Continued writing theoretical comparison of admm and proximal decoding

latex/thesis/chapters/analysis_of_results.tex

@@ -43,10 +43,10 @@ proximal operators.
 They are both composed of an iterative approach consisting of two
 alternating steps.
 In both cases each step minimizes one distinct part of the objective function.
-The approaches they are based on, however, are fundamentally different.
+They do, however, have some fundametal differences.
-In figure \ref{fig:ana:theo_comp_alg} the two algorithms are juxtaposed,
+In figure \ref{fig:ana:theo_comp_alg} the two algorithms are juxtaposed in their
-in conjuction with the optimization problems they are meant to solve, in their
+proximal operator form, in conjuction with the optimization problems they
-proximal operator form.%
+are meant to solve.%
 %
 \begin{figure}[H]
     \centering
@@ -86,8 +86,7 @@ return $\boldsymbol{s}$
             \text{minimize}\hspace{5mm} &
                 \underbrace{\boldsymbol{\gamma}^\text{T}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}}
                     _{\text{Likelihood}}
-                + \underbrace{\sum_{j\in\mathcal{J}} g_j\left(
+                + \underbrace{g\left( \boldsymbol{T}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} \right) }
-                    \boldsymbol{T}_j\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} \right) }
                     _{\text{Constraints}} \\
             \text{subject to}\hspace{5mm} &
                 \tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} \in \mathbb{R}^n
@@ -102,10 +101,12 @@ Initialize $\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}, \boldsymbol{z}, \boldsymbol{u}, \boldsymbol{
 while stopping criterion not satisfied do
     $\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} \leftarrow \textbf{prox}_{
         \scaleto{\nu \cdot \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\text{T}}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}}{8.5pt}}
-        \left( \boldsymbol{z} - \boldsymbol{u} \right) $
+        \left( \tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}
-    $\boldsymbol{z}_j \leftarrow \textbf{prox}_{\scaleto{g_j}{7pt}}
+        - \frac{\mu}{\lambda}\boldsymbol{T}^\text{T}\left( \boldsymbol{T}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}
-        \left( \boldsymbol{T}_j\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}
+        - \boldsymbol{z} + \boldsymbol{u} \right)  \right)$
-            + \boldsymbol{T}_j\boldsymbol{u} \right) \hspace{5mm}\forall j\in\mathcal{J}$
+    $\boldsymbol{z} \leftarrow \textbf{prox}_{\scaleto{g}{7pt}}
+        \left( \boldsymbol{T}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}
+            + \boldsymbol{u} \right)$
     $\boldsymbol{u} \leftarrow \boldsymbol{u}
         + \tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} - \boldsymbol{z}$
 end while
@@ -121,35 +122,37 @@ return $\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}$
     \label{fig:ana:theo_comp_alg}
 \end{figure}%
 %
-\todo{Show how $\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} \leftarrow \textbf{prox}
-    _{1 / \mu \cdot \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\text{T}}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}} 
-        \left( \boldsymbol{z} - \boldsymbol{u} \right) $
-is the same as
-$\boldsymbol{\gamma}^\text{T}\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}
-    + \sum_{j\in\mathcal{J}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\text{T}_j
-    \left( \boldsymbol{T}_j\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} - \boldsymbol{z}_j \right) 
-    + \frac{\mu}{2}\sum_{j\in\mathcal{J}}
-    \lVert \boldsymbol{T}_j\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}} - \boldsymbol{z}_j \rVert^2_2$}%
-%
 \noindent The objective functions of both problems are similar in that they
 both comprise two parts: one associated to the likelihood that a given
 codeword was sent and one associated to the constraints the codeword is
 subjected to.
-Their major difference is that the two parts of the objective minimized with
+
-proximal decoding are both functions of the same variable
+Their major differece is that while with proximal decoding the constraints
-$\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}$, whereas with \ac{ADMM} the two parts are functions
+are regarded in a global context, considering all parity checks at the same
-of different variables: $\tilde{\boldsymbol{c}}$ and $\boldsymbol{z}_{[1:m]}$.
+time in the second step, with \ac{ADMM} each parity check is
+considered separately, in a more local context (line 4 in both algorithms).
 This difference means that while with proximal decoding the alternating
 minimization of the two parts of the objective function inevitably leads to
 oscillatory behaviour (as explained in section (TODO)), this is not the
-case with \ac{ADMM}.
+case with \ac{ADMM}, which partly explains the disparate decoding performance
+of the two methods.
+Furthermore, while with proximal decoding the step considering the constraints
+is realized using gradient descent - amounting to an approximation -
+with \ac{ADMM} it reduces to a number of projections onto the parity polytopes
+$\mathcal{P}_{d_j}$ (see
+\ref{chapter:LD Decoding using ADMM as a Proximal Algorithm}),
+which always provide exact results.
 
-Another aspect partly explaining the disparate decoding performance is the
+The contrasting treatment of the constraints (global and approximate with
-difference in the minimization step handling the constraints.
+proximal decoding, local and exact with \ac{ADMM}) also leads to different
-While with proximal decoding it is performed using gradient
+prospects when the decoding process gets stuck in a local minimum.
-descent - amounting to an approximation - with \ac{ADMM} it reduces to a
+With proximal decoding this occurrs due to the approximate nature of the
-number of projections onto the parity polytopes $\mathcal{P}_{d_j}$ - which
+calculation, whereas with \ac{ADMM} it occurs due to the approximate
-always provide exact results.
+formulation of the constraints - not depending on the optimization method
+itself.
+The advantage which arises because of this when using \ac{ADMM} is that
+it can be easily detected, when the algorithm gets stuck - the algorithm
+returns a pseudocodeword, the components of which are fractional.
 
 \begin{itemize}
     \item The comparison of actual implementations is always debatable /