summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats log msg author committer range
blob: 35398c36ed15408f4ec8a274e84013804b04fc24 (plain)
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658  \chapter{Nelder-Mead method} In this chapter, we present Nelder and Mead's \cite{citeulike:3009487} algorithm. We begin by the analysis of the algorithm, which is based on a variable shape simplex. Then, we present geometric situations where the various steps of the algorithm are used. In the third part, we present the rate of convergence toward the optimum of the Nelder-Mead algorithm. This part is mainly based on Han and Neumann's paper \cite{HanNeumann2006}, which makes use of a class of quadratic functions with a special initial simplex. The core of this chapter is the analysis of several numerical experiments which have been performed with the neldermead component. We analyze the behavior of the algorithm on quadratic functions and present several counter examples where the Nelder-Mead algorithm is known to fail. \section{Introduction} In this section, we present the Nelder-Mead algorithm for unconstrained optimization. This algorithm is based on the iterative update of a simplex. Then we present various geometric situations which might occur during the algorithm. \subsection{Overview} The goal of the Nelder and Mead algorithm is to solve the following unconstrained optimization problem \begin{eqnarray} \min f(\bx) \end{eqnarray} where $\bx\in \RR^n$, $n$ is the number of optimization parameters and $f$ is the objective function $f:\RR^n\rightarrow \RR$. The Nelder-Mead method is an improvement over the Spendley's et al. method with the goal of allowing the simplex to vary in \emph{shape}, and not only in \emph{size}, as in Spendley's et al. algorithm. This algorithms is based on the iterative update of a \emph{simplex} made of $n+1$ points $S=\{\bv_i\}_{i=1,n+1}$. Each point in the simplex is called a \emph{vertex} and is associated with a function value $f_i=f(\bv_i)$ for $i=1,n+1$. The vertices are sorted by increasing function values so that the \emph{best} vertex has index 1 and the \emph{worst} vertex has index $n+1$ \begin{eqnarray} \label{sorted-vertices-fv} f_1 \leq f_2 \leq \ldots \leq f_n \leq f_{n+1}. \end{eqnarray} The $\bv_1$ vertex (resp. the $\bv_{n+1}$ vertex) is called the \emph{best} vertex (resp. \emph{worst}), because it is associated with the lowest (resp. highest) function value. The centroid of the simplex $\overline{\bx} (j)$ is the center of the vertices where the vertex $\bv_j$ has been excluded. This centroid is \begin{eqnarray} \label{centroid-generalized} \overline{\bx} (j) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1,n+1, i\neq j} \bv_i. \end{eqnarray} The algorithm makes use of one coefficient $\rho>0$, called the reflection factor. The standard value of this coefficient is $\rho=1$. The algorithm attempts to replace some vertex $\bv_j$ by a new vertex $\bx(\rho,j)$ on the line from the vertex $\bv_j$ to the centroid $\overline{\bx}(j)$. The new vertex $\bx(\rho,j)$ is defined by \begin{eqnarray} \label{interpolate-generalized} \bx(\rho,j) = (1+\rho)\overline{\bx}(j) - \rho \bv_j. \end{eqnarray} \subsection{Algorithm} In this section, we analyze the Nelder-Mead algorithm, which is presented in figure \ref{algo-neldermead}. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{algorithmic} \STATE Compute an initial simplex $S_0$ \STATE Sorts the vertices $S_0$ with increasing function values \STATE $S\gets S_0$ \WHILE{$\sigma(S)>tol$} \STATE $\overline{x}\gets \overline{x}(n+1)$ \STATE $x_r \gets x(\rho,n+1)$ \COMMENT{Reflect} \STATE $f_r \gets f(x_r)$ \IF {$f_r0, \qquad \chi > 1, \qquad \chi > \rho, \qquad 0<\gamma<1 \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad 0<\sigma<1. \end{eqnarray} The standard values for these coefficients are \begin{eqnarray} \label{standard-coeffs} \rho=1, \qquad \chi =2, \qquad \gamma=\frac{1}{2} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \sigma=\frac{1}{2}. \end{eqnarray} In \cite{Kelley1999}, the Nelder-Mead algorithm is presented with other parameter names, that is$\mu_r = \rho$,$\mu_e = \rho\chi$,$\mu_{ic} = -\gamma$and$\mu_{oc} = \rho\gamma$. These coefficients must satisfy the following inequality \begin{eqnarray} -1 < \mu_{ic} < 0 < \mu_{oc} < \mu_r < \mu_e. \end{eqnarray} At each iteration, we compute the centroid$\overline{\bx} (n+1)$where the worst vertex$\bv_{n+1}$has been excluded. This centroid is \begin{eqnarray} \label{centroid-worst} \overline{\bx} (n+1) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1,n} \bv_i. \end{eqnarray} We perform a reflection with respect to the worst vertex$\bv_{n+1}$, which creates the reflected point$\bx_r$defined by \begin{eqnarray} \label{interpolate-worst} \bx_r = \bx(\rho,n+1) = (1+\rho)\overline{\bx}(n+1) - \rho \bv_{n+1} \end{eqnarray} We then compute the function value of the reflected point as$f_r=f(\bx_r)$. From that point, there are several possibilities, which are listed below. Most steps try to replace the worst vertex$\bv_{n+1}$by a better point, which is computed depending on the context. \begin{itemize} \item In the case where$f_rcomputeroots1 ( 10 ) Polynomial for outside contraction : 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 - 3x - 3x - 3x - 3x - 3x - 3x - 3x - 3x - 3x + 20x Roots : Root #1/10 |0.5822700+%i*0.7362568|=0.938676 Root #2/10 |0.5822700-%i*0.7362568|=0.938676 Root #3/10 |-0.5439060+%i*0.7651230|=0.938747 Root #4/10 |-0.5439060-%i*0.7651230|=0.938747 Root #5/10 |0.9093766+%i*0.0471756|=0.910599 Root #6/10 |0.9093766-%i*0.0471756|=0.910599 Root #7/10 |0.0191306+%i*0.9385387|=0.938734 Root #8/10 |0.0191306-%i*0.9385387|=0.938734 Root #9/10 |-0.8918713+%i*0.2929516|=0.938752 Root #10/10 |-0.8918713-%i*0.2929516|=0.938752 Polynomial for inside contraction : 