Getting started with MATLAB
The Knitro interface for MATLAB, called knitromatlab, is provided with your Knitro distribution. To test whether your installation is correct, type in the expression:
[x fval] = knitromatlab(@(x)cos(x),1)
at the MATLAB command prompt. If your installation was successful, knitromatlab returns:
x = 3.1416, fval = -1.
If you do not get this output but an error stating that knitromatlab was not found, it probably means that the path has not been added to MATLAB. If Knitro is found and called but returns an error, it probably means that no license was found. In any of these situations, please see Troubleshooting.
The knitromatlab interface
The Knitro/MATLAB interface function is very similar to MATLAB’s built-in fmincon function; the most elaborate form is:
[x,fval,exitflag,output,lambda,grad,hessian] = ... knitromatlab(fun,x0,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,nonlcon, ... extendedFeatures,options,KnitroOptions)
but the simplest function call reduces to:
x = knitromatlab(fun,x0)
The knitromatlab function was designed to provide a similar user experience to MATLAB’s fmincon optimization function. See Knitro / MATLAB reference for a more extensive description of knitromatlab interface.
The ktrlink interface previously provided with the MATLAB Optimization Toolbox is no longer supported. See the reference manual on using knitrolink instead.
First MATLAB example
Let’s consider the same example as before (in section Getting started with AMPL), converted into MATLAB.
% objective to minimize obj = @(x) 1000 - x(1)^2 - 2*x(2)^2 - x(3)^2 - x(1)*x(2) - x(1)*x(3); % No nonlinear equality constraints. ceq = ; % Specify nonlinear inequality constraint to be nonnegative c2 = @(x) x(1)^2 + x(2)^2 + x(3)^2 - 25; % "nlcon" should return [c, ceq] with c(x) <= 0 and ceq(x) = 0 % so we need to negate the inequality constraint above nlcon = @(x)deal(-c2(x), ceq); % Initial point x0 = [2; 2; 2]; % No linear inequality contraint ("A*x <= b") A = ; b = ; % Since the equality constraint "c1" is linear, specify it here ("Aeq*x = beq") Aeq = [8 14 7]; beq = ; % lower and upper bounds lb = zeros(3,1); ub = ; % solver call x = knitromatlab(obj, x0, A, b, Aeq, beq, lb, ub, nlcon);
Saving this code in a file example.m in the current folder and issuing example at the MATLAB prompt produces the following output.
======================================= Commercial License Artelys Knitro 10.0.0 ======================================= Knitro presolve eliminated 0 variables and 0 constraints. algorithm: 1 gradopt: 4 hessopt: 2 honorbnds: 1 maxit: 10000 outlev: 1 par_concurrent_evals: 0 Knitro changing bar_initpt from AUTO to 3. Knitro changing bar_murule from AUTO to 4. Knitro changing bar_penaltycons from AUTO to 1. Knitro changing bar_penaltyrule from AUTO to 2. Knitro changing bar_switchrule from AUTO to 2. Knitro changing linsolver from AUTO to 2. Problem Characteristics ( Presolved) ----------------------- Objective goal: Minimize Number of variables: 3 ( 3) bounded below: 3 ( 3) bounded above: 0 ( 0) bounded below and above: 0 ( 0) fixed: 0 ( 0) free: 0 ( 0) Number of constraints: 2 ( 2) linear equalities: 1 ( 1) nonlinear equalities: 0 ( 0) linear inequalities: 0 ( 0) nonlinear inequalities: 1 ( 1) range: 0 ( 0) Number of nonzeros in Jacobian: 6 ( 6) Number of nonzeros in Hessian: 6 ( 6) EXIT: Locally optimal solution found. Final Statistics ---------------- Final objective value = 9.36000000000340e+02 Final feasibility error (abs / rel) = 7.11e-15 / 5.47e-16 Final optimality error (abs / rel) = 2.25e-09 / 1.41e-10 # of iterations = 9 # of CG iterations = 0 # of function evaluations = 44 # of gradient evaluations = 0 Total program time (secs) = 0.04114 ( 0.082 CPU time) Time spent in evaluations (secs) = 0.03381 ===============================================================================
The objective function value is the same (about 936.0) as in the AMPL example. However, even though we solved the same problem, things went quite differently behind the scenes in these two examples; as we will see in Section Derivatives, AMPL provides derivatives to Knitro automatically, whereas in MATLAB the user must do it manually. Since we did not provide these derivatives, Knitro had to approximate them. Note that with AMPL, only 9 function evaluations took place, whereas there were 44 in the MATLAB example (extra function evaluations were needed to approximate the first derivatives). On a large problem, this could have made a very significant difference in performance.
More examples are provided in the
knitromatlab directory of the