Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Strong Formulations and Algorithms for Regularized A-optimal Design

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Regularized A-optimal design — choosing k experiments to minimize the trace of the inverse of a regularized Fisher information matrix — is NP-hard, and a new convex-envelope relaxation dominates all existing relaxations for every k.

desk verdict Solid relaxation and complexity results, but the cutting-plane algorithm's subgradient is wrong and needs a substantive fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14957 v1 pith:ZNBUJ653 submitted 2025-05-20 math.OC

Yongchun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C1190C2562K05
keywords regularizedA-optimaldesignNP-hardnessconvexenveloperelaxationcutting-planealgorithmgreedyalgorithmscold-startrecommendationmixed-integerprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that Regularized A-optimal Design (RAOD) — selecting k experiments to minimize the trace of the inverse of a regularized Fisher information matrix — is NP-hard, resolving the complexity of the isotropic-prior case of Bayesian A-optimal design. The main contribution is a new convex integer formulation built from the convex envelope of a spectral function, whose continuous relaxation RAOD-RII is provably at least as tight as the two standard relaxations for every k, and strictly tighter in the previously hard small-k regime. Unlike existing relaxations, which can have unbounded gaps for k < d or negative lower bounds for k > d, RAOD-RII has finite data-independent optimality gaps for all k. The formulation drives an exact cutting-plane algorithm that certifies optimality in high-dimensional, small-k instances where previous exact methods stall, and the paper supplies forward and backward greedy algorithms with the first data-independent guarantees in their respective k ranges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is $\operatorname{conv}\Gamma(X;\lambda)$, the convex envelope of the spectral function $\Gamma(X;\lambda)=\sum_{i=1}^{\tilde k} \frac{1}{\sigma_i+\lambda}$ on the cone of $d\times d$ positive semidefinite matrices, where $\sigma_1\ge\dots\ge\sigma_d\ge0$ are the eigenvalues of $X$. Proposition 3 gives the closed form $\operatorname{conv}\Gamma(X;\lambda)=\sum_{i\in[\eta]}\frac{1}{\sigma_i+\lambda}+\frac{(\tilde k-\eta)^2}{\sum_{i\in[\eta+1,d]}\sigma_i+(\tilde k-\eta)\lambda}$, where $\eta$ is the unique integer $0\le\eta\le\tilde k-1$ satisfying a spectral-gap condition, and Lemma 7 shows that for matrices of rank at most $\tilde k$, $\operatorname{conv}\Gamma(X;\lambda)+(d-\tilde k)/\lambda=\operatorname{tr}((X+\lambda I_d)^{-1})$. This equality makes the new integer program exact on binary vectors while remaining convex, and the envelope's explicit subgradient makes the relaxation tractable by first-order methods such as Frank–Wolfe.

