In this paper we derive the stochastic differentials of the conditional central moments of the nonlinear filtering problems, especially those of the polynomial filtering problem, and develop a novel suboptimal method by solving this evolution equation. The basic idea is to augment the state of the original nonlinear system by including the original states' conditional central moments such that the augmented states form a so-called bilinear system after truncating. During our derivation, it is clear to see that the stochastic differentials of the conditional central moments of the linear filtering problem (i.e., $f$, $g$ and $h$ are all at most degree one polynomials) form a closed system automatically without truncation. This gives one reason for the existence of optimal filtering for linear problems. On the contrary, the conditional central moments form an infinite dimensional system, in general. To reduce it to a closed-form, we let all the high enough central moments to be zero, as one did in the Carleman approach \cite{GMP}. Consequently, a novel suboptimal method is developed by dealing with the bilinear system. Numerical simulation is performed for the cubic sensor problem to illustrate the accuracy and numerical stability.

The multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) detection problem, a fundamental problem in modern digital communications, is to detect a vector of transmitted symbols from the noisy outputs of a fading MIMO channel. The maximum likelihood detector can be formulated as a complex least-squares problem with discrete variables, which is NP-hard in general. Various semidefinite relaxation (SDR) methods have been proposed in the literature to solve the problem due to their polynomial-time worst-case complexity and good detection error rate performance. In this paper, we consider two popular classes of SDR-based detectors and study the conditions under which the SDRs are tight and the relationship between different SDR models. For the enhanced complex and real SDRs proposed recently by Lu et al., we refine their analysis and derive the necessary and sufficient condition for the complex SDR to be tight, as well as a necessary condition for the real SDR to be tight. In contrast, we also show that another SDR proposed by Mobasher et al. is not tight with high probability under mild conditions. Moreover, we establish a general theorem that shows the equivalence between two subsets of positive semidefinite matrices in different dimensions by exploiting a special "separable" structure in the constraints. Our theorem recovers two existing equivalence results of SDRs defined in different settings and has the potential to find other applications due to its generality.

In this paper, we study the rate of convergence of the cyclic projection algorithm applied to finitely many basic semialgebraic convex sets. We establish an explicit convergence rate estimate which relies on the maximum degree of the polynomials that generate the basic semialgebraic convex sets and the dimension of the underlying space. We achieve our results by exploiting the algebraic structure of the basic semialgebraic convex sets.

Consensus optimization has received considerable attention in recent years. A number of decentralized algorithms have been proposed for convex consensus optimization. However, to the behaviors or consensus nonconvex optimization, our understanding is more limited. When we lose convexity, we cannot hope that our algorithms always return global solutions though they sometimes still do. Somewhat surprisingly, the decentralized consensus algorithms, DGD and Prox-DGD, retain most other properties that are known in the convex setting. In particular, when diminishing (or constant) step sizes are used, we can prove convergence to a (or a neighborhood of) consensus stationary solution under some regular assumptions. It is worth noting that Prox-DGD can handle nonconvex nonsmooth functions if their proximal operators can be computed. Such functions include SCAD, MCP, and lq quasinorms, q ∈ [0, 1). Similarly, Prox-DGD can take the constraint to a nonconvex set with an easy projection. To establish these properties, we have to introduce a completely different line of analysis, as well as modify existing proofs that were used in the convex setting.

No abstract uploaded!