Journal of Inequalities and Applications
VolumeΒ 2010Β (2010), Article IDΒ 363012, 13 pages
doi:10.1155/2010/363012
Research Article

πœ– -Duality Theorems for Convex Semidefinite Optimization Problems with Conic Constraints

Department of Applied Mathematics, Pukyong National University, Pusan 608-737, South Korea

Received 30 October 2009; Accepted 10 December 2009

Academic Editor: Yeol JeΒ Cho

Copyright Β© 2010 Gue Myung Lee and Jae Hyoung Lee. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

A convex semidefinite optimization problem with a conic constraint is considered. We formulate a Wolfe-type dual problem for the problem for its πœ– -approximate solutions, and then we prove πœ– -weak duality theorem and πœ– -strong duality theorem which hold between the problem and its Wolfe type dual problem. Moreover, we give an example illustrating the duality theorems.

1. Introduction

Convex semidefinite optimization problem is to optimize an objective convex function over a linear matrix inequality. When the objective function is linear and the corresponding matrices are diagonal, this problem becomes a linear optimization problem.

For convex semidefinite optimization problem, Lagrangean duality without constraint qualification [1, 2], complete dual characterization conditions of solutions [1, 3, 4], saddle point theorems [5], and characterizations of optimal solution sets [6, 7] have been investigated.

To get the πœ– -approximate solution, many authors have established πœ– -optimality conditions, πœ– -saddle point theorems and πœ– -duality theorems for several kinds of optimization problems [1, 816].

Recently, Jeyakumar and Glover [11] gave πœ– -optimality conditions for convex optimization problems, which hold without any constraint qualification. Yokoyama and Shiraishi [16] gave a special case of convex optimization problem which satisfies πœ– -optimality conditions. Kim and Lee [12] proved sequential πœ– -saddle point theorems and πœ– -duality theorems for convex semidefinite optimization problems which have not conic constraints.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the πœ– -duality theorems by Kim and Lee [12] to convex semidefinite optimization problems with conic constraints. We formulate a Wolfe type dual problem for the problem for its πœ– -approximate solutions, and then prove πœ– -weak duality theorem and πœ– -strong duality theorem for the problem and its Wolfe type dual problem, which hold under a weakened constraint qualification. Moreover, we give an example illustrating the duality theorems.

2. Preliminaries

Consider the following convex semidefinite optimization problem:

( S D P ) M i n i m i z e 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) , s u b j e c t t o 𝐹 0 + π‘š  𝑖 = 1 π‘₯ 𝑖 𝐹 𝑖 ξ€· π‘₯ βͺ° 0 , 1 , π‘₯ 2 , … , π‘₯ π‘š ξ€Έ ∈ 𝐢 , ( 2 . 1 ) where 𝑓 ∢ ℝ π‘š β†’ ℝ is a convex function, 𝐢 is a closed convex cone of ℝ π‘š , and for 𝑖 = 0 , 1 , … , π‘š , 𝐹 𝑖 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 , where 𝑆 𝑛 is the space of 𝑛 Γ— 𝑛 real symmetric matrices. The space 𝑆 𝑛 is partially ordered by the L ̈ β€Œ o wner order, that is, for 𝑀 , 𝑁 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 , 𝑀 ≽ 𝑁 if and only if 𝑀 βˆ’ 𝑁 is positive semidefinite. The inner product in 𝑆 𝑛 is defined by ( 𝑀 , 𝑁 ) = T r [ 𝑀 𝑁 ] , where T r [ β‹… ] is the trace operation.

Let 𝑆 ∢ = { 𝑀 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 ∣ 𝑀 ≽ 0 } . Then 𝑆 is self-dual, that is, 𝑆 + ξ€½ ∢ = πœƒ ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 ∣ ( πœƒ , 𝑍 ) ≧ 0 , f o r a n y ξ€Ύ 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 = 𝑆 . ( 2 . 2 ) Let 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ∢ = 𝐹 0 + βˆ‘ π‘š 𝑖 = 1 π‘₯ 𝑖 𝐹 𝑖 ,  βˆ‘ 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ∢ = π‘š 𝑖 = 1 π‘₯ 𝑖 𝐹 𝑖 , π‘₯ = ( π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ π‘š ) ∈ ℝ π‘š . Then  𝐹 is a linear operator from ℝ π‘š to 𝑆 𝑛 and its dual is defined by  𝐹 βˆ— ξ€· ξ€Ί 𝐹 ( 𝑍 ) = T r 1 𝑍 ξ€» ξ€Ί 𝐹 , … , T r π‘š 𝑍 , ξ€» ξ€Έ ( 2 . 3 ) for any 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 . Clearly, 𝐴 ∢ = { π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 ∣ 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ∈ 𝑆 } is the feasible set of SDP.

