Projection on affine subset without inversion

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have implemented the Chambolle-Pock Algorithm i. e. for a problem of the form



$$min_x , |Kx| + delta_H (x),$$



where $H = x: Ax = b$. In the iteration scheme, it is required to compute the proximal mapping of $delta_H$, which is just the projection onto the affine subset $H.$ This requires the computation of the pseudoinverse of $A$, so it is needed to compute $(AA^T)^-1$. This however poses an issue, since that computation is exponentially more time expensive than every other step in my algorithm. I thought about maybe calculating $operatornameProx_delta_H$ by means of the Moreau decomposition, but that just replaces the projection onto $H$ with the projection on its complement, which doesn't help at all.
My question is now, is there a way to avoid this issue? Either by computing the projection in a more efficient manner or maybe one can avoid it completely?



Thanks in advance!







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I have implemented the Chambolle-Pock Algorithm i. e. for a problem of the form



    $$min_x , |Kx| + delta_H (x),$$



    where $H = x: Ax = b$. In the iteration scheme, it is required to compute the proximal mapping of $delta_H$, which is just the projection onto the affine subset $H.$ This requires the computation of the pseudoinverse of $A$, so it is needed to compute $(AA^T)^-1$. This however poses an issue, since that computation is exponentially more time expensive than every other step in my algorithm. I thought about maybe calculating $operatornameProx_delta_H$ by means of the Moreau decomposition, but that just replaces the projection onto $H$ with the projection on its complement, which doesn't help at all.
    My question is now, is there a way to avoid this issue? Either by computing the projection in a more efficient manner or maybe one can avoid it completely?



    Thanks in advance!







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I have implemented the Chambolle-Pock Algorithm i. e. for a problem of the form



      $$min_x , |Kx| + delta_H (x),$$



      where $H = x: Ax = b$. In the iteration scheme, it is required to compute the proximal mapping of $delta_H$, which is just the projection onto the affine subset $H.$ This requires the computation of the pseudoinverse of $A$, so it is needed to compute $(AA^T)^-1$. This however poses an issue, since that computation is exponentially more time expensive than every other step in my algorithm. I thought about maybe calculating $operatornameProx_delta_H$ by means of the Moreau decomposition, but that just replaces the projection onto $H$ with the projection on its complement, which doesn't help at all.
      My question is now, is there a way to avoid this issue? Either by computing the projection in a more efficient manner or maybe one can avoid it completely?



      Thanks in advance!







      share|cite|improve this question














      I have implemented the Chambolle-Pock Algorithm i. e. for a problem of the form



      $$min_x , |Kx| + delta_H (x),$$



      where $H = x: Ax = b$. In the iteration scheme, it is required to compute the proximal mapping of $delta_H$, which is just the projection onto the affine subset $H.$ This requires the computation of the pseudoinverse of $A$, so it is needed to compute $(AA^T)^-1$. This however poses an issue, since that computation is exponentially more time expensive than every other step in my algorithm. I thought about maybe calculating $operatornameProx_delta_H$ by means of the Moreau decomposition, but that just replaces the projection onto $H$ with the projection on its complement, which doesn't help at all.
      My question is now, is there a way to avoid this issue? Either by computing the projection in a more efficient manner or maybe one can avoid it completely?



      Thanks in advance!









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 26 at 1:28









      Michael Hardy

      205k23187463




      205k23187463










      asked Aug 25 at 9:17









      InspectorPing

      998




      998




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          You are right, you do not need to project explicitly onto $H$.



          We can rewrite your problem as
          $$min_x f(Kx) + g(Ax),$$
          where $f(u)= |u|$ and $g(v) = delta_b(v)$. Let's now use the Fenchel-Legendre transformation to obtain a saddle point problem:
          $$min_x max_y_1, y_2 langle Kx, y_1rangle - f^*(y_1) + langle Ax, y_2rangle - g^*(y_2). $$
          For simplicity we introduce a new notation $y = (y_1^T, y_2^T)^T$, $B = [K^T, A^T]^T$, and $h(y) = f^*(y_1)+g^*(y_2)$. Then the above problem can be cast as
          $$min_x max_y langle Bx,yrangle - h(y).$$
          Notice that $textProx_h y = (textProx_f^*y_1, textProx_g^*y_2)$ and you can use a fore-mentioned Moreau decomposition to obtain explicit formula. Now I hope implementation of the Chambolle-Pock algorithm should be straight-forward.



