American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
March  2021, 11(1): 45-61. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020014

On the bang-bang control approach via a component-wise line search strategy for unconstrained optimization

M. S. Lee 1,, , H. G. Harno 2, , B. S. Goh 3, and  K. H. Lim 4,

1. 

School of Mathematical Sciences, Sunway University, Selangor, Malaysia
2. 

Department of Aerospace and Software Engineering, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea
3. 

School of Electrical Engineering, Computing and Mathematical Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
4. 

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia

* Corresponding author: M. S. LEE (Email: moksianglee@gmail.com)

Received  June 2019 Revised  August 2019 Published  March 2021 Early access  February 2020

A bang-bang iteration method equipped with a component-wise line search strategy is introduced to solve unconstrained optimization problems. The main idea of this method is to formulate an unconstrained optimization problem as an optimal control problem to obtain an optimal trajectory. However, the optimal trajectory can only be generated by impulsive control variables and it is a straight line joining a guessed initial point to a minimum point. Thus, a priori bounds are imposed on the control variables in order to obtain a feasible solution. As a result, the optimal trajectory is made up of bang-bang control sub-arcs, which form an iterative model based on the Lyapunov function's theorem. This is to ensure monotonic decrease of the objective function value and convergence to a desirable minimum point. However, a chattering behavior may occur near the solution. To avoid this behavior, the Newton iterations are then applied to the proposed method via a two-phase approach to achieve fast convergence. Numerical experiments show that this new approach is efficient and cost-effective to solve the unconstrained optimization problems.

Keywords: Two-phase, bang-bang iterations, rectangular search, unconstrained optimization, component-wise line search, Lyapunov function's theorem, approximate greatest descent.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 49M15, 65K10; Secondary: 90C30, 90C90.
Citation: M. S. Lee, H. G. Harno, B. S. Goh, K. H. Lim. On the bang-bang control approach via a component-wise line search strategy for unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 45-61. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020014
References:
[1]

N. Andrei, An unconstrained optimization test functions collection, Adv. Model. Optim., 10 (2008), 147-161.   Google Scholar

[2]

D. Bushaw, Optimal discontinuous forcing terms, in Contributions to the Theory of Nonlinear Oscillations, Vol. IV (ed. S. Lefshetz), Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, (1958), 29–52.  Google Scholar

[3]

E. D. Dolan and J. J. Moré, Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles, Mathematical Programming, 91 (2002), 201-213.  doi: 10.1007/s101070100263.  Google Scholar

[4]

R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization Volume 1: Unconstrained Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, 1987.  Google Scholar

[5]

I. Flüotz and H. Junr, Optimum and quasi-optimum control of third-and fourth-order systems, Technical Report 2, 1963. Google Scholar

[6]

A. Fuller, Relay control systems optimized for various performance criteria, in Automatic and Remote Control, Proc. First World Congress IFAC Moscow, vol. 1, 1960, 510–519. Google Scholar

[7]

P. E. Gill, W. Murray, M. A. Saunders and M. H. Wright, Computing forward-difference intervals for numerical optimization, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4 (1983), 310-321.  doi: 10.1137/0904025.  Google Scholar

[8]

B. S. Goh, Algorithms for unconstrained optimization problems via control theory, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 92 (1997), 581-604.  doi: 10.1023/A:1022607507153.  Google Scholar

[9]

B. S. Goh, Greatest descent algorithms in unconstrained optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 142 (2009), 275-289.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-009-9533-4.  Google Scholar

[10]

B. S. Goh, Convergence of algorithms in optimization and solutions of nonlinear equations, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 144 (2010), 43-55.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-009-9583-7.  Google Scholar

[11]

B. S. Goh, Approximate greatest descent methods for optimization with equality constraints, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 148 (2011), 505-527.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-010-9765-3.  Google Scholar

[12]

B. S. Goh, W. J. Leong and K. L. Teo, Robustness of convergence proofs in numerical methods in unconstrained optimization, in Optimization and Control Methods in Industrial Engineering and Construction, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering 72, Springer Netherlands, (2014), 1–9. Google Scholar

[13]