Definition 2.1. Let 𝑔 ∢ ℝ 𝑛 β†’ ℝ βˆͺ { + ∞ } be a convex function.(1)The subdifferential of 𝑔 at π‘Ž ∈ d o m 𝑔 , where d o m 𝑔 = { π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 ∣ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) < + ∞ } , is given by πœ• 𝑔 ( π‘Ž ) = { 𝑣 ∈ ℝ 𝑛 ∣ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑔 ( π‘Ž ) + ⟨ 𝑣 , π‘₯ βˆ’ π‘Ž ⟩ , βˆ€ π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 } , ( 2 . 4 ) where ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ is the scalar product on ℝ 𝑛 .(2)The πœ– -subdifferential of 𝑔 at π‘Ž ∈ d o m 𝑔 is given by πœ• πœ– 𝑔 ( π‘Ž ) = { 𝑣 ∈ ℝ 𝑛 ∣ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑔 ( π‘Ž ) + ⟨ 𝑣 , π‘₯ βˆ’ π‘Ž ⟩ βˆ’ πœ– , βˆ€ π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 } . ( 2 . 5 )

Definition 2.2. Let πœ– ≧ 0 . Then π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 is called an πœ– -approximate solution of SDP, if, for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 , 𝑓 ξ€· ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ– . ( 2 . 6 )

Definition 2.3. The conjugate function of a function 𝑔 ∢ ℝ 𝑛 β†’ ℝ βˆͺ { + ∞ } is defined by 𝑔 βˆ— ( 𝑣 ) = s u p { ⟨ 𝑣 , π‘₯ ⟩ βˆ’ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) ∣ π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 } . ( 2 . 7 )

Definition 2.4. The epigraph of a function 𝑔 ∢ ℝ 𝑛 β†’ ℝ βˆͺ { + ∞ } , e p i 𝑔 , is defined by e p i 𝑔 = { ( π‘₯ , π‘Ÿ ) ∈ ℝ 𝑛 Γ— ℝ ∣ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) ≦ π‘Ÿ } . ( 2 . 8 )

If 𝑔 is sublinear (i.e., convex and positively homogeneous of degree one), then πœ• πœ– 𝑔 ( 0 ) = πœ• 𝑔 ( 0 ) , for all πœ– ≧ 0 . If Μƒ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) = 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ π‘˜ , π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 , π‘˜ ∈ ℝ , then e p i Μƒ 𝑔 βˆ— = e p i 𝑔 βˆ— + ( 0 , π‘˜ ) . It is worth nothing that if 𝑔 is sublinear, then

e p i 𝑔 βˆ— = πœ• 𝑔 ( 0 ) Γ— ℝ + . ( 2 . 9 ) Moreover, if 𝑔 is sublinear and if Μƒ 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) = 𝑔 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ π‘˜ , π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 , and π‘˜ ∈ ℝ , then

e p i Μƒ 𝑔 βˆ— [ = πœ• 𝑔 ( 0 ) Γ— π‘˜ , ∞ ) . ( 2 . 1 0 )

Definition 2.5. Let 𝐢 be a closed convex set in ℝ 𝑛 and π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 .(1)Let 𝑁 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) = { 𝑣 ∈ ℝ 𝑛 ∣ ⟨ 𝑣 , 𝑦 βˆ’ π‘₯ ⟩ ≦ 0 , f o r a l l 𝑦 ∈ 𝐢 } . Then 𝑁 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) is called the normal cone to 𝐢 at π‘₯ .(2)Let πœ– ≧ 0 . Let 𝑁 πœ– 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) = { 𝑣 ∈ ℝ 𝑛 ∣ ⟨ 𝑣 , 𝑦 βˆ’ π‘₯ ⟩ ≦ πœ– , f o r a l l 𝑦 ∈ 𝐢 } . Then 𝑁 πœ– 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) is called the πœ– -normal set to 𝐢 at π‘₯ .(3)When 𝐢 is a closed convex cone in 𝑅 𝑛 , 𝑁 𝐢 ( 0 ) we denoted by 𝐢 βˆ— and called the negative dual cone of 𝐢 .

