Global Convergence of Curve Search Methods for Unconstrained Optimization ()
Received 20 December 2015; accepted 25 April 2016; published 28 April 2016

1. Introduction
Line search method is an important and mature technique in solving an unconstrained minimization problem
(1)
where
is an n-dimensional Euclidean space and
is a continuously differentiable function. It takes the form
(2)
where
is a descent direction of
at
and
is a step size to satisfy the descent condition
(3)
One hopes that
generated by line search method converges to the minimizer
of (1) in some sense. Let
be the current iterate. We denote
by
,
by
, and
by
, respectively.
At the k-th iteration of line search methods, one first chooses a search direction and then seeks a step size along the search direction and completes one iteration (see [1] ). The search direction
is generally required to satisfy
(4)
which guarantees that
is a descent direction of
at
(e.g. [2] [3] ). In order to guarantee the global convergence, we sometimes require
to satisfy the sufficient descent condition
(5)
where
is a constant. Moreover, the angle testing condition is commonly used in proving the global convergence of related line search methods, that is
(6)
where
.
In line search methods we try to find an
to reduce
over the ray
at the k- th iteration, while curve search method is to define the next iterate on the curve
![]()
where
and
means that
is continuously differentiable on
. It is obvious that line search method is a special one of curve search methods. In other words, curve search method is a generalization of line search methods.
McCormick [4] and Israel Zang [5] proposed an arc method for mathematical programming, which is actually a special one of curve search methods. Similarly as in line search methods, how to choose a curve at each iteration is the key to using curve search methods.
Botsaris [6] - [9] studied differential gradient method (abbreviated as ODE method) for unconstrained minimi- zation problems. It is required to solve differential equations at the k-th iteration
![]()
or to solve
![]()
where
and
The ODE method has been investigated by many researchers (e.g. [10] - [14] ) and is essentially a curve search method.
However, it is required to solve some initial-value problems of ordinary differential equations to define the curves in ODE methods. Some other curve search methods with memory gradient have also been investigated and been proved to be a kind of promising methods for large-scale unconstrained optimization problems (see [15] [16] ). Other literature on curve search methods have appeared in the literature [17] - [19] . To the best of our knowledge, the unified form of curve search methods has rarely been studied in present literature. It is necessary to study the general scheme of curve search methods and its global convergence.
In this paper we present a new family of curve search methods for unconstrained minimization problems and prove their global convergence and linear convergence rate under some mild conditions. These method are based on searching a new iterate along a curve at each iteration, while line search methods are based on finding a new iterate on a line starting from the current iterate at each iteration. Many curve search rules proposed in the paper can guarantee the global convergence and linear convergence rate of these curve search methods. Some implementable version of curve search methods are presented and numerical results show that some curve search methods are stable, useful and efficient in solving large scale minimization problems.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the curve search methods. In Sections 3 and 4 we analyze its global convergence and linear convergence rate respectively. In Section 5 we report some techniques for choosing the curves and conduct some numerical experiments. And finally some conclusion remarks are given in Section 6.
2. Curve Search Method
We first assume that
(H1). The objective function
is continuously differentiable on
and the level set
is bounded, where
is given.
(H1'). The gradient
of
is Lipschitz continuous on an open bounded convex set B that contains the level set
, i.e., there exists
such that
![]()
Definition 2.1. Let
be the current iterate and B be an open bounded convex set that contains
. We define a curve within B through
as follows
![]()
where
and
is continuously differentiable on
with
and
.
Definition 2.2. We call the one-dimensional function
a forcing function if
![]()
where ![]()
It is obvious that the addition, the multiplication and the composite function of two forcing functions are also forcing functions.
In order to guarantee the global convergence of curve search methods, we suppose that the initial descent direction
and the curve
satisfies the following assumption.
(H2). The search curve sequence
satisfies
![]()
![]()
where
and
are forcing functions.
Remark 1. In fact, if there exist
and
such that
and
![]()
where
then the curve sequence
satisfies (H2).
This kind of curves are easy to find. For example,
![]()
are curves that satisfy (H2) and so are the following curves
![]()
(for
), provided that
and
are bounded for all
.
