[Coin-ipopt] Limit on MU
Carl Damon Laird
claird at andrew.cmu.edu
Wed Aug 3 11:49:23 EDT 2005
Hi Ivan,
I assume that the reason you want a smaller mu is to produce a solution
that is tighter to the bound for the active variables.
It has been my experience that reducing dinfmaxtol (to something like
1e-10) pulls things in tighter, although I have never done this with a
large overall tolerance. Furthermore, I assume that you use a large
tolerance because of noise in the problem (derivatives?) and this is not
the case with my problems.
Anyway, it is something to try before modifying the code.
Cheers,
Carl.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Andreas Waechter wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
>> We've been exploring IPOPT (Fortran version) for some time in solving
>> our nonlinear programming problem and ran into a curious behavior.
>
> Out of curiosity: What kind of problems are you solving?
>
>> We're in the unfortunate position of having to set DTOL rather large and
>> we've noticed that the barrier parameter is hard-bounded by DTOL/10. In
>> your paper, you explain: "the update (7) does not allow the rule to
>> become smaller than necessary given the desired tolerance
>> \epsilon_{tol}, thus avoiding numerical difficulties at the end of the
>> optimization procedure." We are unclear on what the specific numerical
>> difficulties would be for this primal-dual formulation of the problem.
>> Are there any results that have shown what the 'necessary' value of MU
>> should be in relation to the overall tolerance?
>
> If you would choose MU to be on the order of, say, 1e-16, you might run
> into problems because your slacks and bound multiplier values become very
> small (on the order of machine precision). Therefore, the idea was that
> the mimimal value of the barrier parameter should be tied to the specified
> error tolerance.
>
> If you specify that you only want to solve the problem to a tolerance of,
> say, 1e-3, the lower bound on MU will be small enough so that your desired
> tolerance can be met, but not much smaller. If you want to have the
> algorithm use a smaller value of MU (and therefore solve the
> complementarity condition more tightly than the other optimality
> conditions), you can change line 96 of update_mu.f accordingly.
>
>> Since I have you attention I can't resist asking if there are any
>> updates on when the C++ alpha version will be released?
>
> We hope to be ready to release the C++ version in about three weeks.
> Therefore, we are not making any more changes to the Fortran version
> (except for bug fixes). The new version will not have all the "features"
> of the Fortran version (e.g., there will be no reduced-space option - and
> the limitied-memory quasi-Newton options for the full space will be added
> a little bit later).
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coin-ipopt mailing list
> Coin-ipopt at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/coin-ipopt
>
>
More information about the Coin-ipopt
mailing list