Proposition 2.6 (see [17, 18]). Let 𝑓 ∢ ℝ 𝑛 β†’ ℝ be a convex function and let 𝛿 𝐢 be the indicator function with respect to a closed convex subset C of ℝ 𝑛 , that is, 𝛿 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) = 0 if π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 , and 𝛿 𝐢 ( π‘₯ ) = + ∞ if π‘₯ βˆ‰ 𝐢 . Let πœ– ≧ 0 . Then πœ• πœ– ξ€· 𝑓 + 𝛿 𝐢 ξ€Έ ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ =  πœ– 0 1 ≧ 0 , πœ– ≧ 0 πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 = πœ– ξ€½ πœ• πœ– 0 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ + πœ• πœ– 1 𝛿 𝐢 ξ€· π‘₯ . ξ€Έ ξ€Ύ ( 2 . 1 1 )

Proposition 2.7 (see [7]). Let 𝑔 ∢ ℝ 𝑛 β†’ ℝ be a continuous convex function and let β„Ž ∢ ℝ 𝑛 β†’ ℝ βˆͺ { + ∞ } be a proper lower semicontinuous convex function. Then e p i ( 𝑔 + β„Ž ) βˆ— = e p i 𝑔 βˆ— + e p i β„Ž βˆ— . ( 2 . 1 2 )

Following the proof of Lemma 2 . 2 in [1], we can prove the following lemma.

Lemma 2.8. Let 𝐹 𝑖 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 , 𝑖 = 0 , 1 , … , π‘š . Suppose that 𝐴 β‰  βˆ… . Let 𝑒 ∈ ℝ π‘š and 𝛼 ∈ ℝ . Then the following are equivalent: ξƒ― ( 𝑖 ) π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 ∣ 𝐹 0 + π‘š  𝑖 = 1 𝐹 𝑖 π‘₯ 𝑖 ξƒ° βͺ° 0 βŠ‚ { π‘₯ ∈ ℝ π‘š ξ‚΅ 𝑒 𝛼 ξ‚Ά βŽ› ⎜ ⎜ ⎝  ∣ ⟨ 𝑒 , π‘₯ ⟩ ≧ 𝛼 } , ( 𝑖 𝑖 ) ∈ c l ( 𝑍 , 𝛿 ) ∈ 𝑆 Γ— ℝ +  𝐹 ξƒ―  βˆ— ξ€Ί ( 𝑍 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» βˆ’ 𝛿 ξƒͺ ξƒ° βˆ’ 𝐢 βˆ— Γ— ℝ + ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ . ( 2 . 1 3 )

3. πœ– -Duality Theorem

Now we give πœ– -duality theorems for SDP. Using Lemma 2.8, we can obtain the following lemma which is useful in proving our πœ– -strong duality theorems for SDP.

Lemma 3.1. Let π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 . Suppose that  ( 𝑍 , 𝛿 ) ∈ 𝑆 Γ— ℝ +  𝐹 ξƒ―  βˆ— ξ€Ί ( 𝑍 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» βˆ’ 𝛿 ξƒͺ ξƒ° βˆ’ 𝐢 βˆ— Γ— ℝ + ( 3 . 1 ) is closed. Then π‘₯ is an πœ– -approximate solution of SDP if and only if there exists 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 such that for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 , 𝑓 [ ] ξ€· ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ– . ( 3 . 2 )