Remark 2. If
is twice continuously differentiable and there exist M and
such that
and
for all
, then the curve sequence
satisfies (H2) be-
cause of
![]()
and
![]()
Remark 3. In line search methods, if we let
and
be bounded for all k, then
satisfies (H2). As a result, line search method is a special one of curve search methods and its convergence can be derived from the convergence of curve search methods.
In the sequel, we describe the curve search method.
Algorithm (A).
Step 0. Choose
and set
.
Step 1. If
then stop else go to Step 2;
Step 2. Let
be defined by Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (4). Set
where
is selected by some curve search rule;
Step 3. Set
and go to Step 1.
Once the initial descent direction
and the search curve
are determined at the k-th iteration, we need to seek a step size
such that
![]()
For convenience, let
satisfy (4). There are several curve search rules as follows.
(a) Exact Curve Search Rule. Select an
to satisfy
(7)
(b) Approximate Exact Curve Search Rule. Select
to satisfy
(8)
(c) Armijo-type Curve Search Rule. Set
,
,
and
. Choose ![]()
to be the largest
in
such that
(9)
(d) Limited Exact Curve Search Rule. Set
and
. Choose
to satisfy
(10)
(e) Goldstein-type Curve Search Rule. Set
Choose
to satisfy
(11)
(f) Strong Wolfe-type Curve Search Rule. Set
and
. Choose
to satisfy simul- taneously
(12)
and
(13)
(g) Wolfe-type Curve Search Rule. Set
and
. Choose
to satisfy simultaneously
(12) and
(14)
Lemma 2.1. Let
be defined in Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (4). Assumptions (H1) and (H2) hold and let
. Then
![]()
where
is a forcing function.
Proof. Assumption (H1) and Definition 2.1 imply that
is uniformly continuous on B and thus, there exist
and a forcing function
such that
(15)
By (H2), Definition 2.1 and (15), noting that
and
, we have
![]()
□
Lemma 2.2. If (H1) holds and
is defined by Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (4), then
is well defined in the seven curve search rules.
Proof. Let
. Obviously
,
. The following limit
![]()
implies that there exists
such that
![]()
Thus
![]()
which shows that the curve search rules (a), (b), (c) and (d) are well-defined.
In the following we prove that the curve search rules (e), (f) and (g) are also well-defined.
For the curve search rule (e), (H1) and
![]()
imply that the curve
and the line
must have an intersection point
and thus
![]()
which shows that the curve search rule (e) is well-defined.
For the curve search rules (f) and (g), (H1) and
![]()
imply that the curve
and the line
must have an intersection point and suppose that
is not the origin (0,0) but the nearest intersection point to (0,0). Thus
(16)
and
(17)
where
. Using the mean value theorem, there exists
such that
![]()
By (16) we have
![]()
and thus,
![]()
Therefore,
(18)
Obviously, it follows from (17) and (18) that
satisfies (12) and (14) (also satisfies (12) and (13)). This shows that the curve search rules (f) and (g) are well-defined.
□
3. Global Convergence
Theorem 3.1. Assume that (H1), (H1') and (H2) hold,
is defined by Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (5) and
(19)
where
is a constant. If
is defined by the curve search rules (a), (b), (c) or (d) and Algorithm (A) generates an infinite sequence
, then
![]()
Proof. Using reduction to absurdity, suppose that there exist an infinite subset
and an
such that
(20)
(H1) implies that
has a bound, say
, i.e.,
, and thus ![]()
Let
![]()
In the case of
, for the curve search rule (c), there must exist
such that
(21)
because of
![]()
By (9) and (21) we have
![]()
By (H1) we can obtain
![]()
which contradicts (20).
In the case of
, there must exist an infinite subset
such that
(22)
Therefore, for sufficiently large
,
implies that
and
![]()
Using the mean value theorem on the left-hand side of the above inequality, there exists
such that
![]()
and thus
![]()
Hence
(23)
By (22), (23) and Lemma 2.1, we have
![]()
which also contradicts (20).