What would settle it

Take the instance of Example 2 from the paper: d=1, k=2, n=3, λ=1, with a1=1, a2=−1, a3=2. Solving the three relaxations should produce ν^M_2 = −1/28 (negative), while RAOD-RII returns a value satisfying ν^N_2 ≥ ν^C_2 and ν^N_2 ≥ ν^M_2; a violation of these inequalities would refute the dominance claim of Theorem 5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that RAOD, the problem of minimizing $\operatorname{tr}((\sum_{i\in S} a_i a_i^\top + \lambda I_d)^{-1})$ over subsets $S$ of size $k$, is NP-hard, and that the relaxation RAOD-RII — obtained by replacing the objective of an exact convex integer program with the convex envelope $\operatorname{conv}\Gamma(X;\lambda)$ plus the constant $(d-\tilde k)/\lambda$, where $\tilde k=\min\{k,d\}$ — dominates both the conventional relaxation RAOD-RI and the AMESP relaxation AMESP-R for every $k$. Concretely, Theorem 5 asserts $\nu^N_k = \nu^C_k$ for $k\in[d,n]$, $\nu^N_k \ge \nu^C_k$ for $k\in[d-1]$, and $\nu^N_k \ge \nu^M_k$ for all $k$. Because the envelope is exact on the rank-constrained binary feasible set, the new formulation is an exact convex integer program, not merely a relaxation, and its relaxation carries finite optimality gaps for all $k$ (Corollary 2), closing the unbounded-gap and negative-bound pathologies of the prior relaxations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dominance and gap analysis rests on the convex-envelope formula for Γ(X;λ) in Proposition 3, which is imported from prior work on the λ=0 case; if that formula fails for λ>0, the relaxation RAOD-RII and all its guarantees collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exact solvers for RAOD can replace the standard relaxation with RAOD-RII as the dual bound; Theorem 5 guarantees this never weakens the bound, and in the small-k regime $k<d$ it strictly strengthens it, enabling more aggressive node pruning in branch-and-bound.
  • The bounded gaps in Corollary 2 mean that for any $k$, the relaxation value is within a known factor of the optimum: $\min\{(d-1)/(d-k),\, n-k+1\}$ for $k<d$, $\min\{d,\, n-d+1\}$ for $k=d$, and $(n-d+1)/(k-d+1)$ for $k>d$.
  • The forward greedy algorithm is certified for $k<d$ with a $(d-1)/(d-k)$ approximation ratio — the first data-independent guarantee in this regime — and the new backward greedy algorithm is certified for $k\ge d$ with ratio $(n-d+1)/(k-d+1)$, together covering all $k$.
  • Because RAOD is equivalent to AMESP up to the additive constant $(d-k)/\lambda$, any approximation or exact result for either problem transfers to the other after adjusting for this constant, including the negative-gap pathology that makes AMESP-R useless for $k>d$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The NP-hardness reduction in Appendix A.2 writes $C=AA^\top+\lambda I_n$, whereas Proposition 1 and the AMESP equivalence use $C=A^\top A+\lambda I_n$; a skeptical reader should check this orientation discrepancy, since the independent-set gadget is symmetric and the reduction could likely be repaired by transposition.
  • The convex-envelope technique is not limited to the isotropic regularizer: replacing $\lambda I$ with a general positive-definite prior $\Sigma$ may yield analogous envelopes for Bayesian A-optimal design, turning the paper's dominance result into a template for the general problem whose complexity the paper leaves open.
  • The gap bound $(d-1)/(d-k)$ decreases with $d$, suggesting that RAOD-RII becomes relatively stronger precisely in the high-dimensional, small-k settings where A-optimality is most used in practice, so the numerical speedups observed for Algorithm 1 may be intrinsic rather than an artifact of the test instances.
  • The backward greedy guarantee is novel and gives a theoretical justification for a heuristic that practitioners often prefer when $k$ is close to $n$; combining it with forward greedy and taking the better of the two, as in Algorithm 4, inherits both guarantees at $O(n^2d^2)$ cost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies the Regularized A-optimal Design (RAOD) problem, in which one selects k experiment vectors a_i so as to minimize tr((Σ_{i∈S} a_i a_i^T + λ I_d)^{-1}). The authors claim four main contributions: a proof of NP-hardness via a reduction from independent set through an equivalence with AMESP; a new convex relaxation RAOD-RII based on the convex envelope of Γ(X;λ)=Σ_{i=1}^{min{k,d}} 1/(σ_i+λ), which they show dominates the existing RAOD-RI and AMESP-R relaxations and has bounded optimality gaps for every k; an exact cutting-plane algorithm for the resulting convex integer formulation; and data-independent approximation guarantees for forward and backward greedy algorithms. The paper also reports numerical experiments on synthetic, UCI, and movie-rating data, including a user cold-start recommendation application.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes substantial contributions: the first NP-hardness proof for RAOD (and hence for the conjectured hardness of Bayesian AOD), a relaxation that provably dominates the two existing relaxations for all k with finite worst-case gaps, and new approximation guarantees for greedy methods. The theoretical relaxation analysis (Theorems 2, 3, and 5 with Corollary 2), the NP-hardness strategy, and the greedy performance proofs are presented in detail and appear largely sound. However, the algorithmic centerpiece is currently invalid: Proposition 3(ii) gives a positive semidefinite matrix as a subgradient of a decreasing convex function, which is impossible, and the displayed counterexample in this report confirms that the proposed subgradient inequality fails. Consequently, the outer-approximation cuts in Eq. (4) and Algorithm 1 are not valid underestimators, and the exactness claims plus the MIPGap tables for Algorithm 1 are unsupported as written. The relaxation-gap results and greedy theorems do not rely on this subgradient and may survive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1–4.3, Proposition 3(ii), Remark 3, Eq. (4), Algorithm 1] Proposition 3(ii) is incorrect as stated. The proposed matrix W = Q