Unconstrained minimization is the problem of finding a vector *x* that
is a local minimum to a scalar function *f*(*x*):

$$\underset{x}{\mathrm{min}}f(x)$$

The term *unconstrained* means that no restriction
is placed on the range of *x*.

`fminunc`

`trust-region`

AlgorithmMany of the methods used in Optimization
Toolbox™ solvers
are based on *trust regions,* a simple yet powerful
concept in optimization.

To understand the trust-region approach to optimization, consider
the unconstrained minimization problem, minimize *f*(*x*),
where the function takes vector arguments and returns scalars. Suppose
you are at a point *x* in *n*-space
and you want to improve, i.e., move to a point with a lower function
value. The basic idea is to approximate *f* with
a simpler function *q*, which reasonably reflects
the behavior of function *f* in a neighborhood *N* around
the point *x*. This neighborhood is the trust region.
A trial step *s* is computed by minimizing (or approximately
minimizing) over *N*. This is the trust-region subproblem,

$$\underset{s}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{q(s),\text{}s\in N\right\}.$$ | (1) |

The current point is updated to be *x* + *s* if *f*(*x* + *s*) < *f*(*x*);
otherwise, the current point remains unchanged and *N*,
the region of trust, is shrunk and the trial step computation is repeated.

The key questions in defining a specific trust-region approach
to minimizing *f*(*x*) are how to
choose and compute the approximation *q* (defined
at the current point *x*), how to choose and modify
the trust region *N*, and how accurately to solve
the trust-region subproblem. This section focuses on the unconstrained
problem. Later sections discuss additional complications due to the
presence of constraints on the variables.

In the standard trust-region method ([48]), the quadratic approximation *q* is
defined by the first two terms of the Taylor approximation to *F* at *x*;
the neighborhood *N* is usually spherical or ellipsoidal
in shape. Mathematically the trust-region subproblem is typically
stated

$$\mathrm{min}\left\{\frac{1}{2}{s}^{T}Hs+{s}^{T}g\text{suchthat}\Vert Ds\Vert \le \Delta \right\},$$ | (2) |

where *g* is the gradient of *f* at the current point
*x*, *H* is the Hessian matrix (the
symmetric matrix of second derivatives), *D* is a diagonal
scaling matrix, Δ is a positive scalar, and ∥ . ∥ is the 2-norm. Good algorithms
exist for solving Equation 2 (see [48]); such algorithms typically involve the computation of all
eigenvalues of *H* and a Newton process applied to the secular equation

$$\frac{1}{\Delta}-\frac{1}{\Vert s\Vert}=0.$$

Such algorithms provide an accurate solution to Equation 2. However, they require time proportional to several
factorizations of *H*. Therefore, for large-scale
problems a different approach is needed. Several approximation and
heuristic strategies, based on Equation 2, have been
proposed in the literature ([42] and [50]). The approximation approach followed
in Optimization
Toolbox solvers is to restrict the trust-region
subproblem to a two-dimensional subspace *S* ([39] and [42]).
Once the subspace *S* has been computed, the work
to solve Equation 2 is trivial even if full
eigenvalue/eigenvector information is needed (since in the subspace,
the problem is only two-dimensional). The dominant work has now shifted
to the determination of the subspace.

The two-dimensional subspace *S* is
determined with the aid of a preconditioned
conjugate gradient process described below. The solver defines *S* as
the linear space spanned by *s*_{1} and *s*_{2},
where *s*_{1} is in the direction
of the gradient *g*, and *s*_{2} is
either an approximate Newton direction, i.e.,
a solution to

$$H\cdot {s}_{2}=-g,$$ | (3) |

or a direction of negative curvature,

$${s}_{2}^{T}\cdot H\cdot {s}_{2}<0.$$ | (4) |

The philosophy behind this choice of *S* is
to force global convergence (via the steepest descent direction or
negative curvature direction) and achieve fast local convergence (via
the Newton step, when it exists).

A sketch of unconstrained minimization using trust-region ideas is now easy to give:

Formulate the two-dimensional trust-region subproblem.

Solve Equation 2 to determine the trial step

*s*.If

*f*(*x*+*s*) <*f*(*x*), then*x*=*x*+*s*.Adjust Δ.

These four steps are repeated until convergence. The trust-region
dimension Δ is adjusted according to standard rules. In particular,
it is decreased if the trial step is not accepted, i.e., *f*(*x* + *s*)
≥ *f*(*x*).
See [46] and [49] for a discussion of this aspect.