In fact, we can prove that
for the curve search rule (c). If
then there exists an infinite subset
such that (22) holds and thus, (23) holds. By (19), (5), (H1'), the mean value theorem, (H2) and (22), we have
![]()
This contradiction shows that
.
For the curve search rules (a), (b) and (d), since
for the curve search rule (c), let
be the step size defined by the three curve search rules (a), (b) and (d), and let
be the step size defined by the curve search rule (c), then we have
![]()
This and (H1) imply that
![]()
holds for the curve search rules (a), (b) and (d), which contradicts (20). The conclusion is proved.
□
Theorem 3.2. Assume that (H1) and (H2) hold,
is defined by Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (5) and (19),
is defined by the curve search rules (e), (f) or (g). Algorithm (A) generates an infinite sequence
. Then
![]()
Proof. Using reduction to absurdity, suppose that there exist an infinite subset
and an
such that (20) holds and let
![]()
For the curve search rules (e), (f) and (g), in the case of
, by (11), (12) and (5), we have
![]()
By (H1) we have
![]()
which contradicts (20).
In the case of
, there must exist an infinite subset
such that (22) holds. For the curve search rule (e), by the left-hand side inequality of (11) and using the mean value theorem, there exists
such that
![]()
Thus
(24)
By (22), (24) and Lemma 2.1, we have
![]()
which contradicts (20). For the curve search rules (f) and (g), by (14), (22) and Lemma 2.1, we have
![]()
which also contradicts (20).
The conclusions are proved.
□
Corollary 3.1. Assume that (H1), (H1') and (H2) hold,
is defined by Definition 2.1 with
satisfying (5) and (19),
is defined by the curve search rules (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g), and Algorithm Model (A) generates an infinite sequence
. Then
![]()
Proof. By Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, we can complete the proof.
□
4. Convergence Rate
In order to analyze the convergence rate, we further assume that
(H3). The sequence
generated by curve search method converges to
,
is a symmetric
positive definite matrix and
is twice continuously differentiable on
, where
.
Lemma 4.1. Assume that (H3) holds. Then there exist
and
such that
(25)
(26)
(27)
and thus
(28)
By (28) and (27) we can obtain, from the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality , that
(29)
and
(30)
Its proof can be seen from the book ( [3] , Lemma 3.1.4).
Lemma 4.2. Assume that (H2) and (H3) hold and
is defined by Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (5) and (19). Algorithm (A) generates an infinite sequence
. Then there exist
and
such that
(31)
Proof. We first prove that (31) holds for the curve search rules (c), (e), (f) and (g), and then we can prove (31) also holds for the curve search rules (a), (b) and (d).
By (9), (11), (12) and (5), we have
(32)
Since
, there must exist a
such that
(33)
By (4), Cauchy Schwartz inequality and (19), we have
(34)
Let
![]()
If
then the conclusion is proved. If
there must exist an infinite subset
such that
![]()
Letting
![]()
for (23),
![]()
for (24) and
![]()
for (13), we have
(35)
By (35), (23), (24), (14), (34) and Lemma 2.1, we have
![]()
The contradiction shows that
does not occur and thus
. By letting
, where
(36)
we can obtain the conclusion.
For the curve search rules (a), (b) and (d), let
denote the exact step size and
denote the step size generated by the curve search rule (c). By the previous proof, we have
![]()
All the conclusions are proved.
□
Theorem 4.1. Assume that (H2) and (H3) hold and
is defined by Definition 2.1 and
satisfies (5) and (19). Algorithm (A) generates an infinite sequence
. Then
converges to
at least R-linearly.
Proof. By Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 we obtain
![]()
By setting
![]()
we can prove that
In fact, by the definition of
in the proof of Lemma 4.2 and (36), we obtain
![]()
By setting
![]()
and knowing
, we obtain from the above inequality that
![]()
By Lemma 4.1 and the above inequality we have
![]()
thus
![]()
i.e.,
![]()
Therefore,
![]()
which shows that
converges to
at least R-linearly.
