Regularization is used in many different areas of optimization when solutions are sought which not only minimize a given function, but also possess a certain degree of regularity. Popular applications are image denoising, sparse regression and machine learning. Since the choice of the regularization parameter is crucial but often difficult, path-following methods are used to approximate the entire regularization path, i.e., the set of all possible solutions for all regularization parameters. Due to their nature, the development of these methods requires structural results about the regularization path. The goal of this article is to derive these results for the case of a smooth objective function which is penalized by a piecewise differentiable regularization term. We do this by treating regularization as a multiobjective optimization problem. Our results suggest that even in this general case, the regularization path is piecewise smooth. Moreover, our theory allows for a classification of the nonsmooth features that occur in between smooth parts. This is demonstrated in two applications, namely support-vector machines and exact penalty methods.

We present a novel algorithm that allows us to gain detailed insight into the effects of sparsity in linear and nonlinear optimization, which is of great importance in many scientific areas such as image and signal processing, medical imaging, compressed sensing, and machine learning (e.g., for the training of neural networks). Sparsity is an important feature to ensure robustness against noisy data, but also to find models that are interpretable and easy to analyze due to the small number of relevant terms. It is common practice to enforce sparsity by adding the ℓ1-norm as a weighted penalty term. In order to gain a better understanding and to allow for an informed model selection, we directly solve the corresponding multiobjective optimization problem (MOP) that arises when we minimize the main objective and the ℓ1-norm simultaneously. As this MOP is in general non-convex for nonlinear objectives, the weighting method will fail to provide all optimal compromises. To avoid this issue, we present a continuation method which is specifically tailored to MOPs with two objective functions one of which is the ℓ1-norm. Our method can be seen as a generalization of well-known homotopy methods for linear regression problems to the nonlinear case. Several numerical examples - including neural network training - demonstrate our theoretical findings and the additional insight that can be gained by this multiobjective approach.

In this article, we present an efficient descent method for locally Lipschitz continuous multiobjective optimization problems (MOPs). The method is realized by combining a theoretical result regarding the computation of descent directions for nonsmooth MOPs with a practical method to approximate the subdifferentials of the objective functions. We show convergence to points which satisfy a necessary condition for Pareto optimality. Using a set of test problems, we compare our method to the multiobjective proximal bundle method by M\"akel\"a. The results indicate that our method is competitive while being easier to implement. While the number of objective function evaluations is larger, the overall number of subgradient evaluations is lower. Finally, we show that our method can be combined with a subdivision algorithm to compute entire Pareto sets of nonsmooth MOPs.

It is a challenging task to identify the objectives on which a certain decision was based, in particular if several, potentially conflicting criteria are equally important and a continuous set of optimal compromise decisions exists. This task can be understood as the inverse problem of multiobjective optimization, where the goal is to find the objective function vector of a given Pareto set. To this end, we present a method to construct the objective function vector of an unconstrained multiobjective optimization problem (MOP) such that the Pareto critical set contains a given set of data points with prescribed KKT multipliers. If such an MOP can not be found, then the method instead produces an MOP whose Pareto critical set is at least close to the data points. The key idea is to consider the objective function vector in the multiobjective KKT conditions as variable and then search for the objectives that minimize the Euclidean norm of the resulting system of equations. By expressing the objectives in a finite-dimensional basis, we transform this problem into a homogeneous, linear system of equations that can be solved efficiently. Potential applications of this approach include the identification of objectives (both from clean and noisy data) and the construction of surrogate models for expensive MOPs.

In this article we show that the boundary of the Pareto critical set of an unconstrained multiobjective optimization problem (MOP) consists of Pareto critical points of subproblems where only a subset of the set of objective functions is taken into account. If the Pareto critical set is completely described by its boundary (e.g., if we have more objective functions than dimensions in decision space), then this can be used to efficiently solve the MOP by solving a number of MOPs with fewer objective functions. If this is not the case, the results can still give insight into the structure of the Pareto critical set.

We investigate self-adjoint matrices A∈Rn,n with respect to their equivariance properties. We show in particular that a matrix is self-adjoint if and only if it is equivariant with respect to the action of a group Γ2(A)⊂O(n) which is isomorphic to ⊗nk=1Z2. If the self-adjoint matrix possesses multiple eigenvalues – this may, for instance, be induced by symmetry properties of an underlying dynamical system – then A is even equivariant with respect to the action of a group Γ(A)≃∏ki=1O(mi) where m1,…,mk are the multiplicities of the eigenvalues λ1,…,λk of A. We discuss implications of this result for equivariant bifurcation problems, and we briefly address further applications for the Procrustes problem, graph symmetries and Taylor expansions.