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - 10 - x - x - x - x - x - x - x - x - x + 20x Roots : Root #1/10 |0.7461586+%i*0.5514088|=0.927795 Root #2/10 |0.7461586-%i*0.5514088|=0.927795 Root #3/10 |-0.2879931+%i*0.8802612|=0.926175 Root #4/10 |-0.2879931-%i*0.8802612|=0.926175 Root #5/10 |-0.9260704|=0.926070 Root #6/10 |0.9933286|=0.993329 Root #7/10 |0.2829249+%i*0.8821821|=0.926440 Root #8/10 |0.2829249-%i*0.8821821|=0.926440 Root #9/10 |-0.7497195+%i*0.5436596|=0.926091 Root #10/10 |-0.7497195-%i*0.5436596|=0.926091 Polynomial for reflection : 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 - 2x - 2x - 2x - 2x - 2x - 2x - 2x - 2x - 2x + 10x Roots : Root #1/10 |0.6172695+%i*0.7867517|=1.000000 Root #2/10 |0.6172695-%i*0.7867517|=1.000000 Root #3/10 |-0.5801834+%i*0.8144859|=1.000000 Root #4/10 |-0.5801834-%i*0.8144859|=1.000000 Root #5/10 |0.9946011+%i*0.1037722|=1.000000 Root #6/10 |0.9946011-%i*0.1037722|=1.000000 Root #7/10 |0.0184670+%i*0.9998295|=1.000000 Root #8/10 |0.0184670-%i*0.9998295|=1.000000 Root #9/10 |-0.9501543+%i*0.3117800|=1.000000 Root #10/10 |-0.9501543-%i*0.3117800|=1.000000 \end{verbatim} \end{small} The following Scilab script allows to compute the minimum and the maximum of the modulus of the roots. The "e" option of the "roots" command has been used to force the use of the eigenvalues of the companion matrix as the computational method. The default algorithm, based on the Jenkins-Traub Rpoly method is generating a convergence error and cannot be used in this case. \lstset{language=scilabscript} \begin{lstlisting} function [rminoc , rmaxoc , rminic , rmaxic] = computeroots1_abstract ( n ) // Polynomial for outside contraction : // n - 3x - ... - 3x^(n-1) + 2n x^(n) = 0 coeffs = zeros(1,n+1); coeffs(1) = n coeffs(2:n) = -3 coeffs(n+1) = 2 * n p=poly(coeffs,"x","coeff") r = roots(p , "e") rminoc = min(abs(r)) rmaxoc = max(abs(r)) // Polynomial for inside contraction : // - n - x - ... - x^(n-1) + 2n x^(n)= 0 coeffs = zeros(1,n+1); coeffs(1) = -n coeffs(2:n) = -1 coeffs(n+1) = 2 * n p=poly(coeffs,"x","coeff") r = roots(p , "e") rminic = min(abs(r)) rmaxic = max(abs(r)) mprintf("%d & %f & %f & %f & %f\\\\\n", n, rminoc, rmaxoc, rminic, rmaxic) endfunction function drawfigure1 ( nbmax ) rminoctable = zeros(1,nbmax) rmaxoctable = zeros(1,nbmax) rminictable = zeros(1,nbmax) rmaxictable = zeros(1,nbmax) for n = 1 : nbmax [rminoc , rmaxoc , rminic , rmaxic] = computeroots1_abstract ( n ) rminoctable ( n ) = rminoc rmaxoctable ( n ) = rmaxoc rminictable ( n ) = rminic rmaxictable ( n ) = rmaxic end plot2d ( 1:nbmax , [ rminoctable' , rmaxoctable' , rminictable' , rmaxictable' ] ) f = gcf(); f.children.title.text = "Nelder-Mead characteristic equation roots"; f.children.x_label.text = "Number of variables (n)"; f.children.y_label.text = "Roots of the characteristic equation"; captions(f.children.children.children,["R-max-IC","R-min-IC","R-max-OC","R-min-OC"]); f.children.children(1).legend_location="in_lower_right"; for i = 1:4 mypoly = f.children.children(2).children(i); mypoly.foreground=i; mypoly.line_style=i; end xs2png(0,"neldermead-roots.png"); endfunction \end{lstlisting} For the reflection characteristic equation, the roots all have a unity modulus. The minimum and maximum roots of the inside contraction ("ic" in the table) and outside contraction ("oc" in the table) steps are presented in table \ref{table-nm-roots-table}. These roots are presented graphically in figure \ref{fig-nm-roots}. We see that the roots start from 0.5 when $n=1$ and converge rapidly toward 1 when $n\rightarrow \infty$. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} \begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline $n$ & $\min_{i=1,n}\mu_i^{oc}$ & $\max_{i=1,n}\mu_i^{oc}$ & $\min_{i=1,n}\mu_i^{ic}$ & $\max_{i=1,n}\mu_i^{ic}$ \\ \hline 1 & 0.500000 & 0.500000 & 0.500000 & 0.500000\\ 2 & 0.707107 & 0.707107 & 0.593070 & 0.843070\\ 3 & 0.776392 & 0.829484 & 0.734210 & 0.927534\\ 4 & 0.817185 & 0.865296 & 0.802877 & 0.958740\\ 5 & 0.844788 & 0.888347 & 0.845192 & 0.973459\\ 6 & 0.864910 & 0.904300 & 0.872620 & 0.981522\\ 7 & 0.880302 & 0.916187 & 0.892043 & 0.986406\\ 8 & 0.892487 & 0.925383 & 0.906346 & 0.989584\\ 9 & 0.902388 & 0.932736 & 0.917365 & 0.991766\\ 10 & 0.910599 & 0.938752 & 0.926070 & 0.993329\\ 11 & 0.917524 & 0.943771 & 0.933138 & 0.994485\\ 12 & 0.923446 & 0.948022 & 0.938975 & 0.995366\\ 13 & 0.917250 & 0.951672 & 0.943883 & 0.996051\\ 14 & 0.912414 & 0.954840 & 0.948062 & 0.996595\\ 15 & 0.912203 & 0.962451 & 0.951666 & 0.997034\\ 16 & 0.913435 & 0.968356 & 0.954803 & 0.997393\\ 17 & 0.915298 & 0.972835 & 0.957559 & 0.997691\\ 18 & 0.917450 & 0.976361 & 0.959999 & 0.997940\\ 19 & 0.919720 & 0.979207 & 0.962175 & 0.998151\\ 20 & 0.922013 & 0.981547 & 0.964127 & 0.998331\\ 21 & 0.924279 & 0.983500 & 0.965888 & 0.998487\\ 22 & 0.926487 & 0.985150 & 0.967484 & 0.998621\\ 23 & 0.928621 & 0.986559 & 0.968938 & 0.998738\\ 24 & 0.930674 & 0.987773 & 0.970268 & 0.998841\\ 25 & 0.932640 & 0.988826 & 0.971488 & 0.998932\\ 26 & 0.934520 & 0.989747 & 0.972613 & 0.999013\\ 27 & 0.936316 & 0.990557 & 0.973652 & 0.999085\\ 28 & 0.938030 & 0.991274 & 0.974616 & 0.999149\\ 29 & 0.939666 & 0.991911 & 0.975511 & 0.999207\\ 30 & 0.941226 & 0.992480 & 0.976346 & 0.999259\\ 31 & 0.942715 & 0.992991 & 0.977126 & 0.999306\\ 32 & 0.944137 & 0.993451 & 0.977856 & 0.999348\\ 33 & 0.945495 & 0.993867 & 0.978540 & 0.999387\\ 34 & 0.946793 & 0.994244 & 0.979184 & 0.999423\\ 35 & 0.948034 & 0.994587 & 0.979791 & 0.999455\\ 36 & 0.949222 & 0.994900 & 0.980363 & 0.999485\\ 37 & 0.950359 & 0.995187 & 0.980903 & 0.999513\\ 38 & 0.951449 & 0.995450 & 0.981415 & 0.999538\\ 39 & 0.952494 & 0.995692 & 0.981900 & 0.999561\\ 40 & 0.953496 & 0.995915 & 0.982360 & 0.999583\\ 45 & 0.957952 & 0.996807 & 0.984350 & 0.999671\\ 50 & 0.961645 & 0.997435 & 0.985937 & 0.999733\\ 55 & 0.964752 & 0.997894 & 0.987232 & 0.999779\\ 60 & 0.967399 & 0.998240 & 0.988308 & 0.999815\\ 65 & 0.969679 & 0.998507 & 0.989217 & 0.999842\\ 70 & 0.971665 & 0.998718 & 0.989995 & 0.999864\\ 75 & 0.973407 & 0.998887 & 0.990669 & 0.999881\\ 80 & 0.974949 & 0.999024 & 0.991257 & 0.999896\\ 85 & 0.976323 & 0.999138 & 0.991776 & 0.999908\\ 90 & 0.977555 & 0.999233 & 0.992236 & 0.999918\\ 95 & 0.978665 & 0.999313 & 0.992648 & 0.999926\\ 100 & 0.979671 & 0.999381 & 0.993018 & 0.999933\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Roots of the characteristic equations of the Nelder-Mead method with standard coefficients. (Some results are not displayed to make the table fit the page).