Retraction-Based Gradient Projection Algorithms on Manifolds
Organizations: Department of Mathematics, The George Washington University, Phillips Hall, Room 739, 801 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Abstract
We introduce a framework for retraction-based convex optimization on Riemannian manifolds, which includes a notion of retraction-specific convex sets and retraction-based gradient projection algorithms. The standard theory of gradient projection algorithms generalizes easily to this framework. Within this framework, we establish convergence results for retraction-based gradient projection algorithms with various stepsize rules. As an application, we use our framework to study the weighted low-rank approximation. We also provide numerical validation of our convergence results on the image completion task.
Figures & tables
| Sampled MNIST | |||||||||||||
| QR retraction | |||||||||||||
| rank | Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | Feasible Direction (Main Routine) | Projection Arc (Main Routine) | ||||||||||
| best | mean | evals | fail. | best | mean | evals | fail. | best | mean | evals | fail. | ||
| 32 | 0.2138 | 0.2153 | 50.3 | 0 | 0.2134 | 0.2152 | 50.3 | 0 | 0.2133 | 0.2152 | 50.3 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.2137 | 0.2153 | 50.3 | 0 | 0.2134 | 0.2152 | 50.3 | 0 | 0.2133 | 0.2152 | 50.3 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.2140 | 0.2153 | 50.2 | 0 | 0.2134 | 0.2152 | 50.3 | 0 | 0.2133 | 0.2152 | 50.3 | 0 | |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Category | Parameter | Values or setting |
|---|---|---|
| Armijo rule | Contraction factor | |
| Sufficient-decrease factor | ||
| Initial trial step | ||
| Configuration | Retraction | QR, polar |
| Low-rank | ||
| Regularization parameter |
| Sampled MNIST | |||||||||||||
| QR retraction | |||||||||||||
| rank | Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | Feasible Direction (Main Routine) | Projection Arc (Main Routine) | ||||||||||
| best | mean | evals | fail. | best | mean | evals | fail. | best | mean | evals | fail. | ||
| 32 | 0.2734 | 0.2786 | 43.6 | 0 | 0.2735 | 0.2786 | 43.5 | 0 | 0.2735 | 0.2785 | 43.6 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.2745 | 0.2786 | 43.6 | 0 | 0.2735 | 0.2786 | 43.5 | 0 | 0.2735 | 0.2785 | 43.6 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.2729 | 0.2786 | 43.6 | 0 | 0.2735 | 0.2786 | 43.5 | 0 | 0.2735 | 0.2785 | 43.6 | 0 | |
| Sampled MNIST | |||||||||||||
| QR retraction | |||||||||||||
| rank | Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | Feasible Direction (Main Routine) | Projection Arc (Main Routine) | ||||||||||
| best | mean | evals | fail. | best | mean | evals | fail. | best | mean | evals | fail. | ||
| 32 | 0.1649 | 0.1654 | 54.2 | 0 | 0.1651 | 0.1654 | 54.3 | 0 | 0.1650 | 0.1654 | 54.3 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.1651 | 0.1654 | 54.2 | 0 | 0.1651 | 0.1654 | 54.3 | 0 | 0.1650 | 0.1654 | 54.3 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.1651 | 0.1654 | 54.2 | 0 | 0.1651 | 0.1654 | 54.3 | 0 | 0.1650 | 0.1654 | 54.3 | 0 | |
| Full-train MNIST | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR retraction | ||||||||||
| rank | Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | Feasible Direction (Main Routine) | Projection Arc (Main Routine) | |||||||
| best | mean | fail. | best | mean | fail. | best | mean | fail. | ||
| 32 | 0.2140 | 0.2143 | 0 | 0.2139 | 0.2143 | 0 | 0.2140 | 0.2143 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.2139 | 0.2143 | 0 | 0.2139 | 0.2143 | 0 | 0.2140 | 0.2143 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.2139 | 0.2143 | 0 | 0.2139 | 0.2143 | 0 | 0.2140 | 0.2143 | 0 | |
| Full-train CIFAR-10 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR retraction | ||||||||||
| rank | Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | Feasible Direction (Main Routine) | Projection Arc (Main Routine) | |||||||
| best | mean | fail. | best | mean | fail. | best | mean | fail. | ||
| 32 | 0.2876 | 0.2891 | 4 | 0.2873 | 0.2889 | 1 | 0.2874 | 0.2890 | 2 | |
| 32 | 0.2874 | 0.2891 | 4 | 0.2873 | 0.2889 | 1 | 0.2874 | 0.2890 | 2 | |
| 32 | 0.2873 | 0.2890 | 2 | 0.2873 | 0.2889 | 1 | 0.2874 | 0.2890 | 2 | |
| Comparison | Metric | mean difference | one-sided | Outperforms? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasible Direction (Main Routine) vs Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | best RMSE | -2.5414 | Yes | ||
| mean RMSE | -2.4839 | Yes | |||
| Projection Arc (Main Routine) vs Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | best RMSE | -2.3232 | 0.011 | Yes | |
| mean RMSE | -2.0029 | 0.024 | Yes |
| Comparison | Metric | mean difference | one-sided | Outperforms? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasible Direction (Main Routine) vs Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | final RMSE | -0.9209 | 0.180 | No | |
| Projection Arc (Main Routine) vs Regularized Armijo (Benchmark) | final RMSE | -0.8556 | 0.197 | No |
Gradient Projection
Gradient projection constrains optimization steps to feasible directions or subspaces, reducing interference while preserving desired properties.
See all 21 papers