          It will need four matrix-vector multiplications per iteration: two with $K$ and two with $A$. The algorithm takes form:
          beginalign*x^n+1 & = x^n - tau B^T y^n\
          y^n+1 & = textProx_sigma h (y^n+sigma B(2x^n+1-x^n)),
          endalign*
          where the latter equation can be written more explicitly as
          beginalign*
          y^n+1_1 & = textProx_sigma f^*( y^n_1 +sigma K(2x^n+1-x^n)) \
          y^n+1_2 & = y^n_2+sigma A(2x^n+1-x^n) -sigma b.
          endalign*
          We used here that $textProx_sigma g^*v =v-sigma b$.
          Hence, the only thing you have to do now is to use a Moreau decomposition for computing $textProx_tau f^*$. Of course, in order to ensure convergence you have to choose steps $tau$ and $sigma$ in a proper way: $tau sigma |B|^2 <1$. Alternatively, you can use an extension of Chambolle-Pock algorithm which does not require to compute $|B|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:25






          • 1




            No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 10:30











          • Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:47






          • 1




            @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 16:39






          • 1




            From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 27 at 17:30










          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          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%2f2893926%2fprojection-on-affine-subset-without-inversion%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          You are right, you do not need to project explicitly onto $H$.



          We can rewrite your problem as
          $$min_x f(Kx) + g(Ax),$$
          where $f(u)= |u|$ and $g(v) = delta_b(v)$. Let's now use the Fenchel-Legendre transformation to obtain a saddle point problem:
          $$min_x max_y_1, y_2 langle Kx, y_1rangle - f^*(y_1) + langle Ax, y_2rangle - g^*(y_2). $$
          For simplicity we introduce a new notation $y = (y_1^T, y_2^T)^T$, $B = [K^T, A^T]^T$, and $h(y) = f^*(y_1)+g^*(y_2)$. Then the above problem can be cast as
          $$min_x max_y langle Bx,yrangle - h(y).$$
          Notice that $textProx_h y = (textProx_f^*y_1, textProx_g^*y_2)$ and you can use a fore-mentioned Moreau decomposition to obtain explicit formula. Now I hope implementation of the Chambolle-Pock algorithm should be straight-forward.



          It will need four matrix-vector multiplications per iteration: two with $K$ and two with $A$. The algorithm takes form:
          beginalign*x^n+1 & = x^n - tau B^T y^n\
          y^n+1 & = textProx_sigma h (y^n+sigma B(2x^n+1-x^n)),
          endalign*
          where the latter equation can be written more explicitly as
          beginalign*
          y^n+1_1 & = textProx_sigma f^*( y^n_1 +sigma K(2x^n+1-x^n)) \
          y^n+1_2 & = y^n_2+sigma A(2x^n+1-x^n) -sigma b.
          endalign*
          We used here that $textProx_sigma g^*v =v-sigma b$.
          Hence, the only thing you have to do now is to use a Moreau decomposition for computing $textProx_tau f^*$. Of course, in order to ensure convergence you have to choose steps $tau$ and $sigma$ in a proper way: $tau sigma |B|^2 <1$. Alternatively, you can use an extension of Chambolle-Pock algorithm which does not require to compute $|B|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:25






          • 1




            No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 10:30











          • Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:47






          • 1




            @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 16:39






          • 1




            From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 27 at 17:30














          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          You are right, you do not need to project explicitly onto $H$.