} \label{table-nm-roots-table} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{neldermead-roots.png} \end{center} \caption{Modulus of the roots of the characteristic equations of the Nelder-Mead method with standard coefficients -- R-max-IC is the maximum of the modulus of the root of the Inside Contraction steps} \label{fig-nm-roots} \end{figure} \subsection{With variable parameters} In this section, we analyze the roots of the characteristic equation with \emph{variable} inside and outside contraction coefficients. \emph{Outside contraction} \\ If the outside contraction step is repeatedly performed with variable $\mu_{oc} \in }0,\mu_r[$, then \begin{eqnarray} \bv^{(k+n)} &=& \overline{\bold{v}}^{(k)} + \mu_{oc} \left( \overline{\bold{v}}^{(k)} - \bv^{(k)}\right) \\ &=& (1 + \mu_{oc} ) \overline{\bold{v}}^{(k)} - \mu_{oc} \bv^{(k)} \end{eqnarray} By plugging the definition of the centroid into the previous equality, we find the recurrence formula \begin{eqnarray} n \bv^{(k+n)} - (1 + \mu_{oc} ) \bv^{(k+1)} - \ldots - (1 + \mu_{oc} ) \bv^{(k+n-1)} + n\mu_{oc}\bv^{(k)} = 0 \end{eqnarray} The associated characteristic equation is \begin{eqnarray} \label{recurrence-variable} n \mu^n - (1 + \mu_{oc} ) \mu^{n-1} - \ldots - (1 + \mu_{oc} ) \mu + n \mu_{oc} = 0. \end{eqnarray} \emph{Inside contraction} \\ We suppose that the inside contraction step is repeatedly performed with $-1 < \mu_{ic} < 0$. The characteristic equation is the same as \ref{recurrence-variable}, but it is here studied in the range $\mu_{ic}\in]-1, 0[$. To study the convergence of the method, we simply have to study the roots of equation \ref{recurrence-variable}, where the range $]-1,0[$ corresponds to the inside contraction (with $-1/2$ as the standard value) and where the range $]0,\mu_r[$ corresponds to the outside contraction (with $1/2$ as the standard value). In the following Scilab script, we compute the minimum and maximum root of the characteristic equation, with $n$ fixed. \lstset{language=scilabscript} \begin{lstlisting} // // rootsvariable -- // Compute roots of the characteristic equation // of Nelder-Mead with variable coefficient mu. // Polynomial for outside/inside contraction : // n mu - (1+mu)x - ... - (1+mu)x^(n-1) + n x^(n) = 0 // function [rmin , rmax] = rootsvariable ( n , mu ) coeffs = zeros(1,n+1); coeffs(1) = n * mu coeffs(2:n) = -(1+mu) coeffs(n+1) = n p=poly(coeffs,"x","coeff") r = roots(p , "e") rmin = min(abs(r)) rmax = max(abs(r)) mprintf("%f & %f & %f\\\\\n", mu, rmin, rmax) endfunction function drawfigure_variable ( n , nmumax ) rmintable = zeros(1,nmumax) rmaxtable = zeros(1,nmumax) mutable = linspace ( -1 , 1 , nmumax ) for index = 1 : nmumax mu = mutable ( index ) [rmin , rmax ] = rootsvariable ( n , mu ) rmintable ( index ) = rmin rmaxtable ( index ) = rmax end plot2d ( mutable , [ rmintable' , rmaxtable' ] ) f = gcf(); pause f.children.title.text = "Nelder-Mead characteristic equation roots"; f.children.x_label.text = "Contraction coefficient"; f.children.y_label.text = "Roots of the characteristic equation"; captions(f.children.children.children,["R-max","R-min"]); f.children.children(1).legend_location="in_lower_right"; for i = 1:2 mypoly = f.children.children(2).children(i); mypoly.foreground=i; mypoly.line_style=i; end xs2png(0,"neldermead-roots-variable.png"); endfunction \end{lstlisting} The figure \ref{fig-nm-roots-variable} presents the minimum and maximum modulus of the roots of the characteristic equation with $n=10$. The result is that when $\mu_{oc}$ is close to 0, the minimum root has a modulus close to 0. The maximum root remains close to 1, whatever the value of the contraction coefficient. This result would mean that either modifying the contraction coefficient has no effect (because the maximum modulus of the roots is close to 1) or diminishing the contraction coefficient should improve the convergence speed (because the minimum modulus of the roots gets closer to 0). This is the expected result because the more the contraction coefficient is close to 0, the more the new vertex is close to 0, which is, in our particular situation, the global minimizer. No general conclusion can be drawn from this single experiment. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{neldermead-roots-variable.png} \end{center} \caption{Modulus of the roots of the characteristic equations of the Nelder-Mead method with variable contraction coefficient and $n=10$ -- R-max is the maximum of the modulus of the root of the characteristic equation} \label{fig-nm-roots-variable} \end{figure} \section{Numerical experiments} In this section, we present some numerical experiments with the Nelder-Mead algorithm. The two first numerical experiments involve simple quadratic functions. These experiments allows to see the difference between Spendley's et al. algorithm and the Nelder-Mead algorithm. We then present several experiments taken from the bibliography. The O'Neill experiments \cite{O'Neill1971AAF} are performed in order to check that our algorithm is a correct implementation. We then present several numerical experiments where the Nelder-Mead does not converge properly. We