A nonsmooth exact penalty method for equality-constrained optimization: complexity and implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penalty methods are a well known class of algorithms for constrained optimization. They transform a constrained problem into a sequence of unconstrained \emph{penalized} problems in the hope that approximate solutions of the latter converge to a solution of the former. If Lagrange multipliers exist, exact penalty methods ensure that the penalty parameter only need increase a finite number of times, but are typically scorned in smooth optimization for the penalized problems are not smooth. This led researchers to consider the implementation of exact penalty methods inconvenient. Recent advances in proximal methods have led to increasingly efficient solvers for nonsmooth optimization. We study a general exact penalty algorithm and use it to show that the exact $\ell_2$-penalty method for equality-constrained optimization can, in fact, be implemented efficiently by solving the penalized problem using a proximal-type algorithm. We study the convergence of our algorithm and establish a worst-case complexity bound of $\mathcal{O}(ε^{-2})$ to bring a stationarity measure below $ε> 0$ under the Mangarasian-Fromowitz constraint qualification and Lipschitz continuity of the objective gradient and constraint Jacobian. While the Lipschitz continuity of the objective gradient is not required for convergence in view of recent works, it is used in our analysis to derive the complexity bound. In a degenerate scenario where the penalty parameter grows unbounded, the complexity becomes $\mathcal{O}(ε^{-8})$, which is worse than another bound found in the literature. Finally, we report numerical experience on small-scale problems from a standard collection and compare our solver with an augmented-Lagrangian and an SQP method. Our preliminary implementation is superior to the augmented Lagrangian in terms of robustness and efficiency, and is competitive with the SQP method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".