B. S. Goh and D. B. McDonald, Newton methods to solve a system of nonlinear algebraic equations, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 164 (2015), 261-276.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-014-0544-4.  Google Scholar

[14]

A. Hedar, Studies on Metaheuristics for Continuous Global Optimization Problems, PhD Thesis, Kyoto University, Japan, 2004. Google Scholar

[15]

J. Kowalik and J. Morrison, Analysis of kinetic data for allosteric enzyme reactions as a nonlinear regression problem, Mathematical Biosciences, 2 (1968), 57-66.   Google Scholar

[16]

I. Kupka, The ubiquity of fuller's phenomenon, Nonlinear Controllability and Optimal Control, 133 (1990), 313-350.   Google Scholar

[17]

J. P. LaSalle, Time optimal control systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.45.4.573.  Google Scholar

[18]

J. P. LaSalle, Recent advances in liapunov stability theory, SIAM Review, 6 (1964), 1-11.  doi: 10.1137/1006001.  Google Scholar

[19]

M. S. Lee, B. S. Goh, H. G. Harno and K. H. Lim, On a two-phase approximate greatest descent method for nonlinear optimization with equality constraints, Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 8 (2018), 325-336.  doi: 10.3934/naco.2018020.  Google Scholar

[20] G. Leitmann, The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control, Vol. 20 of Mathematical Concepts and Methods in Science and Engineering, Plenum Press, New York, 1981.   Google Scholar
[21]

J. J. Moré, B. S. Garbow and K. E. Hillstrom, Testing unconstrained optimization software, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 7 (1981), 17-41.  doi: 10.1145/355934.355936.  Google Scholar

[22]

J. M. Ortega, Stability of difference equations and convergence of iterative processes, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 10 (1973), 268-282.  doi: 10.1137/0710026.  Google Scholar

[23] J. M. Ortega and W. C. Rheinboldt, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables, Academic Press, NY, 1970.   Google Scholar
[24]

B. T. Polyak, Newton's method and its use in optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, 181 (2007), 1086-1096.  doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.06.076.  Google Scholar

[25]

M. I. Zelikin and V. F. Borisov, Regimes with increasingly more frequent switchings in optimal control problems, Tr. Mat. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 197 (1991), 85-167.   Google Scholar

[26]

M. I. Zelikin and V. F. Borisov, Theory of Chattering Control: With Applications to Astronautics, Robotics, Economics, and Engineering, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-2702-1.  Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

N. Andrei, An unconstrained optimization test functions collection, Adv. Model. Optim., 10 (2008), 147-161.   Google Scholar

[2]

D. Bushaw, Optimal discontinuous forcing terms, in Contributions to the Theory of Nonlinear Oscillations, Vol. IV (ed. S. Lefshetz), Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, (1958), 29–52.  Google Scholar

[3]

E. D. Dolan and J. J. Moré, Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles, Mathematical Programming, 91 (2002), 201-213.  doi: 10.1007/s101070100263.  Google Scholar

[4]

R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization Volume 1: Unconstrained Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, 1987.  Google Scholar

[5]

I. Flüotz and H. Junr, Optimum and quasi-optimum control of third-and fourth-order systems, Technical Report 2, 1963. Google Scholar

[6]

A. Fuller, Relay control systems optimized for various performance criteria, in Automatic and Remote Control, Proc. First World Congress IFAC Moscow, vol. 1, 1960, 510–519. Google Scholar

[7]

P. E. Gill, W. Murray, M. A. Saunders and M. H. Wright, Computing forward-difference intervals for numerical optimization, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4 (1983), 310-321.  doi: 10.1137/0904025.  Google Scholar

[8]

B. S. Goh, Algorithms for unconstrained optimization problems via control theory, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 92 (1997), 581-604.  doi: 10.1023/A:1022607507153.  Google Scholar

[9]

B. S. Goh, Greatest descent algorithms in unconstrained optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 142 (2009), 275-289.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-009-9533-4.  Google Scholar

[10]

B. S. Goh, Convergence of algorithms in optimization and solutions of nonlinear equations, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 144 (2010), 43-55.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-009-9583-7.  Google Scholar

[11]

