Piecewise Linear Programming with Multiple Functions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on solving a piecewise linear programming problem involving multiple functions. The objective is to minimize the sum of functions defined by a matrix with known elements, except for one row that needs to be determined. Participants clarify the meaning of constraints, particularly the non-negativity condition on elements of the matrix. Suggestions include using maximization algorithms and leveraging the convex nature of the piecewise linear function to simplify the problem. The conversation highlights the potential for a single minimum solution, emphasizing the importance of understanding the constraints and dependencies within the matrix.
smehdi
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Dear Friends
I have a question about linear programming. It would be great to have your comments or suggestions.
Consider the followings
\begin{equation}
\\
Y = [y_{1}, y_{2}, \cdots, y_{n}]
\\
G = [g_{1}, g_{2}, \cdots, g_{n}]
\\
\textbf{X} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & x_{1,2} & \cdots & x_{1,n} \\
x_{2,1} & 0 & \cdots & x_{2,n} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
x_{n,1} & x_{n,2} & \cdots & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\\
\end{equation}
##\textbf{X}## is not symmetric. Here I show the ##i##th row of matrix ##\textbf{X}## by subscript ##(i,:)##, e.g., ##X_{(2,:)} = [x_{2,1}, 0, \cdots, x_{2,n}]## is the second row vector of matrix ##\textbf{X}## and subscript ##(:,i)## shows the ##i##th column vector.

The problem is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \min &Y = \sum_{j=1}^{n} y_{j}\\
& \text{subject to}
& X_{(i,:)} G^T \geq A \\
&& X_i \geq 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
in which ##i## is fixed, say ##i=2##, matrix ##G## is known, elements of ##\textbf{X}## are also known except the ##i##th row and ##X_{(i,:)}## should be found. Each of the elements in ##Y_i## is a function of the column vector in ##\textbf{X}## of the same index , i.e.,
$$
y_{j} = f(\textbf{X}(:,j))
$$
I googled and found that the function ##f## that I am working with is a piecewise linear function! Actually here the problem is not to find the minimum of a piecewise linear function, but to find the minimum of sum over multiple piecewise linear functions!
Since I am totally new in the filed of linear programming I don't know how such a problem should be solved!
Does anybody have any comments or know some references about how I could solve this?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does ##X_i \geq 0## mean? It does not fit to the other notation.

As all but one element of X(:,j) is known, it is possible to introduce functions gj which cover those dependencies. Define ##Z=X_{i,:}## and ##Z_j=X_{i,j}##

$$\text{Maximize}~ Y = \sum_{j=1}^{n} g_j(Z_j)$$
with the constraint
$$\sum_{j=1}^{n} Z_j G_j \geq A$$
and maybe some other constraint I don't understand.

Depending on how ugly f is, a usual maximization algorithm could work.
 
mfb said:
What does ##X_i \geq 0## mean? It does not fit to the other notation.

As all but one element of X(:,j) is known, it is possible to introduce functions gj which cover those dependencies. Define ##Z=X_{i,:}## and ##Z_j=X_{i,j}##

$$\text{Maximize}~ Y = \sum_{j=1}^{n} g_j(Z_j)$$
with the constraint
$$\sum_{j=1}^{n} Z_j G_j \geq A$$
and maybe some other constraint I don't understand.

Depending on how ugly f is, a usual maximization algorithm could work.

Thank you mfb for your hint.
I meant ##x_{i,j} \geq 0##.
##f## is a convex increasing piecewise linear function. I think it is not ugly that much :)
 
Oh great, then I would expect a single minimum without additional local minima. Every minimization algorithm should find that. If f is not decreasing, your constraint on the sum should always lead to equality, which means you can directly include it in the parameter space (for example, let one of the unknowns be fixed by all others via this condition).
 
  • Like
Likes smehdi
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K