analyze the Mc Kinnon counter example from \cite{589109}. We show the behavior of the Nelder-Mead simplex method for a family of examples which cause the method to converge to a non stationnary point. We analyze the counter examples presented by Han in his Phd thesis \cite{Han2000}. In these experiments, the Nelder-Mead algorithm degenerates by applying repeatedly the inside contraction step. We also reproduce numerical experiments extracted from Torczon's Phd Thesis \cite{Torczon89multi-directionalsearch}, where Virginia Torczon presents the multi-directional direct search algorithm. \subsection{Quadratic function} The function we try to minimize is the following quadratic in 2 dimensions \begin{eqnarray} f(x_1,x_2) = x_1^2 + x_2^2 - x_1 x_2 \end{eqnarray} The stopping criteria is based on the relative size of the simplex with respect to the size of the initial simplex \begin{eqnarray} \sigma(S) < tol \times \sigma(S_0) \end{eqnarray} The initial simplex is computed from the coordinate axis and the unit length. The numerical results are presented in table \ref{fig-nm-numexp1-table}. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline Iterations & 65 \\ Function Evaluations & 127 \\ $x_0$ & $(2.0,2.0)$ \\ Relative tolerance on simplex size & $10^{-8}$ \\ Exact $x^\star$ & $(0.,0.)$\\ Computed $x^\star$ & $(7.3e-10 , -2.5e-9)$\\ Computed $f(x^\star)$ & $8.7e-18$\\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on the quadratic function $f(x_1,x_2) = x_1^2 + x_2^2 - x_1 x_2$} \label{fig-nm-numexp1-table} \end{figure} The various simplices generated during the iterations are presented in figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp1-historysimplex}. The method use reflections in the early iterations. Then there is no possible improvement using reflections and shrinking is necessary. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{quad2bis-nm-simplexcontours.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- history of simplex} \label{fig-nm-numexp1-historysimplex} \end{figure} The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp1-sigma} presents the history of the oriented length of the simplex. The length is updated at each iteration, which generates a continuous evolution of the length, compared to the step-by-step evolution of the simplex with the Spendley et al. algorithm. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{quad2bis-nm-history-sigma.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- history of length of simplex} \label{fig-nm-numexp1-sigma} \end{figure} The convergence is quite fast in this case, since less than 60 iterations allow to get a function value lower than $10^{-15}$, as shown in figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp1-logfopt}. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{quad2bis-nm-history-logfopt.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- history of logarithm of function} \label{fig-nm-numexp1-logfopt} \end{figure} \subsubsection{Badly scaled quadratic function} The function we try to minimize is the following quadratic in 2 dimensions \begin{eqnarray} \label{quadratic-nm-function2} f(x_1,x_2) = a x_1^2 + x_2^2, \end{eqnarray} where $a>0$ is a chosen scaling parameter. The more $a$ is large, the more difficult the problem is to solve with the simplex algorithm. We set the maximum number of function evaluations to 400. The initial simplex is computed from the coordinate axis and the unit length. The numerical results are presented in table \ref{fig-nm-numexp2-table}, where the experiment is presented for $a=100$. We can check that the number of function evaluation (161 function evaluations) is much lower than the number for the fixed shape Spendley et al. method (400 function evaluations) and that the function value at optimum is very accurate ($f(x^\star)\approx 1.e-17$ compared to Spendley's et al. $f(x^\star) \approx 0.08$). \begin{figure}[h] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline & Nelder-Mead & Spendley et al.\\ \hline Iterations & 83 & 340 \\ Function Evaluations & 161 & 400 \\ $a$ & $100.0$ & - \\ $x_0$ & $(10.0,10.0)$ & - \\ Relative tolerance on simplex size & - \\ Exact $x^\star$ & $(0.,0.)$ & -\\ Computed $x^\star$ & $(2.e-10, -3.e-9)$& $(0.001,0.2)$\\ Computed $f(x^\star)$ & $1.e-17$ & $0.08$\\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on a badly scaled quadratic function. The variable shape Nelder-Mead algorithm improves the accuracy of the result compared to the fixed shaped Spendley et al. method.} \label{fig-nm-numexp2-table} \end{figure} In figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp2-scaling}, we analyze the behavior of the method with respect to scaling. We check that the method behave very smoothly, with a very small number of additional function evaluations when the scaling deteriorates. This shows how much the Nelder-Mead algorithms improves over Spendley's et al. method. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline $a$ & Function evaluations & Computed $f(x^\star)$ & Computed $x^\star$\\ $1.0$ & 139 & $8.0e-18$ & $(2.e-9 -1.e-9)$\\ $10.0$ & 151 & $7.0e-17$ & $(5.e-10 2.e-9)$\\ $100.0$ & 161 & $1.0e-17$ & $(2.e-10 -3.e-9)$ \\ $1000.0$ & 165 & $1.0e-17$ & $(-1.e-010 9.e-10)$\\ $10000.0$ & 167 & $3.0e-17$ & $(5.0e-11,-1.0e-10)$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Spendley's et al. method on a badly scaled quadratic function} \label{fig-nm-numexp2-scaling} \end{figure} \subsection{Sensitivity to dimension} In this section, we try to reproduce the result presented by Han and Neumann \cite{HanNeumann2006}, which shows that the convergence rate of the Nelder-Mead algorithms rapidly deteriorates when the number of variables increases. The function we try to minimize is the following quadratic in n-dimensions \begin{eqnarray} \label{quadratic-function3} f(\bold{x}) = \sum_{i=1,n} x_i^2. \end{eqnarray} The