B. S. Goh, Approximate greatest descent methods for optimization with equality constraints, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 148 (2011), 505-527.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-010-9765-3.  Google Scholar

[12]

B. S. Goh, W. J. Leong and K. L. Teo, Robustness of convergence proofs in numerical methods in unconstrained optimization, in Optimization and Control Methods in Industrial Engineering and Construction, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering 72, Springer Netherlands, (2014), 1–9. Google Scholar

[13]

B. S. Goh and D. B. McDonald, Newton methods to solve a system of nonlinear algebraic equations, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 164 (2015), 261-276.  doi: 10.1007/s10957-014-0544-4.  Google Scholar

[14]

A. Hedar, Studies on Metaheuristics for Continuous Global Optimization Problems, PhD Thesis, Kyoto University, Japan, 2004. Google Scholar

[15]

J. Kowalik and J. Morrison, Analysis of kinetic data for allosteric enzyme reactions as a nonlinear regression problem, Mathematical Biosciences, 2 (1968), 57-66.   Google Scholar

[16]

I. Kupka, The ubiquity of fuller's phenomenon, Nonlinear Controllability and Optimal Control, 133 (1990), 313-350.   Google Scholar

[17]

J. P. LaSalle, Time optimal control systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.45.4.573.  Google Scholar

[18]

J. P. LaSalle, Recent advances in liapunov stability theory, SIAM Review, 6 (1964), 1-11.  doi: 10.1137/1006001.  Google Scholar

[19]

M. S. Lee, B. S. Goh, H. G. Harno and K. H. Lim, On a two-phase approximate greatest descent method for nonlinear optimization with equality constraints, Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 8 (2018), 325-336.  doi: 10.3934/naco.2018020.  Google Scholar

[20] G. Leitmann, The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control, Vol. 20 of Mathematical Concepts and Methods in Science and Engineering, Plenum Press, New York, 1981.   Google Scholar
[21]

J. J. Moré, B. S. Garbow and K. E. Hillstrom, Testing unconstrained optimization software, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 7 (1981), 17-41.  doi: 10.1145/355934.355936.  Google Scholar

[22]

J. M. Ortega, Stability of difference equations and convergence of iterative processes, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 10 (1973), 268-282.  doi: 10.1137/0710026.  Google Scholar

[23] J. M. Ortega and W. C. Rheinboldt, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables, Academic Press, NY, 1970.   Google Scholar
[24]

B. T. Polyak, Newton's method and its use in optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, 181 (2007), 1086-1096.  doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.06.076.  Google Scholar

[25]

M. I. Zelikin and V. F. Borisov, Regimes with increasingly more frequent switchings in optimal control problems, Tr. Mat. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 197 (1991), 85-167.   Google Scholar

[26]

M. I. Zelikin and V. F. Borisov, Theory of Chattering Control: With Applications to Astronautics, Robotics, Economics, and Engineering, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-2702-1.  Google Scholar

Figure 1.  A backtracking procedure to obtain the next iterative point $ x(k+1) $ from the current point $ x(k) $ on an objective function with two variables
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  The AGD with rectangular search regions approaching the minimum point $ x^{*} $ from the initial point $ x(0) $
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3.  Performance profiles based on the CPU time
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 4.  Performance profiles based on the number of iterations
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table5 
Table Options