Diag(ς)Q^T has positive entries ς_i and is positive semidefinite, but conv Γ is a decreasing convex function of X in the positive semidefinite order, so every subgradient of conv Γ must be negative semidefinite. A direct check settles the matter: take d=2, k=1, λ=1, and X=I_2. Then Proposition 3(i) gives conv Γ(X) = 1/(tr X + 1) = 1/3, while Proposition 3(ii) gives W = I_2/3. At Y = 2I_2, conv Γ(Y) = 1/5, but the subgradient inequality with W would require 1/5 ≥ 1/3 + ⟨I_2/3, I_2⟩ = 1, which fails. The correct subgradient at this point is -(tr X + 1)^{-2} I = -I/9. As a consequence, the vector g(x) defined in Remark 3 has the wrong sign, and the cuts in Eq. (4) and Algorithm 1 are not valid underestimators of the objective of (3). The claimed convergence of Algorithm 1 and the MIPGap results in Tables 3–4 are therefore unsupported as written. This is a load-bearing error for the exact-algorithm contribution, although the relaxation-gap results in Theorem 5 and Corollary 2 do not use this subgradient and may still be correct. The subgradient formula should be replaced by a valid negative semidefinite expression and the numerical experiments re-run.
  2. [Appendix A.2, proof of Theorem 1] The NP-hardness reduction writes C = AA^T + λ I_n and says the Cholesky factor A of C − λ I_n yields this representation, but Proposition 1 defines C = A^T A + λ I_n. The trace of a principal submatrix of A^T A is not generally equal to the corresponding trace for AA^T, so the proof as written does not literally match the equivalence on which the reduction relies. The intended construction is clear: choose the Cholesky factor so that C − λ I_n = A^T A (or transpose the usual Cholesky factor), with the resulting dimension d = n, and state this explicitly. This correction is needed for the NP-hardness proof to be literally correct.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 6] The statement of Theorem 6 gives the approximation ratio for Algorithm 3 as (n−d−1)/(k−d+1), while the proof and Table 2 both use (n−d+1)/(k−d+1). The formula in the theorem statement should be corrected.
  2. [Corollary 1] In Corollary 1(ii), the text says 'there is a case of RAOD-RI where z_k/ν^k_C → ∞'; the ratio is for the relaxation (2) or RAOD-RI's bound, so the wording should be adjusted to avoid identifying the relaxation with the integer problem.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'seminar work' for 'seminal work' in Section 1.1 and 'subgragh' for 'subgraph' in Appendix A.2. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NP-hardness reduction and relaxation comparisons are derived from independent convex-analysis results rather than from the claims themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is not circular. Theorem 1 proves NP-hardness by a direct reduction from the independent-set decision problem to AMESP/RAOD; the reduction does not invoke the RAOD optimal value as an assumption. Proposition 1's equivalence between RAOD and AMESP is proved by eigenvalue comparison in Appendix A.1. The RAOD-RII relaxation and dominance Theorem 5 are built from a convex-envelope formula cited from Kim et al. (2022) and from the author's earlier Li-Xie (2024) work; those cited results are general convex-envelope/subgradient characterizations, not restatements of RAOD-RII's dominance or gap conclusions. The proof of Theorem 5(iii) imports the majorization lemma from Li (2024), a self-citation, but it is an independent combinatorial lemma rather than an assumption of the target inequality being proved; under the reviewing rules, self-citation of this kind is not circular. The numerical experiments compare against external baselines (Gurobi MISOCP, RAOD-RI, AMESP-R) and do not fit a parameter and then rename it a prediction. The concerns raised in the skeptical note about the sign/subgradient in Proposition 3(ii) and the C=AA^T versus C=A^TA notation in Appendix A.2 are correctness or consistency issues, not circularity; they do not make any derived quantity equal to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not depend on fitted constants or newly postulated physical entities. It rests on standard convex analysis, spectral function theory, and majorization results, some of which come from prior papers by the same author. The free-parameter list is empty because lambda, k, n, and d are problem inputs.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Convex envelope of the partial reciprocal eigenvalue sum gamma(sigma+) = sum_{i in [k~]} 1/sigma+_i has the form given in Li and Xie (2024, Theorems 8 and 9) and Kim et al. (2022, Theorem 8).
    Invoked in Proposition 3 to define conv Gamma; the paper extends the result to lambda > 0 but does not reprove the underlying envelope theorem.
  • standard math The eigenvalue-pooling index eta in Lemma 5 exists and is unique (Nikolov 2015, Lemma 14).
    Used to define the unique integer eta in the convex envelope formula and in Lemma 6.
  • standard math The majorization relation beta+ majorizes beta and the Schur-convexity of xi and phi (Marshall 1979, Li 2024, Lemma 1).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 5 to show that RAOD-RII dominates AMESP-R.
  • standard math Harmonic mean versus arithmetic mean inequality (Sedrakyan and Sedrakyan 2018, Lemma 1).
    Used in the NP-hardness reduction and in the lower bound for AMESP-R.
  • standard math Woodbury and Sherman-Morrison matrix identities, and eigenvalue relationships between A_S A_S^T and A_S^T A_S.
    Used throughout Lemmas 2 and 3 and in the equivalence Proposition 1.
  • standard math Spectral function subgradient representation via Lewis (1995) and Drusvyatskiy and Kempton (2015).
    Used in Proposition 3(ii) to obtain subgradients of conv Gamma.
  • domain assumption RAOD assumes the linear-regression Fisher information model sum_{i in S} a_i a_i^T + lambda I_d with lambda > 0.
    This is the problem definition itself, stated in the introduction and used throughout the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong Formulations and Algorithms for Regularized A-optimal Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNBUJ653