Proof. ( β‡’ ) Let π‘₯ be an πœ– -approximate solution of SDP. Then 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ πœ– , for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 . Let β„Ž ( π‘₯ ) = 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) + πœ– . Then β„Ž ( π‘₯ ) + 𝛿 𝐴 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 0 , for any π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 . Thus we have, from Proposition 2.7, ξ€· 0 ∈ e p i β„Ž + 𝛿 𝐴 ξ€Έ βˆ— = e p i β„Ž βˆ— + e p i 𝛿 𝐴 βˆ— = e p i 𝑓 βˆ— + ξ€· ξ€· 0 , 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ– + e p i 𝛿 βˆ— 𝐴 , ( 3 . 3 ) and hence, ( 0 , πœ– βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ) ∈ e p i 𝑓 βˆ— + e p i 𝛿 βˆ— 𝐴 . So there exists ( 𝑒 , π‘Ÿ ) ∈ e p i 𝑓 βˆ— such that ( βˆ’ 𝑒 , πœ– βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ π‘Ÿ ) ∈ e p i 𝛿 𝐴 βˆ— and hence there exists ( 𝑒 , π‘Ÿ ) ∈ e p i 𝑓 βˆ— such that ⟨ βˆ’ 𝑒 , π‘₯ ⟩ ≦ πœ– βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ π‘Ÿ for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 . Since 𝑓 βˆ— ( 𝑒 ) ≦ π‘Ÿ , ⟨ βˆ’ 𝑒 , π‘₯ ⟩ ≦ πœ– βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ 𝑓 βˆ— ( 𝑒 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 ; and hence it follows from Lemma 2.8 that ξ‚΅ 𝑒 ξ€· βˆ’ πœ– + 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ + 𝑓 βˆ— ξ‚Ά ∈  ( 𝑒 ) ( 𝑍 , 𝛿 ) ∈ 𝑆 Γ— ℝ +  𝐹 ξƒ―  βˆ— ξ€Ί ( 𝑍 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» βˆ’ 𝛿 ξƒͺ ξƒ° βˆ’ 𝐢 βˆ— Γ— ℝ + . ( 3 . 4 ) Thus there exist ( 𝑍 , 𝛿 ) ∈ 𝑆 Γ— ℝ + , 𝑐 βˆ— ∈ 𝐢 βˆ— , and 𝛾 ∈ ℝ + such that  𝐹 𝑒 = βˆ— ( 𝑍 ) βˆ’ 𝑐 βˆ— , ξ€· βˆ’ πœ– + 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ + 𝑓 βˆ— ξ€Ί ( 𝑒 ) = βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» βˆ’ 𝛿 βˆ’ 𝛾 . ( 3 . 5 ) This gives   𝐹 βˆ— ξ‚­ ( 𝑍 ) , π‘₯ βˆ’ ⟨ 𝑐 βˆ— , π‘₯ ⟩ βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) = ⟨ 𝑒 , π‘₯ ⟩ βˆ’ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ≦ 𝑓 βˆ— ξ€Ί ( 𝑒 ) = βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» ξ€· βˆ’ 𝛿 βˆ’ 𝛾 βˆ’ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ + πœ– , ( 3 . 6 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ ℝ 𝑛 . Thus we have 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ€Ί βˆ’ πœ– ≦ βˆ’ ⟨ 𝑒 , π‘₯ ⟩ + 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€»   𝐹 βˆ’ 𝛿 βˆ’ 𝛾 = 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ βˆ— ξ‚­ ( 𝑍 ) , π‘₯ + ⟨ 𝑐 βˆ— ξ€Ί , π‘₯ ⟩ βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» [ ] βˆ’ 𝛿 βˆ’ 𝛾 = 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) + ⟨ 𝑐 βˆ— [ ] , π‘₯ ⟩ βˆ’ 𝛿 βˆ’ 𝛾 ≦ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ( 3 . 7 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 .
( ⟸ ) Suppose that there exists 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 such that
𝑓 [ ] ξ€· ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ– , ( 3 . 8 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 . Then we have 𝑓 [ ] ξ€· ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ– , ( 3 . 9 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 . Thus 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ πœ– , for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 . Hence π‘₯ is an πœ– -approximate solution of SDP.

Now we formulate the dual problem SDD of SDP as follows:

( S D D ) m a x i m i z e [ ] , 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) s u b j e c t t o 0 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0  𝐹 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ βˆ— ( 𝑍 ) + 𝑁 πœ– 1 𝐢 πœ– ( π‘₯ ) , 𝑍 βͺ° 0 , 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] . 0 , πœ– ( 3 . 1 0 ) We prove πœ– -weak and πœ– -strong duality theorems which hold between SDP and SDD.