Download as excel

Table6 
Table Options

Download as excel

Table 1.  The iterations of the AGDRN method on Booth function (40) in Phase-Ⅰ and Phase-Ⅱ
Phase-Ⅰ
$ k $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ $ \|\Delta x\| $
0 $ 3.79\times 10^{3} $ $ 3.69\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.80\times 10^{1} $
1 $ 3.69\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.15\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.41\times 10^{1} $
2 $ 3.69\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.15\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.27\times 10^{1} $
3 $ 2.38\times 10^{1} $ $ 9.17\times 10^{1} $ $ 1.15\times 10^{1} $
4 $ 4.04\times 10^{1} $ $ 3.62\times 10^{1} $ $ 3.09\times 10^{0} $
5 $ 1.01\times 10^{1} $ $ 1.48\times 10^{1} $ $ 2.78\times 10^{0} $
6 $ 4.51\times 10^{0} $ $ 4.29\times 10^{0} $ $ 7.52\times 10^{-1} $
7 $ 2.10\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.95\times 10^{0} $ $ 6.76\times 10^{-1} $
8 $ 1.60\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.60\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.83\times 10^{-1} $
9 $ 1.22\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.28\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.64\times 10^{-1} $
10 $ 9.13\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.99\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.48\times 10^{-1} $
11 $ 6.77\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.74\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.33\times 10^{-1} $
12 $ 4.96\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.52\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.20\times 10^{-1} $
13 $ 3.57\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.33\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.08\times 10^{-1} $
14 $ 2.52\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.16\times 10^{0} $ $ 9.71\times 10^{-2} $
Phase-Ⅱ
$ j $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ {det H}
0 $ 2.52\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.16\times 10^{0} $ $ 3.60\times 10^{1} $
1 $ 4.54\times 10^{-18} $ $ 4.34\times 10^{-9} $ $ 3.60\times 10^{1} $
Table Options

Download as excel

Phase-Ⅰ
$ k $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ $ \|\Delta x\| $
0 $ 3.79\times 10^{3} $ $ 3.69\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.80\times 10^{1} $
1 $ 3.69\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.15\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.41\times 10^{1} $
2 $ 3.69\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.15\times 10^{2} $ $ 1.27\times 10^{1} $
3 $ 2.38\times 10^{1} $ $ 9.17\times 10^{1} $ $ 1.15\times 10^{1} $
4 $ 4.04\times 10^{1} $ $ 3.62\times 10^{1} $ $ 3.09\times 10^{0} $
5 $ 1.01\times 10^{1} $ $ 1.48\times 10^{1} $ $ 2.78\times 10^{0} $
6 $ 4.51\times 10^{0} $ $ 4.29\times 10^{0} $ $ 7.52\times 10^{-1} $
7 $ 2.10\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.95\times 10^{0} $ $ 6.76\times 10^{-1} $
8 $ 1.60\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.60\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.83\times 10^{-1} $
9 $ 1.22\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.28\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.64\times 10^{-1} $
10 $ 9.13\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.99\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.48\times 10^{-1} $
11 $ 6.77\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.74\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.33\times 10^{-1} $
12 $ 4.96\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.52\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.20\times 10^{-1} $
13 $ 3.57\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.33\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.08\times 10^{-1} $
14 $ 2.52\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.16\times 10^{0} $ $ 9.71\times 10^{-2} $
Phase-Ⅱ
$ j $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ {det H}
0 $ 2.52\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.16\times 10^{0} $ $ 3.60\times 10^{1} $
1 $ 4.54\times 10^{-18} $ $ 4.34\times 10^{-9} $ $ 3.60\times 10^{1} $
Table 2.  The iterations of the AGDRN method on Powell function (41) in Phase-Ⅰ and Phase-Ⅱ
Phase-Ⅰ
$ k $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ $ \|\Delta x\| $
0 $ 2.60\times 10^{2} $ $ 2.53\times 10^{2} $ $ 5.00\times 10^{0} $
1 $ 6.56\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.31\times 10^{1} $ $ 3.54\times 10^{0} $
2 $ 1.31\times 10^{0} $ $ 4.51\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.61\times 10^{0} $
3 $ -2.46\times 10^{-1} $ $ 9.70\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.06\times 10^{0} $
Phase-Ⅱ
$ j $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ {det H}
0 $ -2.46\times 10^{-1} $ $ 9.70\times 10^{-1} $ $ 5.00\times 10^{-1} $
1 $ -5.49\times 10^{-1} $ $ 6.63\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.36\times 10^{1} $
2 $ -5.82\times 10^{-1} $ $ 5.20\times 10^{-2} $ $ 1.09\times 10^{1} $
3 $ -5.82\times 10^{-1} $ $ 7.61\times 10^{-4} $ $ 1.06\times 10^{1} $
4 $ -5.82\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.71\times 10^{-7} $ $ 1.06\times 10^{1} $
Table Options

