I'm trying to solve the following optimization problem: \begin{equation}\end{equation} \begin{align} \text{argmax}_{\left\{x_i\right\},\left\{y_j\right\}} & \frac{1}{2}\left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \log_2\left(1+\alpha_i x_i\right) + \sum_{j=1}^{M} \log_2\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) \right) \\[4pt] \nonumber \text{subject to: }& \sum_{i=1}^N x_i + \sum_{j=1}^M y_j \leq A \\ & \sum_{j=1}^{M} \log_2\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) \leq B \end{align}

To this end, I tried to use the Lagrangian multipliers method. I defined the Lagrangian function \begin{align} \mathcal{L}(x_1,\ldots,x_N,y_1,\ldots,y_M,\lambda_1,\lambda_2) &= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \log_2\left(1+\alpha_i x_i\right) + \sum_{j=1}^{M} \log_2\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) \right) \\ & - \lambda_1 \left(\sum_{i=1}^N x_i + \sum_{j=1}^M y_j - A\right) \\ & -\lambda_2 \left(\sum_{j=1}^{M} \log_2\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) -B\right) \end{align} and I computed the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian function with respect to generic $x_i$ and $y_j$. Setting them to zero led to \begin{align} & \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_i} = \frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha_i x_i \log(2) + \log(2)} - \lambda_1 = 0, \\ & \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial y_j} = \frac{\beta_j}{\beta_j y_j \log(2) + \log(2)} - \lambda_1 -\lambda_2 \frac{\beta_j}{\beta_j y_j \log(2) + \log(2)} = 0, \end{align} which resulted in \begin{align} & x_i = \frac{1}{\log(2) \lambda_1} - \frac{1}{\alpha_i}, \\ & y_j = \frac{1-\lambda_2}{\log(2) \lambda_1} - \frac{1}{\beta_j}. \end{align} I don't know how to proceed from here onwards. Any help?

  • $\begingroup$ Well first I would manipulate the problem so you have equality constraints. $\endgroup$
    – mattos
    Mar 20, 2021 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ If you show us your work in computing the partial derivatives, we could help you debug that process. If you're asking what to do after computing the partial derivatives, that's a further question. $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2021 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianBorchers partial derivatives added in the OP. I'm not sure what I should do next $\endgroup$
    – cubicle01
    Mar 20, 2021 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ When you substitute those values of $x$ and $y$ into the Lagrangian, you'll obtain the dual function $g(\lambda)$. $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2021 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianBorchers I still don't understand how I should proceed after having substituted $x$ and $y$ in the Lagrangian, as the dual function contains sereval sums of logarithms. Would you mind explaining the concept a bit further, please? $\endgroup$
    – cubicle01
    Mar 20, 2021 at 17:15

1 Answer 1



I will use $\ln$ instead to facilitate the notation issues. First you should transform your inequalities into equations with the introduction of some slack variables $s_1, s_2$ so the Lagrangian reads

\begin{align} \mathcal{L}(x_1,\ldots,x_N,y_1,\ldots,y_M,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,s_1,s_2) &= \frac 12\left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \ln\left(1+\alpha_i x_i\right) + \sum_{j=1}^{M} \ln\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) \right) \\ & - \lambda_1 \left(\sum_{i=1}^N x_i + \sum_{j=1}^M y_j - A+s_1^2\right) \\ & -\lambda_2 \left(\sum_{j=1}^{M} \ln\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) -B+s_2^2\right) \end{align}

now, the stationary points are the solutions for

\begin{align} & x_i = \frac{1}{2 \lambda_1} - \frac{1}{\alpha_i}, \\ & y_j = \frac{1-2\lambda_2}{2\lambda_1} - \frac{1}{\beta_j},\\ & \sum_{i=1}^N x_i + \sum_{j=1}^M y_j - A+s_1^2= 0,\\ & \sum_{j=1}^{M} \ln\left(1+ \beta_j y_j\right) -B+s_2^2=0,\\ & \lambda_1s_1 = 0,\\ & \lambda_2 s_2 = 0, \end{align}

We can proceed by substituting the values found to $x_i,y_j$ into the restrictions giving

\begin{align} &\frac{N}{2 \lambda_1} - \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{\alpha_i}+M\frac{1-2\lambda_2}{2\lambda_1}- \sum_{j=1}^M\frac{1}{\beta_j}-A+s_1^2=0,\\ &\left(\frac{1-2\lambda_2}{2\lambda_1}\right)^M\prod_{j=1}^M\beta_j=2^Me^{B-s_2^2} \end{align}

Now using $\lambda_is_i=0$ we can (?) calculate $\lambda_i$ and finally to have the stationary points. The solutions obtained with $s_i = 0$ are solutions at the feasible region boundary.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Can we direcly assume that $s_1=s_2 = 0$ if the values of $x_i$ and $y_j$ have to be finite? $\endgroup$
    – cubicle01
    Mar 20, 2021 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ It seems true if $\alpha_i,\ \beta_j$ are non negative. $\endgroup$
    – Cesareo
    Mar 20, 2021 at 20:50

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.