Particle Swarm Optimization vs. Newton's Method

AI Thread Summary
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) can be effective for certain optimization problems, especially when traditional gradient methods like Newton's method struggle with non-differentiable or noisy functions. Each optimization technique has its strengths, and the choice depends on the specific problem structure; for convex problems, convex optimization methods are preferable. If the problem allows for easy derivative computation, gradient methods should be utilized, while Newton's methods are advantageous for problems with second derivatives. PSO and similar black-box methods do not leverage problem structure, making them versatile but typically slower in convergence. Ultimately, selecting the right optimization approach hinges on understanding the problem's characteristics and constraints.
newphysist
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I have been reading Stephen Boyd's book Convex Optimization and I have learned to form various problems like LP, QP, QCQP, SOCP or SDPs. I also learned about formulating SVM for classification problem as optimization problem.

Now I am reading about Gradient Methods, Newton's method, etc. which would be used to solve the above mentioned problems.

However, I just came across Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). So, it makes me wonder whether PSO is as good and effective in solving the above problem types? Does it perform as well as Newton's method? Does anyone have some experience with this?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It depends on the specifics, Particle Swarm Optimization can be useful when Gradient Methods fail. For example when the function is not differentiable or not well behaved, noisy and so on. Each method will be good at solving certain instances and not as good at others.
 
Q: so if you have an array of methods, each well suited to certain conditions and you come onto a situation that is not an a priori fit for your existing methods what do you do?

Iterate through methods? I hope not. Develop extended heuristics? I would really like to know.

Thanks.
 
Different optimization problems have different levels of structure. As a broad principle, you want to use a method that takes advantage of as much structure from your problem as possible.

For convex problems, it's good to use convex optimization techniques.

If the unknowns are separated into groups, where the unknowns are very tightly coupled within each group but loosely coupled between groups, then you probably want to use some sort of decomposition method to split the problem up into smaller pieces.

If your problem has an easily computed derivative, use a gradient-type method that takes advantage of it.

If your problem has 2 derivatives, Newton-type methods will do well since they use Hessian information.

etc.. etc..

Things like particle swarm methods, evolutionary algorithms, simulated annealing, etc, are basically black-box. All they use is function evaluation, and they make no assumptions about the special structure of the problem you're solving. As a result, they will work on a wider class of problems where other methods fail, but probably will converge much slower.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top