Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.21068 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917881409699840 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhang, Yushun Rybin, Dmitry Luo, Zhi-Quan |
| author_facet | Zhang, Yushun Rybin, Dmitry Luo, Zhi-Quan |
| contents | In modern engineering scenarios, there is often a strict upper bound on the number of algorithm iterations that can be performed within a given time limit. This raises the question of optimal algorithmic configuration for a fixed and finite iteration budget. In this work, we introduce the framework of finite horizon optimization, which focuses on optimizing the algorithm performance under a strict iteration budget $T$. We apply this framework to linear programming (LP) and propose Finite Horizon stepsize rule for the primal-dual method. The main challenge in the stepsize design is controlling the singular values of $T$ cumulative product of non-symmetric matrices, which appears to be a highly nonconvex problem, and there are very few helpful tools. Fortunately, in the special case of the primal-dual method, we find that the optimal stepsize design problem admits hidden convexity, and we propose a convex semidefinite programming (SDP) reformulation. This SDP only involves matrix constraints of size $4 \times 4$ and can be solved efficiently in negligible time. Theoretical acceleration guarantee is also provided at the pre-fixed $T$-th iteration, but with no asymptotic guarantee. On more than 90 real-world LP instances, Finite Horizon stepsize rule reaches an average 3.9$\times$ speed-up over the optimal constant stepsize, saving 75\% wall-clock time. Our numerical results reveal substantial room for improvement when we abandon asymptotic guarantees, and instead focus on the performance under finite horizon. We highlight that the benefits are not merely theoretical - they translate directly into computational speed-up on real-world problems. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2412_21068 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Finite Horizon Optimization: Framework and Applications Zhang, Yushun Rybin, Dmitry Luo, Zhi-Quan Optimization and Control In modern engineering scenarios, there is often a strict upper bound on the number of algorithm iterations that can be performed within a given time limit. This raises the question of optimal algorithmic configuration for a fixed and finite iteration budget. In this work, we introduce the framework of finite horizon optimization, which focuses on optimizing the algorithm performance under a strict iteration budget $T$. We apply this framework to linear programming (LP) and propose Finite Horizon stepsize rule for the primal-dual method. The main challenge in the stepsize design is controlling the singular values of $T$ cumulative product of non-symmetric matrices, which appears to be a highly nonconvex problem, and there are very few helpful tools. Fortunately, in the special case of the primal-dual method, we find that the optimal stepsize design problem admits hidden convexity, and we propose a convex semidefinite programming (SDP) reformulation. This SDP only involves matrix constraints of size $4 \times 4$ and can be solved efficiently in negligible time. Theoretical acceleration guarantee is also provided at the pre-fixed $T$-th iteration, but with no asymptotic guarantee. On more than 90 real-world LP instances, Finite Horizon stepsize rule reaches an average 3.9$\times$ speed-up over the optimal constant stepsize, saving 75\% wall-clock time. Our numerical results reveal substantial room for improvement when we abandon asymptotic guarantees, and instead focus on the performance under finite horizon. We highlight that the benefits are not merely theoretical - they translate directly into computational speed-up on real-world problems. |
| title | Finite Horizon Optimization: Framework and Applications |
| topic | Optimization and Control |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.21068 |