□
5. Some Implementable Version
5.1. How to Find Curves
In order to find some curves satisfying Definition 2.1 and (H2), we first investigate the slope and curvature of a curve. Given a curve
satisfying
, if it is twice continuously differentiable, then the slope of the curve at
is
and the curvature is
. We hope that the curve is a descent curve at
, i.e.
. Generally, we require
to satisfy
![]()
where
and
. Moreover, we expect the curves to satisfy
![]()
It is worthy to point out that many convergence properties of curve search methods remain hold for line search method. In fact, the line
satisfies Definition 2.1 and (H2), provided that
is bounded for
For example, we take
with
(37)
where m is a positive integer and
![]()
We can prove that
satisfies Definition 2.1 and (H2) under some mild conditions. Numerical results showed that the curve search method was more efficient than some line search methods [16] .
Another curve search method is from [15] with the curve defined by
where
(38)
and
(39)
This curve also satisfies Definition 2.1 and (H2) with
satisfying (5) under certain conditions and has good numerical performance.
Moreover, many researchers take
![]()
and
satisfies (4) [20] . Certainly, we can obtain some curves by solving initial problems or boundary- value problems of ordinary differential equations and sometimes by using interpolation technique. Lucidi, Ferris and Roma proposed a curvilinear truncated Newton method which uses the curve
![]()
with
being the quasi-Newton direction and
being the steepest descent direction. This method also has good numerical performance [18] [19] because it reduces to quasi-Newton method finally and avoids some disadvantages of quasi-Newton method at the initial iterations. We guess that there may be many curve search methods which are superior to line search methods in numerical performance.
For example, if we take
and suppose that
and
are uniformly bounded for k, then the following curve
![]()
satisfies (H2), provided that
is bounded. In the following we shall test some curve search methods.
5.2. Numerical Experiments
In this subsection, some numerical reports are prisented for some implementable curve search methods. First of all, we consider some curve search methods with memory gradients. The first curve search method is based on the curve
(40)
The second curve search method is to use the curve
(41)
and the third curve search method searches along the curve at each iteration
(42)
We use respectively the Armijo curve search rule and the Wolfe curve search rule to the above three curves to find a step size at each step. Test problems 21 - 35 and their initial iterative points are from the literature [21] . For example, Problem 21 stands for the problem 21 in the literature and so on.
In the curve search rules (c) and (g) we set the parameters
and
. Numerical performance of the three curve search methods is reported in Table 1 and a pair of numbers means that the first number denotes the number of iterations and the second number denotes the number of functional evaluations. “P” stands for problems, n is the dimension of problems and T denotes total CPU time for solving all the 15 problems. We denote A1, A2 and A3 the curve search methods with the curves (40), (41) and (42) respectively. A1(c) and A1(g) means the A1 algorithm with the curve search rule (c) and the A1 algorithm with
![]()
Table 1. Iterations and function evaluations.
the curve search rule (g) respectively, and so on. The stop criteria is
![]()
It is shown in Table 1 that curve search methods with memory gradients converge to the optimal solutions stably and averagely. In addition, curve search methods with the Wolfe curve search rule are superior to the methods with the Armijo curve search rule. This shows that L = 1 seems to be an inadequate choice in the Armijo curve search rule and we can take L variably at each step similarly as in the literature [16] .
Moreover, many line search methods may fail to converge when solving some practical problems, especially when solving large scale problems, while curve search methods with memory gradients always converge stably. From this point of view, we guess that some curve search methods are available and promising for optimization problems.
6. Conclusions
Some curve search methods have good numerical performance and are superior to the line search methods to certain extent. This motivates us to investigate the general convergence properties of these promising methods.
In this paper we presented a class of curve search methods for unconstrained minimization problems and proved its global convergence and convergence rate under some mild conditions. Curve search method is a generalization of line search methods but it has wider choices than line search methods. Several curve search rules were proposed and some approaches to choose the curves were presented. The idea of curve search methods enables us to find some more efficient methods for minimization problems. Furthermore, numerical results showed that some curve search methods were stable, available and efficient in solving some large scale problems.
For the future research, we should investigate more techniques for choosing search curves that contain the information of objective functions and find more curve search rules for the curve search method.