          We can rewrite your problem as
          $$min_x f(Kx) + g(Ax),$$
          where $f(u)= |u|$ and $g(v) = delta_b(v)$. Let's now use the Fenchel-Legendre transformation to obtain a saddle point problem:
          $$min_x max_y_1, y_2 langle Kx, y_1rangle - f^*(y_1) + langle Ax, y_2rangle - g^*(y_2). $$
          For simplicity we introduce a new notation $y = (y_1^T, y_2^T)^T$, $B = [K^T, A^T]^T$, and $h(y) = f^*(y_1)+g^*(y_2)$. Then the above problem can be cast as
          $$min_x max_y langle Bx,yrangle - h(y).$$
          Notice that $textProx_h y = (textProx_f^*y_1, textProx_g^*y_2)$ and you can use a fore-mentioned Moreau decomposition to obtain explicit formula. Now I hope implementation of the Chambolle-Pock algorithm should be straight-forward.



          It will need four matrix-vector multiplications per iteration: two with $K$ and two with $A$. The algorithm takes form:
          beginalign*x^n+1 & = x^n - tau B^T y^n\
          y^n+1 & = textProx_sigma h (y^n+sigma B(2x^n+1-x^n)),
          endalign*
          where the latter equation can be written more explicitly as
          beginalign*
          y^n+1_1 & = textProx_sigma f^*( y^n_1 +sigma K(2x^n+1-x^n)) \
          y^n+1_2 & = y^n_2+sigma A(2x^n+1-x^n) -sigma b.
          endalign*
          We used here that $textProx_sigma g^*v =v-sigma b$.
          Hence, the only thing you have to do now is to use a Moreau decomposition for computing $textProx_tau f^*$. Of course, in order to ensure convergence you have to choose steps $tau$ and $sigma$ in a proper way: $tau sigma |B|^2 <1$. Alternatively, you can use an extension of Chambolle-Pock algorithm which does not require to compute $|B|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:25






          • 1




            No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 10:30











          • Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:47






          • 1




            @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 16:39






          • 1




            From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 27 at 17:30












          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          You are right, you do not need to project explicitly onto $H$.



          We can rewrite your problem as
          $$min_x f(Kx) + g(Ax),$$
          where $f(u)= |u|$ and $g(v) = delta_b(v)$. Let's now use the Fenchel-Legendre transformation to obtain a saddle point problem:
          $$min_x max_y_1, y_2 langle Kx, y_1rangle - f^*(y_1) + langle Ax, y_2rangle - g^*(y_2). $$
          For simplicity we introduce a new notation $y = (y_1^T, y_2^T)^T$, $B = [K^T, A^T]^T$, and $h(y) = f^*(y_1)+g^*(y_2)$. Then the above problem can be cast as
          $$min_x max_y langle Bx,yrangle - h(y).$$
          Notice that $textProx_h y = (textProx_f^*y_1, textProx_g^*y_2)$ and you can use a fore-mentioned Moreau decomposition to obtain explicit formula. Now I hope implementation of the Chambolle-Pock algorithm should be straight-forward.



          It will need four matrix-vector multiplications per iteration: two with $K$ and two with $A$. The algorithm takes form:
          beginalign*x^n+1 & = x^n - tau B^T y^n\
          y^n+1 & = textProx_sigma h (y^n+sigma B(2x^n+1-x^n)),
          endalign*
          where the latter equation can be written more explicitly as
          beginalign*
          y^n+1_1 & = textProx_sigma f^*( y^n_1 +sigma K(2x^n+1-x^n)) \
          y^n+1_2 & = y^n_2+sigma A(2x^n+1-x^n) -sigma b.
          endalign*
          We used here that $textProx_sigma g^*v =v-sigma b$.
          Hence, the only thing you have to do now is to use a Moreau decomposition for computing $textProx_tau f^*$. Of course, in order to ensure convergence you have to choose steps $tau$ and $sigma$ in a proper way: $tau sigma |B|^2 <1$. Alternatively, you can use an extension of Chambolle-Pock algorithm which does not require to compute $|B|$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          You are right, you do not need to project explicitly onto $H$.



