MHB Find the solution using the KKT conditions.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conditions
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on solving a constrained optimization problem using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions. The problem is to minimize the function $$f(x) = -x_1 - (x_2 - 9)^2$$ subject to the constraint $$4x_1^2 + x_2^2 \leq 400$$. The solution $(0,9)$ is confirmed as correct, satisfying all KKT conditions, while alternative points such as $(0,-9)$ and $(10,0)$ are evaluated but found to yield higher objective function values. The discussion concludes that the solution is unique and optimal under the given constraints.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of KKT conditions in optimization
  • Familiarity with constrained optimization problems
  • Knowledge of concave functions and their properties
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of KKT conditions in nonlinear programming
  • Explore examples of constrained optimization problems in MATLAB or Python
  • Learn about concavity and convexity in optimization contexts
  • Investigate alternative optimization methods such as Lagrange multipliers
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, engineering, and economics who are involved in optimization problems, particularly those utilizing KKT conditions for constrained optimization.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hi! :o

Given then following problem:
$$ \min [-x_1 - (x_2 -9)^2]$$
subject to $$4x_1^2+x_2^2 \leq 400$$
I have to find the solution using the KKT conditions.

I have found that the solution is $(0,9)$. Is my result correct?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hi! :o

Given then following problem:
$$ \min [-x_1 - (x_2 -9)^2]$$
subject to $$4x_1^2+x_2^2 \leq 400$$
I have to find the solution using the KKT conditions.

I have found that the solution is $(0,9)$. Is my result correct?

Hey! :o

I don't understand?? :confused:

How about for instance $(0,-9)$?
Doesn't it have a lower minimum while still satisfying the condition?
 
I like Serena said:
Hey! :o

I don't understand?? :confused:

How about for instance $(0,-9)$?
Doesn't it have a lower minimum while still satisfying the condition?

Having the nonlinear problem:
$ \max f(x)$
$ g_i (x) \leq 0$
$x \geq 0$

the KKT conditions are:
$$μ_i \geq 0$$
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(x^*)-\sum_{i=1}^{p}μ_i \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial x_j}(x^*) \leq 0$$
$$x_j^*(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(x^*)-\sum_{i=1}^{p}μ_i \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial x_j}(x^*))=0$$
$$g_i(x^*) \leq 0$$
$$μ_i g_i (x^*) =0$$
$$x_j^* \geq 0$$

So the solution cannot have negative values.
 
mathmari said:
Having the nonlinear problem:
$ \max f(x)$
$ g_i (x) \leq 0$
$x \geq 0$

the KKT conditions are:
$$μ_i \geq 0$$
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(x^*)-\sum_{i=1}^{p}μ_i \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial x_j}(x^*) \leq 0$$
$$x_j^*(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j}(x^*)-\sum_{i=1}^{p}μ_i \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial x_j}(x^*))=0$$
$$g_i(x^*) \leq 0$$
$$μ_i g_i (x^*) =0$$
$$x_j^* \geq 0$$

So the solution cannot have negative values.

Okay... how about (10, 0) then?
Better or worse?
 
I like Serena said:
Okay... how about (10, 0) then?
Better or worse?

(Thinking)
Since the objective function at the point (10,0) is -91, and with (0,9) it's 0, I assume that yours is better..

I did the following:
The KKT conditions for this proble are:
KKT1: $μ_1 \geq 0$
KKT2: $-1-μ_1 8x_1 \leq 0$
KKT3: $-2(x_2-9)-μ_1 2 x_2 \leq 0$
KKT4: $ x_1 (-1-μ_1 8x_1 )=0$
KKT5: $ x_2 (-2(x_2-9)-μ_1 2 x_2 )=0$
KKT6: $ 4x_1^2+x_2^2-400 \leq 0$
KKT7: $ μ_1 (4x_1^2+x_2^2-400 )=0$
KKT8: $ x_1 \geq 0$
KKT9: $ x_2 \geq 0$

Case1: $μ_1=0$
KKT4: $-x_1=0 \Rightarrow x_1=0$
KKT5: $-2x_2(x_2-9)=0 \Rightarrow x_2=0 \text{ or } x_2=9$
For $x_2=0$, at KKT3:$18 \leq 0$ that is not true, so $x_2 \neq 0$
Since, for $μ_1=0$, $x_1=0$ and $x_2=9$ all conditions are satisfied, $(0,9)$ is a solution. Then I showed that the function $f$ is concave, so this solution is unique.

Have I done something wrong? :confused:
 
mathmari said:
(Thinking)
Since the objective function at the point (10,0) is -91, and with (0,9) it's 0, I assume that yours is better..

I did the following:
The KKT conditions for this proble are:
KKT1: $μ_1 \geq 0$
KKT2: $-1-μ_1 8x_1 \leq 0$
KKT3: $-2(x_2-9)-μ_1 2 x_2 \leq 0$
KKT4: $ x_1 (-1-μ_1 8x_1 )=0$
KKT5: $ x_2 (-2(x_2-9)-μ_1 2 x_2 )=0$
KKT6: $ 4x_1^2+x_2^2-400 \leq 0$
KKT7: $ μ_1 (4x_1^2+x_2^2-400 )=0$
KKT8: $ x_1 \geq 0$
KKT9: $ x_2 \geq 0$

Case1: $μ_1=0$
KKT4: $-x_1=0 \Rightarrow x_1=0$
KKT5: $-2x_2(x_2-9)=0 \Rightarrow x_2=0 \text{ or } x_2=9$
For $x_2=0$, at KKT3:$18 \leq 0$ that is not true, so $x_2 \neq 0$
Since, for $μ_1=0$, $x_1=0$ and $x_2=9$ all conditions are satisfied, $(0,9)$ is a solution. Then I showed that the function $f$ is concave, so this solution is unique.

Have I done something wrong? :confused:
You have found the unique point $(x_1,x_2) = (0,9)$ that maximises the objective function. But you want to minimise it. So it looks as though you need to consider Case2: $μ_1\ne0$.
 
Opalg said:
You have found the unique point $(x_1,x_2) = (0,9)$ that maximises the objective function. But you want to minimise it. So it looks as though you need to consider Case2: $μ_1\ne0$.

Ok...Thank you..! :o
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K