Let $f(x) = (x_1-x_2^2)(x_1-\frac{1}{2}x_2^2)$. Verify that $\overline{x} = (0,0)^t$ is a local minimizer of $\phi(\lambda) = f(\overline{x}+\lambda d)$ for all $d\in\mathbb{R}^2$ but $\overline{x}$ is not a local minimizer of $f$

$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1} = 1\left(x_1-\frac{1}{2}x_2^2\right)+(x_1-x_2^2)$$

$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_2} = -2x_2\left(x_1-\frac{1}{2}x_2^2\right)-x_2^2(x_1-x_2^2)$$

$$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_1^2} = 2$$

$$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_2^2} = 6x^2$$

$$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_2\partial x_1} = -3x_2$$

$$\nabla^2 f = \begin{bmatrix} 2 & -3x_2 \\ -3x_2 & 6x_2^2 \end{bmatrix}$$

$$\nabla^2 f(0,0) = \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$$

$$\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a \\ b \end{bmatrix} = a^2$$

for $(0,0)$ to be a local minimizer we should have $\nabla f = 0$ (we have) and $\nabla^2\ge 0$. But $\nabla^2$ is not always semipositive definite so $(0,0)$ is not a local minimizer of $f$.

Now let's analyze $f((0,0)+\lambda d)$.

$$\nabla(\lambda d_1,\lambda d_2) = \begin{bmatrix} \lambda d_1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2d_2^2 + \lambda d_1 -\lambda^2d_2^2 \\ -2\lambda d_2(\lambda d_1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 d_2^2)-\lambda d_ 2^2(\lambda d_1-\lambda^2d_2^2) \end{bmatrix}\neq 0$$

and the hessian gives an even worse thing. So I think instead I should analyze

$$\phi(\lambda) = f(\lambda d_1,\lambda d_2) = (\lambda d_1-\lambda^2 d_2^2)(\lambda d_1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 d_2^2)$$

but what does it mean for $\overline{x}$ to be a local minimizer of something that depends on $\lambda$?


I think I have to minimize

$$\phi(\lambda) = f(\lambda d_1,\lambda d_2) = (\lambda d_1-\lambda^2 d_2^2)(\lambda d_1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2 d_2^2) = \\\lambda^2 d_1^2 -\frac{1}{2}\lambda^3d_1d_2^2-\lambda^3d_2^2 d_1 + \frac{1}{2}\lambda^4d_2^4\implies \\ \phi'(\lambda) = 2d_1^2\lambda -\frac{3}{2}\lambda^2d_1d_2^2 -3\lambda^2d_2^2d_1 + 2\lambda^3d_2^4 = 0\implies \\2d_2^4\lambda^2+\lambda\left(-\frac{9}{2}d_2^2d_1\right) + 2d_1^2 = 0\implies\\ \lambda = \frac{\frac{9}{2}d_2^2d_1\pm\sqrt{\ (\frac{9}{2}d_2^2d_1)^2 -4\cdot 2d_2^4\cdot2d_1^2}}{4d_2^4}, \lambda = 0$$

It's unpratical to test these values on the function to see which of them is smaller. And even with this I don't know how to proceed. Maybe I should test the second derivative too, I don't know what it means to prove $\overline{x} = (0,0)$ is a minimizer of $\phi(\lambda) = f(\overline{x}+\lambda d)$. The only possible thing I can image is $\lambda$ being $0$ giving us the minimum of $\phi(\lambda)$.

So since we know $\lambda=0$ gives us derivative $0$, let's see how the second derivative is at this point (if it's positive, then $\lambda=0$ is a minimizer):

$$\phi''(\lambda) = 6\lambda^2 d_2^4 -6\lambda d_2^2 d_1 -\frac{6}{2}\lambda d_1d_2^2 + 2d_1^2 \implies\\\phi''(0) = 2d_1^2$$

So for any direction with $d_1\neq 0$, we'll have $\lambda=0$ as minimizer. What about when the direction is $(0,d_2)$ for any $d_2$? In this case we have $$\phi(\lambda) = (0-(\lambda d_2)^2)(0-\frac{1}{2}(\lambda d_2)^2 ) = \frac{1}{2}\lambda^4d_2^4$$

for which $\lambda= 0$ is also a minimizer.

