Intuitive explanation for self-concordance in convex optimization
0
Can someone give some intuition on what self-concordance means in optimization? The best I understand it is that it provides some type of bound on the growth of barrier functions. Specifically, what's an intuitive interpretation for the definition:
$|F'''(x)| le 2|F''(x)|^{3/2}$
optimization convex-optimization
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
0
Can someone give some intuition on what self-concordance means in optimization? The best I understand it is that it provides some type of bound on the growth of barrier functions. Specifically, what's an intuitive interpretation for the definition:
$|F'''(x)| le 2|F''(x)|^{3/2}$
optimization convex-optimization
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
That's basically what it is, yes. It's a particular bound on the growth of barrier function that happens to allow for proofs of convergence of Newton's method. And it happens to be valid for a variety of genuinely useful barrier functions, too. I'm not inside Nesterov or Nemirovskii's head, so I can't tell you how they came up with it. But if I had to guess, they were trying to prove convergence, and they found that their proof would work if only they could bound the Hessian in this particular way...
– Michael Grant
Jan 5 at 1:51
add a comment |
0
0
0
Can someone give some intuition on what self-concordance means in optimization? The best I understand it is that it provides some type of bound on the growth of barrier functions. Specifically, what's an intuitive interpretation for the definition:
$|F'''(x)| le 2|F''(x)|^{3/2}$
optimization convex-optimization
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can someone give some intuition on what self-concordance means in optimization? The best I understand it is that it provides some type of bound on the growth of barrier functions. Specifically, what's an intuitive interpretation for the definition:
$|F'''(x)| le 2|F''(x)|^{3/2}$
optimization convex-optimization
optimization convex-optimization
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
asked Jan 4 at 21:12
BackstromBackstrom
1
1
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Backstrom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
That's basically what it is, yes. It's a particular bound on the growth of barrier function that happens to allow for proofs of convergence of Newton's method. And it happens to be valid for a variety of genuinely useful barrier functions, too. I'm not inside Nesterov or Nemirovskii's head, so I can't tell you how they came up with it. But if I had to guess, they were trying to prove convergence, and they found that their proof would work if only they could bound the Hessian in this particular way...
– Michael Grant
Jan 5 at 1:51
add a comment |
1
That's basically what it is, yes. It's a particular bound on the growth of barrier function that happens to allow for proofs of convergence of Newton's method. And it happens to be valid for a variety of genuinely useful barrier functions, too. I'm not inside Nesterov or Nemirovskii's head, so I can't tell you how they came up with it. But if I had to guess, they were trying to prove convergence, and they found that their proof would work if only they could bound the Hessian in this particular way...
– Michael Grant
Jan 5 at 1:51
1
1
That's basically what it is, yes. It's a particular bound on the growth of barrier function that happens to allow for proofs of convergence of Newton's method. And it happens to be valid for a variety of genuinely useful barrier functions, too. I'm not inside Nesterov or Nemirovskii's head, so I can't tell you how they came up with it. But if I had to guess, they were trying to prove convergence, and they found that their proof would work if only they could bound the Hessian in this particular way...
– Michael Grant
Jan 5 at 1:51
That's basically what it is, yes. It's a particular bound on the growth of barrier function that happens to allow for proofs of convergence of Newton's method. And it happens to be valid for a variety of genuinely useful barrier functions, too. I'm not inside Nesterov or Nemirovskii's head, so I can't tell you how they came up with it. But if I had to guess, they were trying to prove convergence, and they found that their proof would work if only they could bound the Hessian in this particular way...
– Michael Grant
Jan 5 at 1:51
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Backstrom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062116%2fintuitive-explanation-for-self-concordance-in-convex-optimization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Backstrom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Backstrom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Backstrom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Backstrom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062116%2fintuitive-explanation-for-self-concordance-in-convex-optimization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
That's basically what it is, yes. It's a particular bound on the growth of barrier function that happens to allow for proofs of convergence of Newton's method. And it happens to be valid for a variety of genuinely useful barrier functions, too. I'm not inside Nesterov or Nemirovskii's head, so I can't tell you how they came up with it. But if I had to guess, they were trying to prove convergence, and they found that their proof would work if only they could bound the Hessian in this particular way...
– Michael Grant
Jan 5 at 1:51