Solving Function Approximation Problems Using the \(L^2\)-Norm of the Log Ratio as a Metric

  • Ivan D. GospodinovEmail author
  • Stefan M. Filipov
  • Atanas V. Atanassov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11189)


This article considers the following function approximation problem: Given a non-negative function and a set of equality constraints, find the closest to it non-negative function which satisfies the constraints. As a measure of distance we propose the \(L^2\)-norm of the logarithm of the ratio of the two functions. As shown, this metric guarantees that (i) the sought function is non-negative and (ii) to the extent to which the constraints allow, the magnitude of the difference between the sought and the given function is proportional to the magnitude of the given function. To solve the problem we convert it to a finite dimensional constrained optimization problem and apply the method of Lagrange multipliers. The resulting nonlinear system, together with the system for the constraints, are solved self-consistently by applying an appropriate iterative procedure.


Non-negativity Relative difference Constrained optimization Lagrange multipliers 


  1. 1.
    Achiezer, N.I.: Theory of Approximation (translated by C. J. Hyman). Ungar, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Timan, A.F.: Theory of Approximation of Functions of a Real Variable. Pergamon (Translated from Russian) (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korneichuk, N.P., Ligun, A.A., Doronin, V.G.: Approximation with Constraints, Kiev (1982). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Milovanović, G.V., Wrigge, S.: Least squares approximation with constraints. Math. Comput. 46(174), 551–565 (1986). AMSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lorentz, G. G.: Approximation of Functions. AMS (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pedregal, P.: Optimization and Approximation. UNITEXT, vol. 108. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gauss, C.F.: Theory of the Combination of Observations Least Subject to Errors. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (Translated from original 1820 manuscript by G.W. Stewart) (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawson, C.L., Hanson, R.J.: Solving Least Squares Problems. SIAM, Philadelphia (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjorck, A.: Numerical Methods for Least Squares Problems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bertsekas, D.P.: Constrained Optimization and Lagrange Multiplier Methods. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Athena Scientific, Belmont (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhn, H. W., Tucker, A. W.: Nonlinear programming. In: Proceedings of 2nd Berkeley Symposium, Berkeley, pp. 481–492, MR 0047303. University of California Press (1951)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karush, W.: Minima of Functions of Several Variables with Inequalities as Side Constraints. M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (1939)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luenberger, D.G., Ye, Y.: Penalty and Barrier Methods. In: Linear and Nonlinear Programming. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 228. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freund, R.M.: Penalty and barrier methods for constrained optimization. Lecture Notes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fukushima, M.: Solving inequality constrained optimization problems by differential homotopy continuation methods. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 133(1), 109–121 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, J., Yang, Z.: A QP-free algorithm without a penalty function or a filter for nonlinear general-constrained optimization. Appl. Math. Comp. 316, 52–72 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strekalovsky, A. S., Minarchenko, I. M.: A local search method for optimization problem with d.c. inequality constraints. Appl. Math. Model (2017). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graff, C.: Expressing relative differences (in percent) by the difference of natural logarithms. J. Math. Psych. 60, 82–85 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graff, C.: Why estimating relative differences by Ln(A/B) in percentage and why naming it geometric difference. In: Conference: ICPS, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2015).
  20. 20.
    Filipov, S.M., Atanassov, A., Gospodinov, I.D.: Constrained functional similarity by minimizing the \(H^1\) seminorm and applications to engineering problems. J. Sci. Eng. Educ. 1(1), 61–67 (2016). University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy.
  21. 21.
    Filipov, S.M., Atanasov, A.V., Gospodinov, I.D.: Constrained relative functional similarity by minimizing the H1 semi-norm of the logarithmic difference. In: International Conference Automatics 2016, Proceedings of Technical University of Sofia, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 349–358. Technical University of Sofia (2016).
  22. 22.
    Gospodinov, I.G., Krumov, K., Filipov, S.M.: Laplacian preserving transformation of surfaces and application to boundary value problems for Laplace’s and Poisson’s equations. Math. Model. 1(1), 14–17 (2017). STUME. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Filipov, S.M., Gospodinov, I.D., Faragó, I.: Shooting-projection method for two-point boundary value problems. Appl. Math. Lett. 72, 10–15 (2017). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Filipov, S.M., Gospodinov, I.D., Angelova, J.: Solving two-point boundary value problems for integro-differential equations using the simple shooting-projection method. In: Dimov, I., Fidanova, S., Lirkov, I. (eds.) NMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8962, pp. 169–177. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan D. Gospodinov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan M. Filipov
    • 1
  • Atanas V. Atanassov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Chemical Technology and MetallurgySofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations