Skip to main content
Log in

Some properties of the Hessian of the logarithmic barrier function

  • Published:
Mathematical Programming Submit manuscript

Abstract

More than twenty years ago, Murray and Lootsma showed that Hessian matrices of the logarithmic barrier function become increasingly ill-conditioned at points on the barrier trajectory as the solution is approached. This paper explores some further characteristics of the barrier Hessian. We first show that, except in two special cases, the barrier Hessian is ill-conditioned in an entire region near the solution. At points in a more restricted region (including the barrier trajectory itself), this ill-conditioning displays a special structure connected with subspaces defined by the Jacobian of the active constraints. We then indicate how a Cholesky factorization with diagonal pivoting can be used to detect numerical rank-deficiency in the barrier Hessian, and to provide information about the underlying subspaces without making an explicit prediction of the active constraints. Using this subspace information, a close approximation to the Newton direction can be calculated by solving linear systems whose condition reflects that of the original problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. T.F. Coleman and D.C. Sorensen, “A note on the computation of an orthonormal basis for the null space of a matrix,”Mathematical Programming 29 (1984) 234–242.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J.E. Dennis, Jr. and R.B. Schnabel,Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A.V. Fiacco, “Barrier methods for nonlinear programming,” in:Operations Research Support Methodology (A.G. Holzman, ed.), (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1979) 377–440.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A.V. Fiacco and G.P. McCormick,Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1968), (Republished by SIAM, Philadelphia, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Fletcher,Practical Methods of Optimization (second edition), (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Fletcher and A.P. McCann, “Acceleration techniques for nonlinear programming,” in:Optimization (R. Fletcher, ed.), (Academic Press, New York, 1969) 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P.E. Gill, W. Murray and M.H. Wright,Practical Optimization (Academic Press, London and New York, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  8. P.E. Gill, W. Murray and M.H. Wright,Numerical Linear Algebra and Optimization, Volume 1 (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, California, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  9. G.H. Golub and C.F. Van Loan,Matrix Computations (second edition), (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  10. C.C. Gonzaga, “Path following methods for linear programming,”SIAM Review 34 (1992) 167–224.

    Google Scholar 

  11. N.J. Higham, “Analysis of the Cholesky decomposition of a semi-definite matrix,” in:Reliable Numerical Computation (M.G. Cox and S. Hammarling, eds.), (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990) 161–185.

    Google Scholar 

  12. N.K. Karmarkar, “A new polynomial time algorithm for linear programming,”Combinatorica 4 (1984) 373–395.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F.A. Lootsma, Hessian matrices of penalty functions for solving constrained optimization problems,Philips Research Reports 24 (1969) 322–331.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W. Murray, “Analytical expressions for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hessian matrices of barrier and penalty functions,”Journal on Optimization Theory and Applications 7 (1971) 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. Murray and M.H. Wright, Projected Lagrangian methods based on the trajectories of penalty and barrier functions, Report SOL 78-23, Department of Operations Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S.G. Nash and A. Sofer, “A barrier method for large-scale constrained optimization,”ORSA Journal on Computing 5 (1993) 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  17. C.R. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz,Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  18. R.B. Schnabel and E. Eskow, “A new modified Cholesky factorization,”SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 11 (1990) 1136–1158.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G.W. Stewart and J. Sun,Matrix Perturbation Theory (Academic Press, Boston, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  20. J.H. Wilkinson,The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem (The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  21. M.H. Wright,Numerical Methods for Nonlinearly Constrained Optimization, Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University, California, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M.H. Wright, Interior methods for constrained optimization, in:Acta Numerica 1992 (A. Iserles, ed.), (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992) 341–407.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M.H. Wright, Why a pure primal Newton barrier step may be infeasible, Numerical Analysis Manuscript 93-02, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey; to appear inSIAM Journal on Optimization (1994).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wright, M.H. Some properties of the Hessian of the logarithmic barrier function. Mathematical Programming 67, 265–295 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01582224

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01582224

Keywords

Navigation