|
Introduction Consider a two-dimensional case. Suppose we have a function, f(x,y), to maximize subject to ight) = c, where c is a constant. We can visualize contours of f given by ight)=d_n for various values of , and the contour of given by . Suppose we walk along the contour. Since, in general, the contours of and will be distinct, traversing the contour will generally intersect and cross many contours of . In general, by moving along the line we can increase or decrease the value of . Only when , and the contour we are following, touches tangentially, but does not cross a contour of , we do not increase or decrease the value of . This occurs at the constrained local extrema and the constrained inflection points of . A familiar example can be obtained from weather maps, with their contours for temperature and pressure: the constrained extrema will occur where the superposed maps show touching lines (isopleths). Geometrically we translate the tangency condition to saying that the gradients of and are parallel vectors at the maximum. Introducing an unknown scalar, λ, we solve abla Bigf left(x, y ight) + lambda left(g left(x, y ight) - c ight) Big = 0 for λ ≠ 0. Once values for λ are determined, we are back to the original number of variables and so can go on to find extrema of the new unconstrained function ight) = in traditional ways. That is, for all satisfying the constraint because equals zero on the constraint, but the extrema of are all on . The method of Lagrange multipliers Let f be a function defined on Rn, and let the constraints be given by gk(x) = 0 (perhaps by moving the constant to the left, as in gk(x) − c = 0). Now, define the Lagrangian, Λ, as Observe that both the optimization criteria and constraints gk are compactly encoded as extrema of the Lagrangian: abla_ Lambda = 0 Leftrightarrow abla_ f = - sum_k lambda_k abla_ g_k, and abla_ Lambda = 0 Leftrightarrow g_k = 0. Often the Lagrange multipliers have an interpretation as some salient quantity of interest. To see why this might be the case, observe that: Thus, λk is the rate of change of the quantity being optimized as a function of the constraint variable. As examples, in Lagrangian mechanics the equations of motion are derived by finding stationary points of the action, the time integral of the difference between kinetic and potential energy. Thus, the force on a particle due to a scalar potential, F = −∇V, can be interpreted as a Lagrange multiplier determining the change in action (transfer of potential to kinetic energy) following a variation in the particle's constrained trajectory. In economics, the optimal profit to a player is calculated subject to a constrained space of actions, where a Lagrange multiplier is the value of relaxing a given constraint (e.g. through bribery or other means). The method of Lagrange multipliers is generalized by the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Very simple example Suppose you want to find the maximum value for with the condition that As there is just a single condition, we will use only one multiplier, say . The maximum value is among the solution of the system of equations given by setting each of the partial derivatives of equal to zero: Another example Suppose we wish to find the discrete probability distribution with maximal information entropy. Then Of course, the sum of these probabilities equals 1, so our constraint is g(p) = 1 with We can use Lagrange multipliers to find the point of maximum entropy (depending on the probabilities). For all k from 1 to n, we require that which gives ight) = 0. Carrying out the differentiation of these n equations, we get ight) + lambda = 0. This shows that all pi are equal (because they depend on λ only). By using the constraint ∑k pk = 1, we find Hence, the uniform distribution is the distribution with the greatest entropy. Economics Constrained optimization plays a central role in economics. For example, the choice problem for a consumer is represented as one of maximizing a utility function subject to a budget constraint. The Lagrange multiplier has an economic interpretation as the shadow price associated with the constraint, in this case the marginal utility of income. See also | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
![]() |
|
| |