• Nenhum resultado encontrado

Pesqui. Oper. vol.34 número3

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2018

Share "Pesqui. Oper. vol.34 número3"

Copied!
2
0
0

Texto

(1)

Pesquisa Operacional (2014) 34(3): 371-372 © 2014 Brazilian Operations Research Society

Printed version ISSN 0101-7438 / Online version ISSN 1678-5142 www.scielo.br/pope

doi: 10.1590/0101-7438.2014.034.03.0371

FOREWORD

SPECIAL ISSUE DEDICATED

TO SELECTED SURVEYS IN NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING

E.G. Birgin

1

, N. Kreji´c

2

, J.M. Mart´ınez

3

, and M. Raydan

4

Operations Research involves the sciences and techniques associated with decision making pro-blems. Making decisions usually requires optimization (maximizing utilities and profits or mi-nimizing loss), risk analysis needs careful identification of objectives and restrictions, and every mathematical model of real-life systems requires fitting parameters before its actual application.

In this issue several carefully selected survey papers tackle different areas of Continuous Optimi-zation. By this we mean that decisions take place in the continuous world, in contrast to Discrete Optimization, that deals with discrete variables. The survey papers are written by worldwide experts in every one of the considered topics.

Nataˇsa Kreji´c and Nataˇsa Krklec Jerinki´c review stochastic gradient methods for unconstrai-ned optimization and Clovis Gonzaga and Elizabeth Karas discuss the complexity of first-order methods for smooth convex minimization. Classical smooth optimization algorithms are addres-sed by Margherita Porcelli and Stefania Bellavia under the preconditioning perspective, and by Sandra Santos who surveys trust-region methods.

Stabilized sequential quadratic programming methods for optimization with nonlinear cons-traints are surveyed by Dami´an Fern´andez and Mikhail Solodov. The nonlinearly constrained optimization problem is also addressed by Roberto Andreani and Paulo Silva in their study on constant rank constraint qualifications, and by Walter G´omez-Bofill and Juan G´omez in their review on linear and nonlinear semidefinite programming.

Andreas Fischer, Markus Herrich, and Klaus Sch¨onefeld, on the one hand, and Joaquim J´udice, on the other hand, consider the related problems of Generalized Nash Equilibrium and Optimi-zation with Linear Complementarity constraints.

1Department of Computer Science IME-USP, University of S˜ao Paulo, Rua do Mat˜ao 1010, Cidade Universit´aria, 05508-090 S˜ao Paulo SP, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]

2Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovi´ca 4, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia. E-mail: [email protected]

3Department of Applied Mathematics, IMECC-UNICAMP, State University of Campinas, CP 6065, 13081-970 Campi-nas SP, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]

4Departamento de C´omputo Cient´ıfico y Estad´ıstica, Universidad Sim´on Bol´ıvar, Ap. 89000, Caracas 1080-A, Venezu-ela. E-mail: [email protected]

(2)

372

FOREWORD: SPECIAL ISSUE DEDICATED TO SELECTED SURVEYS IN NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING

Finally, Ellen Fukuda and Luis Mauricio Gra˜na Drummond review descent methods for mul-tiobjetive optimization, Andreas Griewank addresses automatic differentiation, emphasizing its relation with linearization and non-smooth optimization, and Welington de Oliveira and Claudia Sagasti´abal address non-smooth optimization under the bundle point of view.

Referências

Documentos relacionados

Computing a global minimum of an LPLCC is a much more difficult task that can be done by using a sequential algorithm or by branch-and-bound methods applied directly to the LPLCC or

First, it is worth to notice that, by implementing the vec- tor optimization versions of the steepest descent method [28] and the projected gradient method [21, 22, 25], we

We have demonstrated that and how the forward and reverse mode can be used to compute first order derivatives of functions given by evaluation procedures.. Moroever, the

We adopt an approach that is by no means exhaustive, but covers different proximal and level bundle methods dealing with inexact oracles, for both unconstrained and

We compare three types of random-key genetic algorithms: the unbiased algorithm of Bean (1994); the biased algorithm of Gonc¸alves and Resende (2010); and a greedy version of

According to the results presented by Armstrong et al., the time required to solve the 100 clients- problem using the B&B approach was significantly lower than the time required

From these, only [12] explicitly considers different configurations of the main system (series, parallel or series- parallel) and models a simultaneous move game between defender

Figure 1 presents the estimated asymmetry and leverage parameters in the GJR-GARCH asymmetric model for the IBV, Merval, Vale, and BB series, while Figure 2 presents the results for