Theorem 3.2 ( πœ– -weak duality). For any feasible solution π‘₯ of SDP and any feasible solution ( 𝑦 , 𝑍 ) of SDD, [ ] 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ πœ– . ( 3 . 1 1 )

Proof. Let π‘₯ and ( 𝑦 , 𝑍 ) be feasible solutions of SDP and SDD respectively. Then T r [ 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ] ≧ 0 and there exist 𝑣 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) and πœ” ∈ 𝑁 πœ– 1 𝐢 ( 𝑦 ) such that  𝐹 𝑣 = βˆ’ πœ” + βˆ— ( 𝑍 ) . Thus, we have [ ] 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ { 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) } ≧ ⟨ 𝑣 , π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑦 ⟩ βˆ’ πœ– 0 [ ] =   𝐹 + T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ πœ” + βˆ— ξ‚­ ( 𝑍 ) , π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑦 βˆ’ πœ– 0 [ ] ≧   𝐹 + T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ— ξ‚­ ( 𝑍 ) , π‘₯ βˆ’ 𝑦 βˆ’ πœ– 0 βˆ’ πœ– 1 [ ] =   𝐹 + T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ— ξ‚­ βˆ’   𝐹 ( 𝑍 ) , π‘₯ βˆ— ξ‚­ ( 𝑍 ) , 𝑦 βˆ’ πœ– 0 βˆ’ πœ– 1 [ ]  𝑍 + T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) = T r π‘š  𝑖 = 1 π‘₯ 𝑖 𝐹 𝑖 ξƒ­  𝑍 βˆ’ T r π‘š  𝑖 = 1 𝑦 𝑖 𝐹 𝑖 ξƒ­ βˆ’ πœ– 0 βˆ’ πœ– 1 ξ€Ί + T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€»  𝑍 + T r π‘š  𝑖 = 1 𝑦 𝑖 𝐹 𝑖 ξƒ­ [ ] = T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ πœ– 0 βˆ’ πœ– 1 ≧ βˆ’ πœ– 0 βˆ’ πœ– 1 ≧ βˆ’ πœ– . ( 3 . 1 2 ) Hence 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ T r [ 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) ] βˆ’ πœ– .

Theorem 3.3 ( πœ– -strong duality). Suppose that  ( 𝑍 , 𝛿 ) ∈ 𝑆 Γ— ℝ +  𝐹 ξƒ―  βˆ— ξ€Ί ( 𝑍 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 0 ξ€» βˆ’ 𝛿 ξƒͺ ξƒ° βˆ’ 𝐢 βˆ— Γ— ℝ + ( 3 . 1 3 ) is closed. If π‘₯ is an πœ– -approximate solution of SDP, then there exists 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 such that ( π‘₯ , 𝑍 ) is a 2 πœ– -approximate solution of SDD.

Proof. Let π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 be an πœ– -approximate solution of SDP. Then 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ πœ– , for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐴 . By Lemma 3.1, there exists 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 such that  𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r ξ‚„ ξ€· 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ≧ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ βˆ’ πœ– , ( 3 . 1 4 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 . Letting π‘₯ = π‘₯ in (3.14), T r [ 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ] ≦ πœ– . Since 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ∈ 𝑆 and 𝑍 ∈ 𝑆 , T r [ 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) ] ≧ 0 .
Thus from (3.14),
 𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r ξ‚„ ξ€· 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) + πœ– ≧ 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ  βˆ’ T r ξ€· 𝑍 𝐹 π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ‚„ ( 3 . 1 5 ) for any π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 . Hence π‘₯ is an πœ– -approximate solution of the following problem: m a x i m i z e  𝑓 ( π‘₯ ) βˆ’ T r ξ‚„ , 𝑍 𝐹 ( π‘₯ ) s u b j e c t t o π‘₯ ∈ 𝐢 , ( 3 . 1 6 ) and so, 0 ∈ πœ• πœ–  𝐹 ( 𝑓 βˆ’ βˆ— ( 𝑍 ) + 𝛿 𝐢 ) ( π‘₯ ) , and hence, by Proposition 2.6, there exist πœ– 0 , πœ– 1 ∈ [ 0 , πœ– ] such that πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 = πœ– and 0 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ βˆ’  𝐹 βˆ— ξ‚€ 𝑍  + 𝑁 πœ– 1 𝐢 ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ . ( 3 . 1 7 ) So, ( π‘₯ , 𝑍 ) is a feasible solution of SDD. For any feasible solution ( 𝑦 , 𝑍 ) of SDD, 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ ξ€Έ  βˆ’ T r ξ€· 𝑍 𝐹 π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ‚„ [ ] ξ€· βˆ’ { 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) } = 𝑓 π‘₯ ξ€Έ [ ] }  βˆ’ { 𝑓 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ T r 𝑍 𝐹 ( 𝑦 ) βˆ’ T r ξ€· 𝑍 𝐹 π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ‚„  ≧ βˆ’ πœ– βˆ’ T r ξ€· 𝑍 𝐹 π‘₯ ξ€Έ ξ‚„ ( b y πœ– - w e a k d u a l i t y ) ≧ βˆ’ πœ– βˆ’ πœ– = βˆ’ 2 πœ– . ( 3 . 1 8 ) Thus ( π‘₯ , 𝑍 ) is a 2 πœ– -approximate solution to SDD.