initial simplex is computed from the coordinate axis and the unit length. The initial guess is at 0 so that the first vertex is the origin ; this vertex is never updated during the iterations. The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp3-dimension} presents the results of this experiment for $n=1,19$. During the iterations, no shrink steps are performed. The algorithm performs reflections, inside and outside contractions. The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp3-steps} shows the detailed sequence of iterations for $n=10$. We see that there is no general pattern for the iterations. One can check, however, that there are never no more than $n$ consecutive reflection steps, which is as expected. After one or more contractions, the reflection steps move the worst vertices toward better function values. But there are only $n+1$ vertices so that the $n$ worst vertices are moved in at most $n$ reflection steps. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{verbatim} I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I R R R R R R R R R R R R R I O R R R R R R R R R R R R R I R I I R I R O I I I I R I R I I R O I R R R R I R I R I R R R R R R R I R R R R I R I I R I R I I I R R I I I R R R I R R I R R R R R R I R I R R R R R I R R O R R I O I O R R R R I I I O R I R R R R R R I I I R R I I R R R O R I I R R R I R I I O I R I R R O I I R R R R I R R O I R R O R I R I R I R R I R I R R R I I I I I O R R R R I I I R R R I I I R R R I I I I R R R R I I R R R R I R R R I O I R R I I R R R R O I R I I R R R R R R O R R R O I R R I I I I O R I I I R I I I I R R I I R R I R R R R R R I R R I I R R O R I I O R I R O O R O I I R I I I R I I R R R R R R R R R R R R I R R O I R I O I R I I I I R I I R I I R I R O R I O R I R I R R R O R I R R R I I R I R R R I R I R R R R I I R R I R R R R I I R R R R I I R I R I I O I R I I R R R R R R R R I O I R R I I I R I R I I I I R R R R I R R I R I R R R R I I R R R I I I I R I I I I R I R R I R I O R R R I R I O I R R I I R R I R R R R O R R R R I O R R R I R I I I I R I R R R R R I I R I I R R R R R O R R R I R R R R I R I R R I R I I R R I I R R I I I I R R R R R R R R R I R R O R R R R R O I I I I R I I R O I I R R R R R I I I R R \end{verbatim} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on a generalized quadratic function - steps of the algorithm : I = inside contraction, O = outside contraction, R = reflection, S = shrink} \label{fig-nm-numexp3-steps} \end{figure} The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp3-nbsteps} presents the number and the kind of steps performed during the iterations for $n=1,19$. It appears that the number of shrink steps and expansion steps is zero, as expected. More interesting is that the number of reflection is larger than the number of inside contraction when $n$ is large. The number of outside contraction is always the smallest in this case. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline $n$ & \# Reflections & \# Expansion & \# Inside & \# Outside & \#Shrink\\ & & & Contractions & Contractions & \\ \hline 1 & 0 & 0 & 27 & 0 & 0\\ 2 & 0 & 0 & 5 & 49 & 0\\ 3 & 54 & 0 & 45 & 36 & 0\\ 4 & 93 & 0 & 74 & 34 & 0\\ 5 & 123 & 0 & 101 & 33 & 0\\ 6 & 170 & 0 & 122 & 41 & 0\\ 7 & 202 & 0 & 155 & 35 & 0\\ 8 & 240 & 0 & 178 & 41 & 0\\ 9 & 267 & 0 & 205 & 40 & 0\\ 10 & 332 & 0 & 234 & 38 & 0\\ 11 & 381 & 0 & 267 & 36 & 0\\ 12 & 476 & 0 & 299 & 32 & 0\\ 13 & 473 & 0 & 316 & 42 & 0\\ 14 & 545 & 0 & 332 & 55 & 0\\ 15 & 577 & 0 & 372 & 41 & 0\\ 16 & 635 & 0 & 396 & 46 & 0\\ 17 & 683 & 0 & 419 & 52 & 0\\ 18 & 756 & 0 & 445 & 55 & 0\\ 19 & 767 & 0 & 480 & 48 & 0\\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on a generalized quadratic function -- number and kinds of steps performed} \label{fig-nm-numexp3-nbsteps} \end{figure} We check that the number of function evaluations increases approximately linearly with the dimension of the problem in figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp3-fvn}. A rough rule of thumb is that, for $n=1,19$, the number of function evaluations is equal to $100n$. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline $n$ & Function evaluations & Iterations & $\rho(S_0,n)$\\ \hline 1 & 56 & 28 & 0.5125321059829373\\ 2 & 111 & 55 & 0.71491052830553248\\ 3 & 220 & 136 & 0.87286283470760984\\ 4 & 314 & 202 & 0.91247307800713973\\ 5 & 397 & 258 & 0.93107793607270162\\ 6 & 503 & 334 & 0.94628781077508028\\ 7 & 590 & 393 & 0.95404424343636474\\ 8 & 687 & 460 & 0.96063768057900478\\ 9 & 767 & 513 & 0.96471820169933631\\ 10 & 887 & 605 & 0.97000569588245511\\ 11 & 999 & 685 & 0.97343652480535203\\ 12 & 1151 & 808 & 0.97745310525741003\\ 13 & 1203 & 832 & 0.97803465666405531\\ 14 & 1334 & 933 & 0.98042500139065414\\ 15 & 1419 & 991 & 0.98154526298964495\\ 16 & 1536 & 1078 & 0.98305435726547608\\ 17 & 1643 & 1155 & 0.98416149958157839\\ 18 & 1775 & 1257 & 0.98544909490809807\\ 19 & 1843 & 1296 & 0.98584701106083183\\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on a generalized quadratic function} \label{fig-nm-numexp3-dimension} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{neldermead-dimension-nfevals.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- number of function evaluations depending on the number of variables} \label{fig-nm-numexp3-fvn} \end{figure} The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp3-rho} presents the rate of convergence depending on the number of variables. The figure shows that the rate of convergence rapidly gets close to 1 when the number of variables increases. That shows that the rate of convergence is slower and slower as the number of variables increases, as explained by Han \& Neumann. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{neldermead-dimension-rho.