So in all cases $\lambda=0$ is a minimizer of $f((0,0) + \lambda (d_1,d_2))$ which means $(0,0)$ is a minimizer of $\phi(\lambda)$ I guess?

  • $\begingroup$ It seems that you are requested to prove that $\phi(\lambda)$ takes local minimum at $\lambda = 0$. $\endgroup$ – xbh Aug 27 '18 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ @xbh so I should substitute $(x_1+\lambda d_1, x_2+\lambda d_2)$ into $f$ and minimize the parabola over the variable $\lambda$? $\endgroup$ – Guerlando OCs Aug 27 '18 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ If the question above is typed right, then for fixed $(d_1,d_2)$, $\phi(\lambda)$ is just the last equation you have written in the OP. Then minimize that over $\lambda$ as you thought. $\endgroup$ – xbh Aug 27 '18 at 3:24
  • $\begingroup$ Your analysis based on the Hessian does not exclude the possibility of the origin being a minimum. It only matters what the Hessian is at the origin. The fact that it may be indefinite elsewhere is irrelevant. $\endgroup$ – Asdf Aug 27 '18 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Asdf you're right, so a hessian analysis isn't going to give me anything. I should analyze the neighborhood of (0,0)? $\endgroup$ – Guerlando OCs Aug 29 '18 at 19:28

This problem has a nice graphical solution.

Note that f(0)=0. If both of the factors $x_1-x_2^2$ and $x_1-\frac12x_2^2$ have the same sign then $f(x)>0$. If the signs differ then $f(x)<0$. Divide the $x_2x_1$-plane into three regions:

(i) if $x_1>x_2^2$ then $x_1>\frac12x_2^2$ and $f(x)>0$. This is the area in the plane above the quadratic $x_1=x_2^2$ (you let $x_1$ be the vertical axis and $x_2$ the horizontal).

(ii) if $x_1<\frac12 x_2^2$ then $x_1<x_2^2$ and $f(x)>0$. This is the area below $x_1=\tfrac12x_2^2$.

(iii) if $x_2^2>x_1>\frac12 x_2^2$ then $f(x)<0$. This is the area above the curve $x_1=\frac12x_2^2$ but below $x_1=x_2^2$.

The curve $x_1=\frac23x_2^2$ lies in (iii). On it, the objective value is strictly negative, $$(x_1-x_2^2)(x_1-\frac12x_2^2)=-\frac12x_2^2\frac16x_2^2.$$ Hence the origin with objective value 0 cannot be a minimum. Note however that you can only approach the origin from inside (iii) along a curved trajectory. If you consider a series of perturbations of the origin that all lie on a line, as in the case of $\phi(\lambda)$, then all points in some small ball around the origin will lie in region (i) or (ii). Graph the three regions and you will see this clearly.

  • $\begingroup$ what is an objective value? $\endgroup$ – Guerlando OCs Sep 2 '18 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ doesn't it suffice to show that $x_1 = \frac{2}{3}x_2^2$ is always negative so there's a path on which small changes makes $f$ smaller than $0$? Why did you do all this analysis on the sign of $f$? $\endgroup$ – Guerlando OCs Sep 2 '18 at 4:49
  • $\begingroup$ By objective value I refered to the value of the objective function $f$ at a point $(x_1,x_2)$. This is standard terminology in optimization $\endgroup$ – Asdf Sep 2 '18 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the last equation suffices. The analysis provides an intuitive understanding of the problem which in turn leads to the answer. You can substitute any relation of the form $x_1=cx_2^2$, where $c\in(\frac12,1)$, into the objective function $f$. Here, I picked $c=\frac23$. Please accept the answer if you like it. $\endgroup$ – Asdf Sep 2 '18 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I'm gonna accept it. Could you just take a look at my argument about why $(0,0)$ is a minimizer for $\phi(\lambda)$? $\endgroup$ – Guerlando OCs Sep 2 '18 at 19:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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