Now we characterize the πœ– -normal set to ℝ 𝑛 + .

Proposition 3.4. Let ( π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ∈ ℝ 𝑛 + and πœ– ≧ 0 . Then 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 𝑛 + ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ =  πœ– 𝑖 βˆ‘ ≧ 0 𝑛 𝑖 = 1 πœ– 𝑖 𝑛 = πœ–  𝑖 = 1 𝐴 ξ€· πœ– 𝑖 ξ€Έ , ( 3 . 1 9 ) where 𝐴 ξ€· πœ– 𝑖 ξ€Έ = ⎧ βŽͺ ⎨ βŽͺ ⎩ βˆ’ ℝ + i f π‘₯ 𝑖 ξ‚Έ βˆ’ πœ– = 0 , 𝑖 π‘₯ 𝑖 ξ‚Ή , 0 i f π‘₯ 𝑖 > 0 . ( 3 . 2 0 )

Proof. Let ( π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ) ∈ ℝ 𝑛 + and πœ– ≧ 0 . Then 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 𝑛 + ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ = πœ• πœ– 𝛿 ℝ 𝑛 + ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ = πœ• πœ–  𝑛  𝑖 = 1 𝛿 ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ Γ— ℝ + Γ— ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ ξƒͺ ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ =  πœ– 𝑖 βˆ‘ ≧ 0 𝑛 𝑖 = 1 πœ– 𝑖 𝑛 = πœ–  𝑖 = 1 πœ• πœ– 𝑖 𝛿 ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ Γ— ℝ + Γ— ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ . ( 3 . 2 1 ) Let ( 𝑣 1 , … , 𝑣 𝑛 ) ∈ πœ• πœ– 𝑖 𝛿 ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ Γ— ℝ + Γ— ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ ( π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ) (where ℝ + is at the 𝑖 th position in ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ Γ— ℝ + Γ— ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ ) ⟺ f o r a n y ξ€· 𝑦 1 , … , 𝑦 𝑛 ξ€Έ ∈ ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ Γ— ℝ + πœ– Γ— ℝ Γ— β‹― Γ— ℝ , 𝑖 ≧ 𝑣 1 ξ€· 𝑦 1 βˆ’ π‘₯ 1 ξ€Έ + β‹― + 𝑣 𝑖 ξ€· 𝑦 𝑖 βˆ’ π‘₯ 𝑖 ξ€Έ + β‹― + 𝑣 𝑛 ξ€· 𝑦 𝑛 βˆ’ π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ , ⟺ f o r a n y 𝑦 𝑖 ∈ ℝ + , πœ– 𝑖 ≧ 𝑣 𝑖 ξ€· 𝑦 𝑖 βˆ’ π‘₯ 𝑖 ξ€Έ , 𝑣 𝑗 = 0 , f o r 𝑗 ∈ { 1 , … , 𝑛 } β§΅ { 𝑖 } , ⟺ 𝑣 𝑖 ∈ ⎧ βŽͺ ⎨ βŽͺ ⎩ βˆ’ ℝ + , i f π‘₯ 𝑖 ξ‚Έ βˆ’ πœ– = 0 , 𝑖 π‘₯ 𝑖 ξ‚Ή , , 0 i f π‘₯ 𝑖 𝑣 > 0 , 𝑗 = 0 f o r 𝑗 ∈ { 1 , … , 𝑛 } β§΅ { 𝑖 } . ( 3 . 2 2 ) Thus, we have 𝑁 πœ– 1 ℝ 𝑛 + ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , … , π‘₯ 𝑛 ξ€Έ =  πœ– 𝑖 βˆ‘ ≧ 0 𝑛 𝑖 = 1 πœ– 𝑖 𝑛 = πœ–  𝑖 = 1 ξ€· πœ– { 0 } Γ— β‹― Γ— { 0 } Γ— 𝐴 𝑖 ξ€Έ =  Γ— { 0 } Γ— β‹― Γ— { 0 } πœ– 𝑖 βˆ‘ ≧ 0 𝑛 𝑖 = 1 πœ– 𝑖 𝑛 = πœ–  𝑖 = 1 𝐴 ξ€· πœ– 𝑖 ξ€Έ . ( 3 . 2 3 )

