1: \begin{abstract}
2: Proximal distance algorithms combine the classical penalty method of
3: constrained minimization with distance majorization. If $f(\bx)$ is
4: the loss function, and $C$ is the constraint set in a constrained minimization
5: problem, then the proximal distance principle mandates minimizing the penalized loss $f(\bx)+\frac{\rho}{2}\dist(\bx,C)^2$ and following the solution $\bx_{\rho}$
6: to its limit as $\rho$ tends to $\infty$. At each iteration
7: the squared Euclidean distance $\dist(\bx,C)^2$ is majorized by the spherical quadratic
8: $\|\bx-P_C(\bx_k)\|^2$, where $P_C(\bx_k)$ denotes the projection of
9: the current iterate $\bx_k$ onto $C$. The minimum of the surrogate
10: function $f(\bx)+\frac{\rho}{2}\|\bx-P_C(\bx_k)\|^2$
11: is given by the proximal map $\prox_{\rho^{-1}f}[P_C(\bx_k)]$.
12: The next iterate $\bx_{k+1}$ automatically decreases the original
13: penalized loss for fixed $\rho$.
14: Since many explicit projections and proximal maps are known,
15: it is straightforward to derive and implement novel
16: optimization algorithms in this setting. These algorithms can take hundreds if not
17: thousands of iterations to converge, but the stereotyped nature of each
18: iteration makes proximal distance algorithms competitive with traditional algorithms. For
19: convex problems, we prove global convergence. Our numerical examples
20: include a) linear programming, b) nonnegative quadratic programming,
21: c) projection to the closest kinship matrix, d) projection onto a second-order cone constraint, e) calculation of Horn's copositive matrix index, f) linear complementarity programming, and g) sparse principal components analysis. The proximal distance
22: algorithm in each case is competitive or superior in speed to
23: traditional methods.\\
24: \svskip \\
25: \noindent {\em Key words and phrases:} constrained optimization, EM algorithm,
26: majorization, projection, proximal map \\
27: \textit{Math Subject Classifications:} 90C59, 90C26, 65K05
28: \end{abstract}