Consider the optimization problem $$ \min_{x\in X} f(x) $$ where $X\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a nonempty closed convex set. $f$ is continuous everywhere on $X$. I can show that $f$ is convex on the interior of $X$. I don't have a proof that $f$ is convex on the boundary of $X$. Are the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions sufficient to characterize a solution to this optimization problem in this case?
2026-05-05 10:47:44.1777978064
Sufficiency of KKT conditions when the objective function is convex on the interior of feasible set
1.8k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in OPTIMIZATION
- Optimization - If the sum of objective functions are similar, will sum of argmax's be similar
- optimization with strict inequality of variables
- Gradient of Cost Function To Find Matrix Factorization
- Calculation of distance of a point from a curve
- Find all local maxima and minima of $x^2+y^2$ subject to the constraint $x^2+2y=6$. Does $x^2+y^2$ have a global max/min on the same constraint?
- What does it mean to dualize a constraint in the context of Lagrangian relaxation?
- Modified conjugate gradient method to minimise quadratic functional restricted to positive solutions
- Building the model for a Linear Programming Problem
- Maximize the function
- Transform LMI problem into different SDP form
Related Questions in CONVEX-ANALYSIS
- Proving that: $||x|^{s/2}-|y|^{s/2}|\le 2|x-y|^{s/2}$
- Convex open sets of $\Bbb R^m$: are they MORE than connected by polygonal paths parallel to the axis?
- Show that this function is concave?
- In resticted domain , Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz's inequality
- Area covered by convex polygon centered at vertices of the unit square
- How does positive (semi)definiteness help with showing convexity of quadratic forms?
- Why does one of the following constraints define a convex set while another defines a non-convex set?
- Concave function - proof
- Sufficient condition for strict minimality in infinite-dimensional spaces
- compact convex sets
Related Questions in CONVEX-OPTIMIZATION
- Optimization - If the sum of objective functions are similar, will sum of argmax's be similar
- Least Absolute Deviation (LAD) Line Fitting / Regression
- Check if $\phi$ is convex
- Transform LMI problem into different SDP form
- Can a linear matrix inequality constraint transform to second-order cone constraint(s)?
- Optimality conditions - necessary vs sufficient
- Minimization of a convex quadratic form
- Prove that the objective function of K-means is non convex
- How to solve a linear program without any given data?
- Distance between a point $x \in \mathbb R^2$ and $x_1^2+x_2^2 \le 4$
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Yes, Indeed we have $$\text{Set of optimal solutions} = \text{Set of KKT points} $$ If $f$ is continuous on $X$ while convex on $\text{int} X$, then $f$ has to be Convex on whole $X$. Also we know that $\text{int} X \neq \emptyset$ this shows the slater QC holds , therefore aevery optimal point is indeed KKT point. we show that also each KKT point is indeed optimal. To this end, take $\bar{x} \in X$ which satisfies KKT system i.e., $$ 0 \in \partial f( \bar{x} ) + N(\bar{x}; X)$$ Where $N(\bar{x}; X)$ and $\partial f(x)$ are the convex normal cone of $X$ at $\bar{x},$ and convex subdifferential of $f$ at $\bar {x}$ respectively. Depending on the structure of constraints $N(\bar{x}; X)$ can be reduced to the a system containing Lagrange multipliers. From KKT condition we could find vectors $u \in \partial f(\bar{x})$ and $ v \in N(\bar{x}; X)$ such that$$u + v =0$$
Now take $x \in X$, Since $u \in \partial f(\bar {x})$ we have
\begin{align*} \langle u , x -\bar {x} \rangle \leq f(x ) - f(\bar{x}) \\ \Rightarrow \langle v , x -\bar {x} \rangle \ge f(\bar{x}) - f(x ) \end{align*}
And that the left side is negative due to $v \in N(\bar{x} ; X)$, Hence $f(x) \ge f(\bar{x}).$ Therefore $\bar{x} \in X$ is optimal.
Note that the continuity of $f$ on boundary of $X$ is an essential assumption!
For example take $X=[0,1]$ and $f=1$ on $\text{int}X = (0,1)$ and $f(x) = 0$ for $x \in \{0, 1\}$ Then all point living on $(0,1)$ are KKT points, Since for $\bar{x} \in (0,1)$we have $f' (\bar{x}) =0 $ (note that in interior points all Lagrange multipliers are zero, that's why KKT system is reduced to $f' = 0.$ On the other hand, clearly none of these points are optimal!
P.S:
Actually what I mentioned here as Slater QC is not the well-known Slater's Constraint's Qualification (of course $X$ has not been represented by inequalities and equalities), Maybe I should delete that word to avoid confusion. It is a slater type qualification condition (QC) which guarantees Sum Rule i.e, $$ \partial (f+g) (x) = \partial f(x) + \partial g (x) $$ Where $g$ is the indicator function of $X$, so $\partial g(\bar{x}) = N(\bar{x} ; X)$. And note that the constrained problem is equivalent to unconstrained problem with new objective $f+g$. That's why we have the implication $ Optimal \to KKT $. In general Somehow all constraint qualifications can be seen as conditions guarantee Sum rule between objective function and the indicator function of Constraint set. I used sum rule under condition made in Moreu-Rockafellar theorem, which corresponds to Slater's constraint qualification. There are also some other conditions for calculus rules which somehow they have counter part in Constraint Qualification and vice versa!