From Proposition 3.4, we can calculate 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 2 + .

Corollary 3.5. Let ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) ∈ ℝ 2 + and πœ– ≧ 0 . Then following hold. (i)If ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) = ( 0 , 0 ) , then 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 2 + ( 0 , 0 ) = βˆ’ ℝ 2 + . (ii)If ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) = ( π‘₯ 1 , 0 ) and π‘₯ 1 > 0 , then 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 2 + ( π‘₯ 1 , 0 ) = [ βˆ’ πœ– / π‘₯ 1 , 0 ] Γ— ( βˆ’ ∞ , 0 ] . (iii)If ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) = ( 0 , π‘₯ 2 ) and π‘₯ 2 > 0 , then 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 2 + ( 0 , π‘₯ 2 ) = ( βˆ’ ∞ , 0 ] Γ— [ βˆ’ πœ– / π‘₯ 2 , 0 ] . (iv)If ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) = ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) , and π‘₯ 1 > 0 and π‘₯ 2 > 0 , then 𝑁 πœ– ℝ 2 + ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ =  πœ– 1 ≧ 0 , πœ– 2 πœ– ≧ 0 , 1 + πœ– 2 = πœ– ξ‚Έ βˆ’ πœ– 1 π‘₯ 1 ξ‚Ή Γ— ξ‚Έ βˆ’ πœ– , 0 2 π‘₯ 2 ξ‚Ή . , 0 ( 3 . 2 4 )

Now we give an example illustrating our πœ– -duality theorems.

