
text{minimize} & quad f_0(x) + sum_{i=1}^m - (1/t) log(-f_i(x)) \
text{subject to} &quad Ax = b
end{align}
with increasing values of $t$. Newton's method is used to solve each subproblem. As $t$ increases, the solution of the subproblem becomes a better approximation to the solution of the original problem. That is how log-barrier functions are used to solve problems with inequality constraints.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 0:21










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:29










  • $begingroup$
    When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 1:02
















6












$begingroup$


  1. No, the solutions are not the same. On p. 499, the book is merely presenting an example of a self-concordant function.


  2. When you ask about algorithm complexity for problem (1), which algorithm do you have in mind? At this point in the book's development, it is not clear how to solve problem (1) efficiently. The book will present a strategy that utilizes log-barrier functions in chapter 11.


  3. No, the problems are not equivalent.



You should read chapter 11 (Interior-point methods), and specifically section 11.2, which presents a strategy to minimize $f_0(x)$ subject to the constraints $f_i(x) leq 0, Ax = b$ by solving a sequence of subproblems of the form
begin{align}
text{minimize} & quad f_0(x) + sum_{i=1}^m - (1/t) log(-f_i(x)) \
text{subject to} &quad Ax = b
end{align}
with increasing values of $t$. Newton's method is used to solve each subproblem. As $t$ increases, the solution of the subproblem becomes a better approximation to the solution of the original problem. That is how log-barrier functions are used to solve problems with inequality constraints.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 0:21










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:29










  • $begingroup$
    When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 1:02














6












6








6





$begingroup$


  1. No, the solutions are not the same. On p. 499, the book is merely presenting an example of a self-concordant function.


  2. When you ask about algorithm complexity for problem (1), which algorithm do you have in mind? At this point in the book's development, it is not clear how to solve problem (1) efficiently. The book will present a strategy that utilizes log-barrier functions in chapter 11.


  3. No, the problems are not equivalent.



You should read chapter 11 (Interior-point methods), and specifically section 11.2, which presents a strategy to minimize $f_0(x)$ subject to the constraints $f_i(x) leq 0, Ax = b$ by solving a sequence of subproblems of the form
begin{align}
text{minimize} & quad f_0(x) + sum_{i=1}^m - (1/t) log(-f_i(x)) \
text{subject to} &quad Ax = b
end{align}
with increasing values of $t$. Newton's method is used to solve each subproblem. As $t$ increases, the solution of the subproblem becomes a better approximation to the solution of the original problem. That is how log-barrier functions are used to solve problems with inequality constraints.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




  1. No, the solutions are not the same. On p. 499, the book is merely presenting an example of a self-concordant function.


  2. When you ask about algorithm complexity for problem (1), which algorithm do you have in mind? At this point in the book's development, it is not clear how to solve problem (1) efficiently. The book will present a strategy that utilizes log-barrier functions in chapter 11.


  3. No, the problems are not equivalent.



You should read chapter 11 (Interior-point methods), and specifically section 11.2, which presents a strategy to minimize $f_0(x)$ subject to the constraints $f_i(x) leq 0, Ax = b$ by solving a sequence of subproblems of the form
begin{align}
text{minimize} & quad f_0(x) + sum_{i=1}^m - (1/t) log(-f_i(x)) \
text{subject to} &quad Ax = b
end{align}
with increasing values of $t$. Newton's method is used to solve each subproblem. As $t$ increases, the solution of the subproblem becomes a better approximation to the solution of the original problem. That is how log-barrier functions are used to solve problems with inequality constraints.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 17 at 0:09

























answered Jan 16 at 23:53









littleOlittleO

30.5k649111




30.5k649111












  • $begingroup$
    I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 0:21










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:29










  • $begingroup$
    When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 1:02


















  • $begingroup$
    I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 0:21










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:29










  • $begingroup$
    When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 17 at 0:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 1:02
















$begingroup$
I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 0:21




$begingroup$
I appreciate for your patience but I am little bit confused. Linear program is a convex problem so it can be solved using interior point method? Is it true? I have the following questions to understand my question better. Are these solutions close, i.e. $x_1^{ast}$ and $x_2^{ast}$? Can (2) be seen as the subproblem of (1) which gives an approximate solution? How many subproblem we need to define to solve (1) using interior point method? What is the optimal value of $t$ for getting a close solution to $x_1^{ast}$?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 0:21












$begingroup$
Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 17 at 0:26




$begingroup$
Yes, a linear program is a convex problem, and a linear program can be solved using an interior point method. In fact, interior point methods often give state of the art performance for solving LPs. Interior point methods were originally developed for linear programming problems, and only later were extended to more general convex problems.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 17 at 0:26




1




1




$begingroup$
No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 17 at 0:29




$begingroup$
No, the solution to problem (2) is not necessarily very close to the solution to problem 1. However, if you had written problem (2) as minimizing $c^T x - (1/t) sum_{I=1}^m log(b_i - a_i^T x)$, then we could say that if $t$ is large then the solution to problem (2) is close to the solution to problem (1).
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 17 at 0:29












$begingroup$
When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 17 at 0:31




$begingroup$
When the factor of $1/t$ is included, and $t$ is large, then the solution to (2) gives a good approximation to the solution of (1). Regarding how many subproblems you need to solve, and how large $t$ needs to be, I would say just read chapter 11 for more info about that.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 17 at 0:31












$begingroup$
Thank you so much.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 1:02




$begingroup$
Thank you so much.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 1:02


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076421%2fwhat-is-the-advantage-of-adding-log-barrier-to-solve-a-linear-program%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e...
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB] ...
Read more

張江高科駅

Image
張江高科駅 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区 所属事業者 上海地鉄運営有限公司（上海軌道交通・駅詳細） 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司（駅詳細） テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 各種表記 繁体字： 張江高科站 簡体字： 张江高科站 拼音 ： Zhàngjiāng Gāokē Zhàn 発音： ヂャンジャン ガオクー ヂャン 英文： Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Station テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 （ちょうこうこうか-えき）は中華人民共和国上海市浦東新区に位置する、上海軌道交通2号線の駅である。 なお、張江高科駅前にある張江軌道電車の 張江地鉄駅駅 についてもここで述べる。 目次 1 利用可能な鉄道路線 2 沿革 3 駅構造 3.1 上海軌道交通 3.2 張江軌道電車 4 駅周辺 5 隣の駅 6 注釈 7 関連項目 利用可能な鉄道路線 上海軌道交通 ■ 2号線 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司 ■ 張江軌道電車 沿革 高架駅時代の姿 2000年12月27日 - 2号線の駅が高架駅として開業。 2010年 1月1日 - 張江軌道電車の開業に伴い、張江地鉄駅駅（停留所）を設置。 2月13日 - 駅地下化に伴い高架駅の運用停止。 2月24日 - 10日間の閉鎖を経て地下新駅の開業。 2017年2月9日 - リニューアル工事を経て再開業。乗降客の増加に対応し、ホームへのエレベーター、エスカレーターを増設、券売機エリアを拡張した [1] 。 駅構造 上海軌道交通 上海軌道交通 張江高科駅 5号口 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park ◄ 竜陽路 (2.60km) (1.61km) 金科路 ► 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区松涛路 祖冲之路 （中国語版） 北緯31度12分11秒 東経121度34分50秒  /  北緯31.2...
Read more