Optimization
Toolbox solvers treat a few important special
cases of *f* with specialized functions: nonlinear
least-squares, quadratic functions, and linear least-squares. However,
the underlying algorithmic ideas are the same as for the general case.
These special cases are discussed in later sections.

A popular way to solve large, symmetric, positive definite systems of linear equations *Hp* = –*g* is the method of Preconditioned Conjugate Gradients (PCG). This iterative
approach requires the ability to calculate matrix-vector products of the form
*H·v* where *v* is an arbitrary vector. The
symmetric positive definite matrix *M *is a*
preconditioner* for *H*. That is, *M* = *C*^{2}, where *C*^{–1}*HC*^{–1} is a well-conditioned matrix or a matrix with clustered eigenvalues.

In a minimization context, you can assume that the Hessian matrix *H* is
symmetric. However, *H* is guaranteed to be positive definite only in the
neighborhood of a strong minimizer. Algorithm PCG exits when it encounters a direction of
negative (or zero) curvature, that is, *d ^{T}Hd* ≤ 0. The PCG output direction

`fminunc`

`quasi-newton`

AlgorithmAlthough a wide spectrum of methods exists for unconstrained optimization, methods can be broadly categorized in terms of the derivative information that is, or is not, used. Search methods that use only function evaluations (e.g., the simplex search of Nelder and Mead [30]) are most suitable for problems that are not smooth or have a number of discontinuities. Gradient methods are generally more efficient when the function to be minimized is continuous in its first derivative. Higher order methods, such as Newton's method, are only really suitable when the second-order information is readily and easily calculated, because calculation of second-order information, using numerical differentiation, is computationally expensive.

Gradient methods use information about the slope of the function
to dictate a direction of search where the minimum is thought to lie.
The simplest of these is the method of steepest descent in which a
search is performed in a direction, –∇*f*(*x*),
where ∇*f*(*x*) is
the gradient of the objective function. This method is very inefficient
when the function to be minimized has long narrow valleys as, for
example, is the case for Rosenbrock's function

$$f(x)=100{\left({x}_{2}-{x}_{1}^{2}\right)}^{2}+{(1-{x}_{1})}^{2}.$$ | (5) |

The minimum of this function is at *x* = [1,1], where *f*(*x*) = 0. A contour map
of this function is shown in the figure below, along with the solution
path to the minimum for a steepest descent implementation starting
at the point [-1.9,2]. The optimization was terminated after 1000
iterations, still a considerable distance from the minimum. The black
areas are where the method is continually zigzagging from one side
of the valley to another. Note that toward the center of the plot,
a number of larger steps are taken when a point lands exactly at the
center of the valley.

**Figure 6-1, Steepest Descent Method on Rosenbrock's Function**

This function, also known as the banana function, is notorious in unconstrained examples because of the way the curvature bends around the origin. Rosenbrock's function is used throughout this section to illustrate the use of a variety of optimization techniques. The contours have been plotted in exponential increments because of the steepness of the slope surrounding the U-shaped valley.

For a more complete description of this figure, including scripts that generate the iterative points, see Banana Function Minimization.

Of the methods that use gradient information, the most favored are the quasi-Newton methods. These methods build up curvature information at each iteration to formulate a quadratic model problem of the form

$$\underset{x}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{1}{2}{x}^{T}Hx+{c}^{T}x+b,$$ | (6) |

where the Hessian matrix, *H*, is a positive
definite symmetric matrix, *c* is a constant vector,
and *b* is a constant. The optimal solution for this
problem occurs when the partial derivatives of *x* go
to zero, i.e.,

$$\nabla f({x}^{*})=H{x}^{*}+\text{\hspace{0.17em}}c=0.$$ | (7) |

The optimal solution point, *x**, can be written
as

$${x}^{*}=-{H}^{-1}c.$$ | (8) |

Newton-type methods (as opposed to quasi-Newton methods) calculate *H* directly
and proceed in a direction of descent to locate the minimum after
a number of iterations. Calculating *H* numerically
involves a large amount of computation. Quasi-Newton methods avoid
this by using the observed behavior of *f*(*x*)
and ∇*f*(*x*) to
build up curvature information to make an approximation to *H* using
an appropriate updating technique.

A large number of Hessian updating methods have been developed. However, the formula of Broyden [3], Fletcher [12], Goldfarb [20], and Shanno [37] (BFGS) is thought to be the most effective for use in a general purpose method.