Example 3.6. Consider the following convex semidefinite program. ( S D P ) M i n i m i z e π‘₯ 1 + π‘₯ 2 2 , s u b j e c t t o ξ‚΅ 0 π‘₯ 1 π‘₯ 1 0 ξ‚Ά ξ€· π‘₯ βͺ° 0 , 1 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ ∈ ℝ 2 + . ( 3 . 2 5 ) Let 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) = π‘₯ 1 + π‘₯ 2 2 , 𝐹 0 = ξ‚΅ ξ‚Ά 0 0 0 0 , 𝐹 1 = ξ‚΅ ξ‚Ά 0 1 1 0 , 𝐹 2 = ξ‚΅ ξ‚Ά , 0 0 0 0 ( 3 . 2 6 ) and πœ– ≧ 0. Let 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) = π‘₯ 1 + π‘₯ 2 2 and 𝐹 ξ€· π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ = ξ‚΅ 0 π‘₯ 1 π‘₯ 1 0 ξ‚Ά . ( 3 . 2 7 ) Then 𝐴 ∢ = { ( 0 , π‘₯ 2 ) ∈ ℝ 2 ∣ π‘₯ 2 ≧ 0 } is the set of all feasible solutions of SDP and the set of all πœ– -approximate solutions of SDP is { ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) ∈ ℝ 2 ∣ π‘₯ 1 = 0 , 0 ≦ π‘₯ 2 ≦ √ πœ– } . Let 𝐹 = { ( ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) , 𝑍 ) ∣ 0 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0 𝑓 ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2  𝐹 ) βˆ’ βˆ— ( 𝑍 ) + 𝑁 πœ– 1 ℝ 2 + ( π‘₯ 1 , π‘₯ 2 ) , 𝑍 ≽ 0 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ 0 , πœ– ] } . Then 𝐹 is the set of all feasible solution of SDD. Now we calculate the set 𝐹 .  ξ‚΅ 𝐴 ∢ = ξ‚» ξ‚΅ ( 0 , 0 ) , π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ 0 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0  𝐹 𝑓 ( 0 , 0 ) βˆ’ βˆ— ξ‚΅ ξ‚Ά π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 + 𝑁 πœ– 1 ℝ 2 + ( 0 , 0 ) , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξ‚΅  √ 0 , πœ– ξ‚» ξ‚΅ ( 0 , 0 ) , π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ 0 ∈ { 1 } Γ— βˆ’ 2 πœ– 0 √ , 2 πœ– 0 ξ‚„ βˆ’ ( 2 𝑏 , 0 ) βˆ’ ℝ 2 + , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξ‚΅ ] Γ— ξ‚€ √ 0 , πœ– ξ‚» ξ‚΅ ( 0 , 0 ) , π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ ( 2 𝑏 , 0 ) ∈ ( βˆ’ ∞ , 1 βˆ’ ∞ , 2 πœ– 0 ξ‚„ , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξ‚΅ 1 0 , πœ– ξ‚» ξ‚΅ ( 0 , 0 ) , π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 ≦ 2 , 𝑏 2 ξ‚Ό ,  ξ€· ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 𝐡 ∢ = ξ‚» ξ‚΅ 0 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ , ξ‚΅ π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ π‘₯ 2 > 0 , 0 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0 𝑓 ξ€· 0 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ βˆ’  𝐹 βˆ— ξ‚΅ ξ‚Ά π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 + 𝑁 πœ– 1 ℝ 2 + ξ€· 0 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξ€· 0 , πœ– ξ‚» ξ‚΅ 0 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ , ξ‚΅ π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ π‘₯ 2  > 0 , 0 ∈ { 1 } Γ— 2 π‘₯ 2 √ βˆ’ 2 πœ– 0 , 2 π‘₯ 2 √ + 2 πœ– 0 ξ‚„ ] Γ— ξ‚Έ βˆ’ πœ– βˆ’ ( 2 𝑏 , 0 ) + ( βˆ’ ∞ , 0 1 π‘₯ 2 ξ‚Ή , 0 , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξ€· 0 , πœ– ξ‚» ξ‚΅ 0 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ , ξ‚΅ π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ π‘₯ 2 ] Γ— ξ‚Έ > 0 , ( 2 𝑏 , 0 ) ∈ ( βˆ’ ∞ , 1 2 π‘₯ 2 βˆ’ πœ– 1 π‘₯ 2 √ βˆ’ 2 πœ– 0 , 2 π‘₯ 2 √ + 2 πœ– 0 ξ‚Ή , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξƒ― ξ‚΅ ξ€· 0 , πœ– 0 , π‘₯ 2 ξ€Έ , ξ‚΅ π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ 0 < π‘₯ 2 ≦ √ πœ– 0 + √ πœ– 0 + 2 πœ– 1 2 1 , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 ≦ 2 , 𝑏 2 πœ– ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ ,  ξ€· π‘₯ 0 , πœ– 𝐢 ∢ = ξ‚» ξ‚΅ 1 ξ€Έ , ξ‚΅ , 0 π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ π‘₯ 1 > 0 , 0 ∈ πœ• πœ– 0 𝑓 ξ€· π‘₯ 1 ξ€Έ βˆ’  𝐹 , 0 βˆ— ξ‚΅ ξ‚Ά π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 + 𝑁 πœ– 1 ℝ 2 + ξ€· π‘₯ 1 ξ€Έ , , 0 π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ– 0 + πœ– 1 ∈ [ ] ⎫ βŽͺ ⎬ βŽͺ ⎭ = ξ€· π‘₯ 0 , πœ– ξ‚» ξ‚΅ 1 ξ€Έ , ξ‚΅ , 0 π‘Ž 𝑏 𝑏 𝑐 ξ‚Ά ξ‚Ά ∣ π‘₯ 1  √ > 0 , 0 ∈ { 1 } Γ— βˆ’ 2 πœ– 0 √ , + 2 πœ– 0 ξ‚„ + ξ‚Έ βˆ’ πœ– βˆ’ ( 2 𝑏 , 0 ) 1 π‘₯ 1 ξ‚Ή ] , 0 Γ— ( βˆ’ ∞ , 0 , π‘Ž ≧ 0 , 𝑐 ≧ 0 , 𝑏 2 ≦ π‘Ž 𝑐 , πœ–