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- rate of convergence depending on the number of variables} \label{fig-nm-numexp3-rho} \end{figure} \subsection{O'Neill test cases} In this section, we present the results by O'Neill, who implemented a fortran 77 version of the Nelder-Mead algorithm \cite{O'Neill1971AAF}. The O'Neill implementation of the Nelder-Mead algorithm has the following particularities \begin{itemize} \item the initial simplex is computed from the axes and a (single) length, \item the stopping rule is based on variance (not standard deviation) of function value, \item the expansion is greedy, i.e. the expansion point is accepted if it is better than the lower point, \item an automatic restart is performed if a factorial test shows that the computed optimum is greater than a local point computed with a relative epsilon equal to 1.e-3. \end{itemize} The following tests are presented by O'Neill : \begin{itemize} \item Rosenbrock's parabolic valley \cite{citeulike:1903787} \begin{eqnarray} \label{nm-oneill-rosenbrock} f(x_1,x_2) = 100(x_2 - x_1^2)^2 + (1-x_1)^2 \end{eqnarray} with starting point $(x_1,x_2) = (-1.2,1.0)$ \item Powell's quartic function \cite{Powell08011962} \begin{eqnarray} \label{nm-oneill-powell} f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = (x_1 + 10x_2)^2 + 5 ( x_3 - x_4)^2 + (x_2 - 2x_3)^4 + 10 (x_1 - x_4)^4 \end{eqnarray} with starting point $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = (3,-1,0,1)$ \item Fletcher and Powell's helical valley \cite{R.Fletcher08011963} \begin{eqnarray} \label{nm-oneill-fletcherpowell} f(x_1,x_2,x_3) = 100\left(x_3 + 10\theta(x_1,x_2)\right)^2 + \left(\sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2} - 1\right)^2 + x_3^2 \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \label{nm-oneill-fletcherpowelltheta} 2\pi \theta(x_1,x_2) &=& \arctan(x_2,x_1), x_1>0\\ &=& \pi + \arctan(x_2,x_1), x_1<0\\ \end{eqnarray} with starting point $(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (-1,0,0)$. Note that since $\arctan(0/0)$ is not defined neither the function $f$ on the line $(0,0,x_3)$. This line is excluded by assigning a very large value to the function. \item the sum of powers \begin{eqnarray} \label{nm-oneill-powers} f(x_1,\ldots,x_{10}) = \sum_{i=1,10} x_i^4 \end{eqnarray} with starting point $(x_1,\ldots,x_{10}) = (1,\ldots,1)$ \end{itemize} The parameters are set to \begin{itemize} \item $REQMIN=10^{-16}$, the absolute tolerance on the variance of the function values in the simplex, \item $STEP = 1.0$, the absolute side length of the initial simplex, \item $ICOUNT$, the maximum number of function evaluations. \end{itemize} The table \ref{fig-nm-oneill-table} presents the results which were computed by O'Neill compared with our software. For most experiments, the results are very close in terms of number of function evaluations. The problem \#4 exhibits a completely different behavior than the results presented by O'Neill. For us, the maximum number of function evaluations is reached (i.e. 1000 function evaluations), whereas for O'Neill, the algorithm is restarted and gives the result with 474 function evaluations. We did not find any explanation for this behavior. A possible cause of difference may be the floating point system which are different and may generate different simplices in the algorithms. Although the CPU times cannot be compared (the article is dated 1972 !), let's mention that the numerical experiment were performed by O'Neill on a ICL 4-50 where the two problem 1 and 2 were solved in 3.34 seconds and the problems 3 and 4 were solved in 22.25 seconds. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline Author & Problem & Function & No. of Restarts & Function Value & Iterations & CPU\\ & & Evaluations & & & & Time \\ \hline O'Neill & 1 & 148 & 0 & 3.19 e-9 & ? & ? \\ Baudin & 1 & 149 & 0 & 1.15 e-7 & 79 & 0.238579 \\ \hline O'Neill & 2 & 209 & 0 & 7.35 e-8 & ? & ? \\ Baudin & 2 & 224 & 0 & 1.07 e-8 & 126 & 0.447958 \\ \hline O'Neill & 3 & 250 & 0 & 5.29 e-9 & ? & ? \\ Baudin & 3 & 255 & 0 & 4.56 e-8 & 137 & 0.627493 \\ \hline O'Neill & 4 & 474 & 1 & 3.80 e-7 & ? & ? \\ Baudin & 4 & 999 & 0 & 5.91 e-9 & 676 & - \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on O'Neill test cases - O'Neill results and our results} \label{fig-nm-oneill-table} \end{figure} \subsection{Convergence to a non stationnary point} \label{section-mcKinnon} In this section, we analyze the Mc Kinnon counter example from \cite{589109}. We show the behavior of the Nelder-Mead simplex method for a family of examples which cause the method to converge to a non stationnary point. Consider a simplex in two dimensions with vertices at 0 (i.e. the origin), $\bv^{(n+1)}$ and $\bv^{(n)}$. Assume that \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-sortedfv} f(0) < f(\bv^{(n+1)}) < f(\bv^{(n)}). \end{eqnarray} The centroid of the simplex is $\overline{\bv} = \bv^{(n+1)}/2$, the midpoint of the line joining the best and second vertex. The reflected point is then computed as \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-reflection} \br^{(n)} = \overline{\bv} + \rho ( \overline{\bv} - \bv^{(n)} ) = \bv^{(n+1)} - \bv^{(n)} \end{eqnarray} Assume that the reflection point $\br^{(n)}$ is rejected, i.e. that $f(\bv^{(n)}) < f(\br^{(n)})$. In this case, the inside contraction step is taken and the point $\bv^{(n+2)}$ is computed using the reflection factor $-\gamma = -1/2$ so that \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-insidecontraction} \bv^{(n+2)} = \overline{\bv} - \gamma ( \overline{\bv} - \bv^{(n)} ) = \frac{1}{4} \bv^{(n+1)} - \frac{1}{2} \bv^{(n)} \end{eqnarray} Assume then that the inside contraction point is accepted, i.e. $f(\bv^{(n+2)}) < f(\bv^{(n+1)})$. If this sequence of steps repeats, the simplices are subject to the following linear recurrence formula \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-reccurence} 4 \bv^{(n+2)} - \bv^{(n+1)} + 2 \bv^{(n)} = 0 \end{eqnarray} Their general solutions are of the form \begin{eqnarray} \bv^{(n)} = \lambda_1^k a_1 + \lambda_2^k a_2 \end{eqnarray} where ${\lambda_i}_{i=1,2}$ are the roots of the characteristic equation and ${a_i}_{i=1,2} \in \RR^n$. The characteristic equation is \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-caracequation} 4 \lambda^2 - \lambda + 2 \lambda = 0 \end{eqnarray} and has the roots \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-roots} \lambda_1 = \frac{1 + \sqrt{33}}{8}\approx 0.84307, \qquad \lambda_2 = \frac{1 - \sqrt{33}}{8} \approx -0.59307 \end{eqnarray} After Mc Kinnon has presented the computation of the roots of the characteristic equation, he presents a special initial simplex for which the simplices degenerates because of repeated failure by inside contraction (RFIC in his article). Consider the initial simplex with vertices $\bv^{(0)} = (1,1)$ and $\bv^{(1)} = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ and $0$. If follows that the particular solution for these initial conditions is $\bv^{(n)} = (\lambda_1^n,\lambda_2^n)$. Consider the function $f(x_1,x_2)$ given by \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-function} f(x_1,x_2) &=& \theta \phi |x_1|^\tau + x_2 + x_2^2, \qquad x_1\leq 0,\\ &=&\theta x_1^\tau + x_2 + x_2^2, \qquad x_1\geq 0. \end{eqnarray} where $\theta$ and $\phi$ are positive constants. Note that $(0,-1)$ is a descent direction from the origin $(0,0)$ and that f is stricly convex provided $\tau>1$. $f$ has continuous first derivatives if $\tau>1$, continuous second derivatives if $\tau>2$ and continuous third derivatives if $\tau>3$. Mc Kinnon computed the conditions on $\theta,\phi$ and $\tau$ so that the function values are ordered as expected, i.e. so that the reflection step is rejected and the inside contraction is accepted. Examples of values which makes these equations hold are as follows : for $\tau=1$, $\theta=15$ and $\phi = 10$, for $\tau=2$, $\theta=6$ and $\phi = 60$ and for $\tau=3$, $\theta=6$ and $\phi = 400$. We consider here the more regular case $\tau=3$, $\theta=6$ and $\phi = 400$, i.e. the function is defined by \begin{eqnarray} \label{mckinnon-function3} f(x_1,x_2) &=& - 2400 x_1^3 + x_2 + x_2^2, \qquad x_1\leq 0, \\ &=& 6 x_1^3 + x_2 + x_2^2, \qquad x_1\geq 0. \end{eqnarray} The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp-mckinnon} shows the contour plot of this function and the first steps of the Nelder-Mead method. The global minimum is located at $(0,-1/2)$. Notice that the simplex degenerates to the point $(0,0)$, which is a non stationnary point. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{mckinnon-history-simplex.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- Mc Kinnon example for convergence toward a non stationnary point} \label{fig-nm-numexp-mckinnon} \end{figure} The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp-mckinnon-detail} presents the first steps of the algorithm in this numerical experiment. Because of the particular shape of the contours of the function, the reflected point is always worse that the worst vertex $\bx_{n+1}$. This leads to the inside contraction step. The vertices constructed by Mc Kinnon are so that the situation loops without end. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{mcKinnon-insidecontraction.pdf} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- Detail of the first steps. The simplex converges to a non stationnary point, after repeated inside contractions.} \label{fig-nm-numexp-mckinnon-detail} \end{figure} \subsection{Han counter examples} In his Phd thesis \cite{Han2000}, Han presents two counter examples in which the Nelder-Mead algorithm degenerates by applying repeatedly the inside contraction step. \subsubsection{First counter example} The first counter example is based on the function \begin{eqnarray} \label{han-function1} f(x_1,x_2) &=& x_1^2 + x_2 ( x_2 + 2 ) ( x_2 - 0.5 ) ( x_2 - 2 ) \end{eqnarray} This function is nonconvex, bounded below and has bounded level sets. The initial simplex is chosen as $S_0 = [(0.,-1),(0,1),(1,0)]$. Han proves that the Nelder-Mead algorithm generates a sequence of simplices $S_k = [(0.,-1),(0,1),(\frac{1}{2^k},0)]$. The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp-han1} presents the isovalues and the simplices during the steps of the Nelder-Mead algorithm. Note that the limit simplex contains no minimizer of the function. The failure is caused by repeated inside contractions. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{han1-history-simplex.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- Han example \#1 for convergence toward a non stationnary point} \label{fig-nm-numexp-han1} \end{figure} \subsubsection{Second counter example} The second counter example is based on the function \begin{eqnarray} \label{han-function2} f(x_1,x_2) &=& x_1^2 + \rho(x_2) \end{eqnarray} where $\rho$ is a continuous convex function with bounded level sets defined by \begin{eqnarray} \label{han-function2-rho} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \rho(x_2) =0, &\qquad \textrm{if} \qquad |x_2|\leq 1, \\ \rho(x_2)\geq 0, &\qquad \textrm{if} \qquad |x_2|> 1. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} The example given by Han for such a $\rho$ function is \begin{eqnarray} \label{han-function2-rho2} \rho(x_2) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, &\qquad \textrm{if} \qquad |x_2|\leq 1, \\ x_2 - 1, &\qquad \textrm{if} \qquad x_2> 1, \\ -x_2 - 1, &\qquad \textrm{if} \qquad x_2 < -1. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} The initial simplex is chosen as $S_0 = [(0.,1/2),(0,-1/2),(1,0)]$. Han prooves that the Nelder-Mead algorithm generates a sequence of simplices $S_k = [(0.,1/2),(0,-1/2),(\frac{1}{2^k},0)]$. The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp-han2} presents the isovalues and the simplices during the steps of the Nelder-Mead algorithm. The failure is caused by repeated inside contractions. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{han2-history-simplex.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- Han example \#2 for convergence toward a non stationnary point} \label{fig-nm-numexp-han2} \end{figure} These two examples of non convergence show that the Nelder-Mead method may unreliable. They also reveal that the Nelder-Mead method can generate simplices which collapse into a degenerate simplex, by applying repeated inside contractions. \subsection{Torczon's numerical experiments} In her Phd Thesis \cite{Torczon89multi-directionalsearch}, Virginia Torczon presents the multi-directional direct search algorithm. In order to analyze the performances of her new algorithm, she presents some interesting numerical experiments with the Nelder-Mead algorithm. These numerical experiments are based on the collection of test problems \cite{355943}, published in the ACM by Mor\'e, Garbow and Hillstrom in 1981. These test problems are associated with varying number of variables. In her Phd, Torczon presents numerical experiments with $n$ from 8 to 40. The stopping rule is based on the relative size of the simplex. The angle between the descent direction (given by the worst point and the centroid), and the gradient of the function is computed when the algorithm is stopped. Torczon shows that, when the tolerance on the relative simplex size is decreased, the angle converges toward 90 \degre. This fact is observed even for moderate number of dimensions. In this section, we try to reproduce Torczon numerical experiments. All experiments are associated with the following sum of squares cost function \begin{eqnarray} \label{torzcon-sumofsquares} f(\bx) &=& \sum_{i=1,m} f_i(\bx)^2, \end{eqnarray} where $m\geq 1$ is the number of functions $f_i$ in the problem. The stopping criteria is based on the relative size of the simplex and is the following \begin{eqnarray} \label{torzcon-stopping} \frac{1}{\Delta} \max_{i=2,n+1} \|\bv_i - \bv_1\| \leq \epsilon, \end{eqnarray} where $\Delta = \max( 1 , \|\bv_1\| )$. Decreasing the value of $\epsilon$ allows to get smaller simplex sizes. \subsubsection{Penalty \#1} The first test function is the \emph{Penalty \#1} function : \begin{eqnarray} \label{torzcon-sumofsquares-case1} f_i(\bx) &=& \sqrt{1.e-5}(x_i - 1), \qquad i=1,n\\ f_{n+1} & = & -\frac{1}{4} + \sum_{j=1,n} x_j^2. \end{eqnarray} The initial guess is given by $\bx_0 = ((\bx_0)_1 , (\bx_0)_2, \ldots , (\bx_0)_n)^T$ and $(\bx_0)_j = j$ for $j=1,n$. The problem given by Mor\'e, Garbow and Hillstrom in \cite{355943} is associated with the size $n=4$. The value of the cost function at the initial guess $\bx_0 = (1,2,3,4)^T$ is $f(\bx_0) = 885.063$. The value of the function at the optimum is given in \cite{355943} as $f(\bx^\star) = 2.24997d-5$. % TODO : what is the optimum ? Torzcon shows an experiment with the Penalty \#1 test case and $n=8$. For this particular case, the initial function value is $f(\bx_0) = 4.151406.10^4$. The figure \ref{fig-nm-torczon-table} presents the results of these experiments. The number of function evaluations is not the same so that we can conclude that the algorithm may be different variants of the Nelder-Mead algorithms. We were not able to explain why the number of function evaluations is so different. \begin{figure}[htbp] \begin{center} %\begin{tiny} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline Author & Step & $f(\bv_1^\star)$ & Function & Angle (\degre)\\ & Tolerance & & Evaluations & \\ \hline Torzcon & 1.e-1 & 7.0355e-5 & 1605 & 89.396677792198 \\ Baudin & 1.e-1 & 8.2272e-5 & 530 & 87.7654 \\ \hline Torzcon & 1.e-2 & 6.2912e-5 & 1605 & 89.935373548613 \\ Baudin & 1.e-2 & 7.4854e-5 & 1873 & 89.9253 \\ \hline Torzcon & 1.e-3 & 6.2912e-5 & 3600 & 89.994626919197 \\ Baudin & 1.e-3 & 7.4815e-5 & 2135 & 90.0001 \\ \hline Torzcon & 1.e-4 & 6.2912e-5 & 3670 & 89.999288284747 \\ Baudin & 1.e-4 & 7.481546e-5 & 2196 & 89.9991 \\ \hline Torzcon & 1.e-5 & 6.2912e-5 & 3750 & 89.999931862232 \\ Baudin & 1.e-5 & 7.427212e-5 & 4626 & 89.999990 \\ \hline \end{tabular} %\end{tiny} \end{center} \caption{Numerical experiment with Nelder-Mead method on Torczon test cases - Torczon results and our results} \label{fig-nm-torczon-table} \end{figure} The figure \ref{fig-nm-numexp-torczon1} presents the angle between the gradient of the function $-\bg_k$ and the search direction $\bx_c - \bx_h$, where $\bx_c$ is the centroid of the best vertices and $\bx_h$ is the worst (or high) vertex. \begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=10cm]{torczon_test1_angle.png} \end{center} \caption{Nelder-Mead numerical experiment -- Penalty \#1 function -- We see that the angle between the gradient and the search direction is very close to $90^{\circ}$, especially for large number of iterations.} \label{fig-nm-numexp-torczon1} \end{figure} The numerical experiment shows that the conditioning of the matrix of simplex direction has an increasing condition number. This corresponds to the fact that the simplex is increasingly distorted. \section{Conclusion} The main advantage of the Nelder-Mead algorithm over Spendley et al. algorithm is that the shape of the simplex is dynamically updated. That allows to get a reasonably fast convergence rate on badly scaled quadratics, or more generally when the cost function is made of a sharp valley. Nevertheless, the behavior of the algorithm when the dimension of the problem increases is disappointing : the more there are variables, the more the algorithm is slow. In general, it is expected that the number of function evaluations is roughly equal to $100n$.