@misc{pith2026250514957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong Formulations and Algorithms for Regularized A-optimal Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNBUJ653}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14957}
}
abstract

We study the Regularized A-optimal Design (RAOD) problem, which selects a subset of $k$ experiments to minimize the inverse of the Fisher information matrix, regularized with a scaled identity matrix. RAOD has broad applications in Bayesian experimental design, sensor placement, and cold-start recommendation. We prove its NP-hardness via a reduction from the independent set problem. By leveraging convex envelope techniques, we propose a new convex integer programming formulation for RAOD, whose continuous relaxation dominates those of existing formulations. More importantly, we demonstrate that our continuous relaxation achieves bounded optimality gaps for all $k$, whereas previous relaxations may suffer from unbounded gaps. This new formulation enables the development of an exact cutting-plane algorithm with superior efficiency, especially in high-dimensional and small-$k$ scenarios. We also investigate scalable forward and backward greedy algorithms for solving RAOD, each with provable performance guarantees for different $k$ ranges. Finally, our numerical results on synthetic and real data demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed exact and approximation algorithms. We further showcase the practical effectiveness of RAOD by applying it to a real-world user cold-start recommendation problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Approximation Ratio for the Risk of Myopic Bayesian Active Learning for Linear Regression

    cs.LG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Greedy myopic Bayesian active learning for linear regression achieves risk within a factor linear in the maximum initial leverage score of optimal, and this factor is tight.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Statistics and Computing 31(5):65

    Ahipa s ao g lu SD (2021) A branch-and-bound algorithm for the exact optimal experimental design problem. Statistics and Computing 31(5):65

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Statistics and Computing 25:1113--1127

