Results 1 -
3 of
3
Interior-point methods for nonconvex nonlinear programming: Filter methods and merit functions
- Computational Optimization and Applications
, 2002
"... Abstract. In this paper, we present global and local convergence results for an interior-point method for nonlinear programming and analyze the computational performance of its implementation. The algorithm uses an ℓ1 penalty approach to relax all constraints, to provide regularization, and to bound ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 64 (5 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper, we present global and local convergence results for an interior-point method for nonlinear programming and analyze the computational performance of its implementation. The algorithm uses an ℓ1 penalty approach to relax all constraints, to provide regularization, and to bound the Lagrange multipliers. The penalty problems are solved using a simplified version of Chen and Goldfarb’s strictly feasible interior-point method [12]. The global convergence of the algorithm is proved under mild assumptions, and local analysis shows that it converges Q-quadratically for a large class of problems. The proposed approach is the first to simultaneously have all of the following properties while solving a general nonconvex nonlinear programming problem: (1) the convergence analysis does not assume boundedness of dual iterates, (2) local convergence does not require the Linear Independence Constraint Qualification, (3) the solution of the penalty problem is shown to locally converge to optima that may not satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, and (4) the algorithm is applicable to mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints. Numerical testing on a set of general nonlinear programming problems, including degenerate problems and infeasible problems, confirm the theoretical results. We also provide comparisons to a highly-efficient nonlinear solver and thoroughly analyze the effects of enforcing theoretical convergence guarantees on the computational performance of the algorithm. 1.
An active-set algorithm for nonlinear programming using linear programming and equality constrained subproblems
, 2002
"... This paper describes an active-set algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming based on the successive linear programming method proposed by Fletcher and Sainz de la Maza [9]. The step computation is performed in two stages. In the rst stage a linear program is solved to estimate the active set ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper describes an active-set algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming based on the successive linear programming method proposed by Fletcher and Sainz de la Maza [9]. The step computation is performed in two stages. In the rst stage a linear program is solved to estimate the active set at the solution. The linear program is obtained by making a linear approximation to the `1 penalty function inside a trust region. In the second stage, an equality constrained quadratic program (EQP) is solved involving only those constraints that are active atthesolution of the linear program. The EQP incorporates a trust-region constraint and is solved (inexactly) by means of a projected conjugate gradient method. Numerical experiments are presented illustrating the performance of the algorithm on the CUTEr [1] test set.
GAMS/LGO Nonlinear Solver Suite:
- GAMS Development Corp
, 2003
"... The LGO solver system integrates a suite of efficient global and local scope optimization strategies. LGO can handle complex nonlinear models under `minimal' (continuity) assumptions. The LGO implementation linked to the GAMS modeling environment has several new features, and improved overall functi ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
The LGO solver system integrates a suite of efficient global and local scope optimization strategies. LGO can handle complex nonlinear models under `minimal' (continuity) assumptions. The LGO implementation linked to the GAMS modeling environment has several new features, and improved overall functionality. In this article we review the solver options and the usage of GAMS/LGO. We also present reproducible numerical test results, to illustrate the performance of the different LGO solver algorithms on a widely used global optimization test model set available in GAMS.

