Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose I have a function $f(x) : \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ that is the sum of a given strictly convex function $g : \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ in a single variable, i.e. $f(x) = g(x_1) + g(x_2) + \dots + g(x_n)$, where all the functions $g$ are identical.

Since $f$ is in turn strictly convex, its unique minimum can be found using any standard method for convex programming. However, because $f$ is separable, the minimum can also be found by determining the minimum of $g$ for each variable, repeatedly applying any method for single-variable root finding (e.g. bisection).

Now, I believe it is true that if I want to find the minimum of $f$ constrained to an axis-aligned "hyperrectangle" (or in other words, with given upper and lower bounds $u$ and $l$ on $x$), I can simply find the unconstrained minimum as above, and then project the minimum, component-wise, onto the rectangle (i.e., onto the intervals $[l_i, u_i]$).

My question is: what happens in the case of more general linear constraints (polytopes)? I believe that for general convex functions $f$, not much can be said. In particular, simply projecting the unconstrained minimum onto the polytope doesn't work in general (see a conjecture on norms and convex functions over polytopes).

However, when $f$ has the special form above, one natural guess would be that $l_1$ projection of the unconstrained minimum onto the polytope would provide the optimal constrained minimum. Is this actually true?

share|cite|improve this question

Unfortunately, your conjecture that the $L_1$ projection of the unconstrained minimum of a function $f$ onto a polytope is the minimum of $f$ on the polytope isn't true, even for the restricted class of functions $f$ that you consider. Here is a counterexample.

Let $f(x,y) = x^2+y^2$. So $f(x,y) = g(x) + g(y)$, where $g(x) = x^2$. The function $g$ is strictly convex. The minimizer of $f$ is $(0,0)$.

Let the polytope $P$ be defined by the inequalities $y \leq 1/2x - 1, y \geq -2, 0 \leq x \leq 2$. In the image below, the shaded region denotes the polytope $P$.

Since we're in the fourth quadrant, the $L_1$ distance from $(0,0)$ to $(x,y)$ is $x - y$, and so the point in $P$ that minimizes the $L_1$ distance from $(0,0)$ is the point in $P$ for which the line $y = x - c$ intersects $P$ and has the smallest value of $c$. To find this, we can imagine slowly increasing the value of $c$ from $0$ until $y=x-c$ intersects $P$. That intersection occurs when $c = 1$: As we can see from the graph below, the point in $P$ that minimizes the $L_1$ distance is $(0,-1)$.

On the other hand, the point in $P$ with the smallest value of $f$ is the one that minimizes $x^2+y^2$. So we can imagine slowly increasing the value of $c$ from $0$ in the equation $x^2+y^2=c$ until $x^2+y^2=c$ intersects $P$. That's harder to eyeball from the graph, but the point of intersection occurs when $c = 20/25$, and the point in $P$ that minimizes $f(x,y) = x^2+y^2$ is $(2/5,-4/5)$.

Thus the $l_1$ projection of $(0,0)$ onto $P$ doesn't give the optimal value of $f$ on $P$, which was your conjecture.

The graph below should help with the visualization. The points where the line ($L_1$ minimal value) and the circle ($f$ minimal value) intersect $P$ are not the same.

enter image description here

(From one point of view, perhaps this is to be expected: This counterexample uses the $L_1$ and $L_2$ distances. Since these are different measures, they probably shouldn't be expected to coincide on every polytope.)

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.