Download as excel

Phase-Ⅰ
$ k $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ $ \|\Delta x\| $
0 $ 2.60\times 10^{2} $ $ 2.53\times 10^{2} $ $ 5.00\times 10^{0} $
1 $ 6.56\times 10^{0} $ $ 1.31\times 10^{1} $ $ 3.54\times 10^{0} $
2 $ 1.31\times 10^{0} $ $ 4.51\times 10^{0} $ $ 2.61\times 10^{0} $
3 $ -2.46\times 10^{-1} $ $ 9.70\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.06\times 10^{0} $
Phase-Ⅱ
$ j $ $ f(x) $ $ \|g(x)\| $ {det H}
0 $ -2.46\times 10^{-1} $ $ 9.70\times 10^{-1} $ $ 5.00\times 10^{-1} $
1 $ -5.49\times 10^{-1} $ $ 6.63\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.36\times 10^{1} $
2 $ -5.82\times 10^{-1} $ $ 5.20\times 10^{-2} $ $ 1.09\times 10^{1} $
3 $ -5.82\times 10^{-1} $ $ 7.61\times 10^{-4} $ $ 1.06\times 10^{1} $
4 $ -5.82\times 10^{-1} $ $ 1.71\times 10^{-7} $ $ 1.06\times 10^{1} $
Table 3.  Comparison of Phase-Ⅱ replacement with other methods to minimize the Gulf research and development function
Methods $ \boldsymbol{f(x^{*})} $ $ \boldsymbol{\|g(x)\|} $ k CPU Time (s)
AGDS $ 5.40\times 10^{-5} $ $ 6.40\times 10^{-9} $ 37 $ 9.06\times 10^{-1} $
BTR $ 5.40\times 10^{-5} $ $ 5.96\times 10^{-8} $ 81 $ 1.75\times 10^{0} $
AGDRN $ 3.11\times 10^{-2} $ $ 6.61\times 10^{-2} $ 500 $ 2.15\times 10^{1} $
AGD-RS $ 5.40\times 10^{-5} $ $ 1.35\times 10^{-7} $ 83 $ 1.63\times 10^{0} $
Table Options

Download as excel

Methods $ \boldsymbol{f(x^{*})} $ $ \boldsymbol{\|g(x)\|} $ k CPU Time (s)
AGDS $ 5.40\times 10^{-5} $ $ 6.40\times 10^{-9} $ 37 $ 9.06\times 10^{-1} $
BTR $ 5.40\times 10^{-5} $ $ 5.96\times 10^{-8} $ 81 $ 1.75\times 10^{0} $
AGDRN $ 3.11\times 10^{-2} $ $ 6.61\times 10^{-2} $ 500 $ 2.15\times 10^{1} $
AGD-RS $ 5.40\times 10^{-5} $ $ 1.35\times 10^{-7} $ 83 $ 1.63\times 10^{0} $
Table 4.  Comparison of Phase-Ⅱ replacement with other methods to minimize the Kowalik Osborne function
Methods $ \boldsymbol{f(x^{*})} $ $ \boldsymbol{\|g(x)\|} $ $ \boldsymbol{k} $ CPU Time (s)
AGDS $ 3.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 8.60\times 10^{-8} $ 14 $ 6.09\times 10^{-1} $
BTR $ 3.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 5.76\times 10^{-8} $ 16 $ 5.94\times 10^{-1} $
AGDRN $ 5.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 3.84\times 10^{-3} $ 499 $ 2.38\times 10^{1} $
AGD-RS $ 3.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 8.60\times 10^{-8} $ 14 $ 4.06\times 10^{-1} $
Table Options

Download as excel

Methods $ \boldsymbol{f(x^{*})} $ $ \boldsymbol{\|g(x)\|} $ $ \boldsymbol{k} $ CPU Time (s)
AGDS $ 3.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 8.60\times 10^{-8} $ 14 $ 6.09\times 10^{-1} $
BTR $ 3.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 5.76\times 10^{-8} $ 16 $ 5.94\times 10^{-1} $
AGDRN $ 5.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 3.84\times 10^{-3} $ 499 $ 2.38\times 10^{1} $
AGD-RS $ 3.08\times 10^{-4} $ $ 8.60\times 10^{-8} $ 14 $ 4.06\times 10^{-1} $
[1]