          We can rewrite your problem as
          $$min_x f(Kx) + g(Ax),$$
          where $f(u)= |u|$ and $g(v) = delta_b(v)$. Let's now use the Fenchel-Legendre transformation to obtain a saddle point problem:
          $$min_x max_y_1, y_2 langle Kx, y_1rangle - f^*(y_1) + langle Ax, y_2rangle - g^*(y_2). $$
          For simplicity we introduce a new notation $y = (y_1^T, y_2^T)^T$, $B = [K^T, A^T]^T$, and $h(y) = f^*(y_1)+g^*(y_2)$. Then the above problem can be cast as
          $$min_x max_y langle Bx,yrangle - h(y).$$
          Notice that $textProx_h y = (textProx_f^*y_1, textProx_g^*y_2)$ and you can use a fore-mentioned Moreau decomposition to obtain explicit formula. Now I hope implementation of the Chambolle-Pock algorithm should be straight-forward.



          It will need four matrix-vector multiplications per iteration: two with $K$ and two with $A$. The algorithm takes form:
          beginalign*x^n+1 & = x^n - tau B^T y^n\
          y^n+1 & = textProx_sigma h (y^n+sigma B(2x^n+1-x^n)),
          endalign*
          where the latter equation can be written more explicitly as
          beginalign*
          y^n+1_1 & = textProx_sigma f^*( y^n_1 +sigma K(2x^n+1-x^n)) \
          y^n+1_2 & = y^n_2+sigma A(2x^n+1-x^n) -sigma b.
          endalign*
          We used here that $textProx_sigma g^*v =v-sigma b$.
          Hence, the only thing you have to do now is to use a Moreau decomposition for computing $textProx_tau f^*$. Of course, in order to ensure convergence you have to choose steps $tau$ and $sigma$ in a proper way: $tau sigma |B|^2 <1$. Alternatively, you can use an extension of Chambolle-Pock algorithm which does not require to compute $|B|$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 27 at 17:15

























          answered Aug 26 at 0:17









          cheyp

          766




          766











          • Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:25






          • 1




            No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 10:30











          • Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:47






          • 1




            @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 16:39






          • 1




            From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 27 at 17:30
















          • Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:25






          • 1




            No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 10:30











          • Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
            – InspectorPing
            Aug 26 at 10:47






          • 1




            @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
            – cheyp
            Aug 26 at 16:39






          • 1




            From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
            – cheyp
            Aug 27 at 17:30















          Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
          – InspectorPing
          Aug 26 at 10:25




          Thank you! However, am I not running into the same problem as before when computing the proximal mapping of h, since again I need to compute the one of g?
          – InspectorPing
          Aug 26 at 10:25




          1




          1




          No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
          – cheyp
          Aug 26 at 10:30





          No, before you had $delta_H$, and now you have $g = delta_b$ which is much easier for prox-evaluation. Specifically, $textProx_g^* u = u- b$.
          – cheyp
          Aug 26 at 10:30













          Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
          – InspectorPing
          Aug 26 at 10:47




          Ah, I did not read that correctly, you are right! If I now want to apply the Chambolle-Pock algorithm to the Problem in this form, how would that look? Is the other proximal mapping the proximal mapping of the zero-function? I am sorry, I am not very well versed in this field and have only ever read the iterations off the first form of the problem you stated.
          – InspectorPing
          Aug 26 at 10:47




          1




          1




          @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
          – cheyp
          Aug 26 at 16:39




          @InspectorPing, I add some details. Hope, now it is clear.
          – cheyp
          Aug 26 at 16:39




          1




          1




          From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
          – cheyp
          Aug 27 at 17:30




          From optimality conditions for the saddle point problem, you can derive that $(x,y)$ is a solution iff $B^Ty = K^Ty_1+ A^Ty_2 = 0$, $Ax = b$, and $Kxin partial f^*(y_1)$. For the first two equations you can just control residuals like $|B^Ty^n|<epsilon $, etc. For the third, you need to know the $partial f^*$ or, equivalently, $partial |cdot|$. This depends on your norm. Instead, you can exploit the fact that $(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(2x^n+1-x^n)in partial f^*(y_1^n+1)$ and just check whether $|(y_1^n-y_1^n+1)/ sigma + K(x^n+1-x^n)| < epsilon$.
          – cheyp
          Aug 27 at 17:30

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2893926%2fprojection-on-affine-subset-without-inversion%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Carbon dioxide

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?