The formula given by BFGS is

$${H}_{k+1}={H}_{k}+\frac{{q}_{k}{q}_{k}^{T}}{{q}_{k}^{T}{s}_{k}}-\frac{{H}_{k}{s}_{k}{s}_{k}^{T}{H}_{k}^{T}}{{s}_{k}^{T}{H}_{k}{s}_{k}},$$ | (9) |

where

$$\begin{array}{c}{s}_{k}={x}_{k+1}-{x}_{k},\\ {q}_{k}=\nabla f\left({x}_{k+1}\right)-\nabla f\left({x}_{k}\right).\end{array}$$

As a starting point, *H*_{0} can
be set to any symmetric positive definite matrix, for example, the
identity matrix *I*. To avoid the inversion of the
Hessian *H*, you can derive an updating method that
avoids the direct inversion of *H* by using a formula
that makes an approximation of the inverse Hessian *H*^{–1} at
each update. A well-known procedure is the DFP formula of Davidon [7], Fletcher, and Powell [14]. This uses the same
formula as the BFGS method (Equation 9) except
that *q _{k}* is substituted for

The gradient information is either supplied through analytically
calculated gradients, or derived by partial derivatives using a numerical
differentiation method via finite differences. This involves perturbing
each of the design variables, *x*, in turn and calculating
the rate of change in the objective function.

At each major iteration, *k*, a line search
is performed in the direction

$$d=-{H}_{k}^{-1}\cdot \nabla f\left({x}_{k}\right).$$ | (10) |

The quasi-Newton method is illustrated by the solution path on Rosenbrock's function in Figure 6-2, BFGS Method on Rosenbrock's Function. The method is able to follow the shape of the valley and converges to the minimum after 140 function evaluations using only finite difference gradients.

**Figure 6-2, BFGS Method on Rosenbrock's Function**

For a more complete description of this figure, including scripts that generate the iterative points, see Banana Function Minimization.

*Line search* is a search method that is
used as part of a larger optimization algorithm. At each step of the
main algorithm, the line-search method searches along the line containing
the current point, *x _{k}*, parallel
to the

$${x}_{k+1}={x}_{k}+{\alpha}^{*}{d}_{k},$$ | (11) |

where *x _{k}* denotes the
current iterate,

The line search method attempts to decrease the objective function
along the line *x _{k}* +

The

*bracketing*phase determines the range of points on the line $${x}_{k+1}={x}_{k}+{\alpha}^{*}{d}_{k}$$ to be searched. The*bracket*corresponds to an interval specifying the range of values of*α*.The

*sectioning*step divides the bracket into subintervals, on which the minimum of the objective function is approximated by polynomial interpolation.

The resulting step length α satisfies the Wolfe conditions:

$$f\left({x}_{k}+\alpha {d}_{k}\right)\le f\left({x}_{k}\right)+{c}_{1}\alpha \nabla {f}_{k}^{T}{d}_{k},$$ | (12) |

$$\nabla f{\left({x}_{k}+\alpha {d}_{k}\right)}^{T}{d}_{k}\ge {c}_{2}\nabla {f}_{k}^{T}{d}_{k},$$ | (13) |

where *c*_{1} and *c*_{2} are
constants with 0 < *c*_{1} < *c*_{2} <
1.

The first condition
(Equation 12) requires that *α _{k}* sufficiently
decreases the objective function. The second condition (Equation 13) ensures that the step length is not too small.
Points that satisfy both conditions (Equation 12 and Equation 13) are called

The line search method is an implementation of the algorithm described in Section 2-6 of [13]. See also [31] for more information about line search.

Many of the optimization functions determine the direction of
search by updating the Hessian matrix at each iteration, using the
BFGS method (Equation 9). The function `fminunc`

also provides an option to use
the DFP method given in Quasi-Newton Methods (set `HessUpdate`

to `'dfp'`

in `options`

to
select the DFP method). The Hessian, *H*, is always
maintained to be positive definite so that the direction of search, *d*,
is always in a descent direction. This means that for some arbitrarily
small step *α* in the direction *d*,
the objective function decreases in magnitude. You achieve positive
definiteness of *H* by ensuring that *H* is
initialized to be positive definite and thereafter $${q}_{k}^{T}{s}_{k}$$ (from Equation 14) is always positive. The term $${q}_{k}^{T}{s}_{k}$$ is a product of the line search
step length parameter *α _{k}* and
a combination of the search direction

$${q}_{k}^{T}{s}_{k}={\alpha}_{k}\left(\nabla f{\left({x}_{k+1}\right)}^{T}d-\nabla f{\left({x}_{k}\right)}^{T}d\right).$$ | (14) |

You always achieve the condition that $${q}_{k}^{T}{s}_{k}$$ is positive by performing a
sufficiently accurate line search. This is because the search direction, *d*,
is a descent direction, so that *α _{k}* and
the negative gradient –∇