M. S. Lee, B. S. Goh, H. G. Harno, K. H. Lim. On a two-phase approximate greatest descent method for nonlinear optimization with equality constraints. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (3) : 315-326. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018020
[2]

Gengsheng Wang, Yubiao Zhang. Decompositions and bang-bang properties. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2017, 7 (1) : 73-170. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2017005
[3]

King Hann Lim, Hong Hui Tan, Hendra G. Harno. Approximate greatest descent in neural network optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (3) : 327-336. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018021
[4]

Helmut Maurer, Tanya Tarnopolskaya, Neale Fulton. Computation of bang-bang and singular controls in collision avoidance. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (2) : 443-460. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.443
[5]

Karl Kunisch, Lijuan Wang. The bang-bang property of time optimal controls for the Burgers equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2014, 34 (9) : 3611-3637. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2014.34.3611
[6]

Karl Kunisch, Lijuan Wang. Bang-bang property of time optimal controls of semilinear parabolic equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2016, 36 (1) : 279-302. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2016.36.279
[7]

Jianjun Liu, Min Zeng, Yifan Ge, Changzhi Wu, Xiangyu Wang. Improved Cuckoo Search algorithm for numerical function optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 103-115. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018142
[8]

Walter Alt, Robert Baier, Matthias Gerdts, Frank Lempio. Error bounds for Euler approximation of linear-quadratic control problems with bang-bang solutions. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2012, 2 (3) : 547-570. doi: 10.3934/naco.2012.2.547
[9]

Zhong Wan, Chaoming Hu, Zhanlu Yang. A spectral PRP conjugate gradient methods for nonconvex optimization problem based on modified line search. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2011, 16 (4) : 1157-1169. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2011.16.1157
[10]

Wataru Nakamura, Yasushi Narushima, Hiroshi Yabe. Nonlinear conjugate gradient methods with sufficient descent properties for unconstrained optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2013, 9 (3) : 595-619. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2013.9.595
[11]

J. Leonel Rocha, Abdel-Kaddous Taha, Danièle Fournier-Prunaret. Explosion birth and extinction: Double big bang bifurcations and Allee effect in Tsoularis-Wallace's growth models. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2015, 20 (9) : 3131-3163. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.3131
[12]

Dieter Bothe, Jan Prüss. Modeling and analysis of reactive multi-component two-phase flows with mass transfer and phase transition the isothermal incompressible case. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2017, 10 (4) : 673-696. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2017034
[13]

Behrouz Kheirfam, Morteza Moslemi. On the extension of an arc-search interior-point algorithm for semidefinite optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (2) : 261-275. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018015
[14]

Mohamed A. Tawhid, Ahmed F. Ali. An effective hybrid firefly algorithm with the cuckoo search for engineering optimization problems. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2018, 1 (4) : 349-368. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2018017
[15]

Haiyan Yin, Changjiang Zhu. Convergence rate of solutions toward stationary solutions to a viscous liquid-gas two-phase flow model in a half line. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2015, 14 (5) : 2021-2042. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2015.14.2021
[16]

M. Soledad Aronna, J. Frédéric Bonnans, Andrei V. Dmitruk, Pablo A. Lotito. Quadratic order conditions for bang-singular extremals. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2012, 2 (3) : 511-546. doi: 10.3934/naco.2012.2.511
[17]

Cheng-Ta Yeh, Yi-Kuei Lin. Component allocation cost minimization for a multistate computer network subject to a reliability threshold using tabu search. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (1) : 141-167. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.141
[18]

Matthias Gerdts, Stefan Horn, Sven-Joachim Kimmerle. Line search globalization of a semismooth Newton method for operator equations in Hilbert spaces with applications in optimal control. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 47-62. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016003
[19]

Jan Prüss, Jürgen Saal, Gieri Simonett. Singular limits for the two-phase Stefan problem. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2013, 33 (11&12) : 5379-5405. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2013.33.5379
[20]

Theodore Tachim Medjo. A two-phase flow model with delays. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (9) : 3273-3294. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017137

 Impact Factor: 

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (299)
  • HTML views (652)
  • Cited by (0)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2021 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences | Privacy Policy