    Ahipa s ao g lu SD (2015) A first-order algorithm for the a-optimal experimental design problem: a mathematical programming approach. Statistics and Computing 25:1113--1127

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    International Conference on Machine Learning, 126--135 (PMLR)

    Allen-Zhu Z, Li Y, Singh A, Wang Y (2017) Near-optimal design of experiments via regret minimization. International Conference on Machine Learning, 126--135 (PMLR)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web, 45--54

    Anava O, Golan S, Golbandi N, Karnin Z, Lempel R, Rokhlenko O, Somekh O (2015) Budget-constrained item cold-start handling in collaborative filtering recommenders via optimal design. Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web, 45--54

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 34(4):1464--1499

    Avron H, Boutsidis C (2013) Faster subset selection for matrices and applications. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 34(4):1464--1499

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    (2015) Nonlinear ill-posed problem analysis in model-based parameter estimation and experimental design

    Barz T, K \"o rkel S, Wozny G, et al. (2015) Nonlinear ill-posed problem analysis in model-based parameter estimation and experimental design. Computers & Chemical Engineering 77:24--42

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Statistical Science 35(4):623--624

    Bertsimas D, Pauphilet J, Van Parys B (2020) Rejoinder: Sparse regression: Scalable algorithms and empirical performance. Statistical Science 35(4):623--624

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    International conference on machine learning, 498--507 (PMLR)

    Bian AA, Buhmann JM, Krause A, Tschiatschek S (2017) Guarantees for greedy maximization of non-submodular functions with applications. International conference on machine learning, 498--507 (PMLR)

    work page 2017

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    http://www

    Blake CL (1998) Uci repository of machine learning databases. http://www. ics. uci. edu/\ mlearn/MLRepository. html

    1998

  2. [10]

    Knowledge-based systems 26:225--238

    Bobadilla J, Ortega F, Hernando A, Bernal J (2012) A collaborative filtering approach to mitigate the new user cold start problem. Knowledge-based systems 26:225--238

    2012

  3. [11]

    Statistical science 273--304

    Chaloner K, Verdinelli I (1995) Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statistical science 273--304

    1995

  4. [12]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30

    Chamon L, Ribeiro A (2017 a ) Approximate supermodularity bounds for experimental design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30

    2017

  5. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 66(1):34--47

    Chamon LF, Ribeiro A (2017 b ) Greedy sampling of graph signals. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 66(1):34--47

    2017

  6. [14]

    Discrete Mathematics 45(2-3):181--188

    Constantine GM (1983) Schur convex functions on the spectra of graphs. Discrete Mathematics 45(2-3):181--188

    1983

  7. [15]

    Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2022) Introduction to algorithms (MIT press)

    2022

  8. [16]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29:291--343

    Deldjoo Y, Dacrema MF, Constantin MG, Eghbal-Zadeh H, Cereda S, Schedl M, Ionescu B, Cremonesi P (2019) Movie genome: alleviating new item cold start in movie recommendation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29:291--343

    2019

  9. [17]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 3197--3207 (PMLR)

    Derezinski M, Liang F, Mahoney M (2020) Bayesian experimental design using regularized determinantal point processes. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 3197--3207 (PMLR)

    2020

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05110

    Derezi \'n ski M, Warmuth MK (2017) Subsampling for ridge regression via regularized volume sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05110

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation for Recommender Systems, CrowdRec at RecSys 2013

    Dooms S, De Pessemier T, Martens L (2013) Movietweetings: a movie rating dataset collected from twitter. Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation for Recommender Systems, CrowdRec at RecSys 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05170

    Drusvyatskiy D, Kempton C (2015) Variational analysis of spectral functions simplified. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05170

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mathematics 11(4):854

    Duarte BP (2023) Exact optimal designs of experiments for factorial models via mixed-integer semidefinite programming. Mathematics 11(4):854

    2023

  14. [22]

    International Statistical Review 83(2):239--262

    Duarte BP, Wong WK (2015) Finding bayesian optimal designs for nonlinear models: a semidefinite programming-based approach. International Statistical Review 83(2):239--262

    2015

  15. [23]

    Mathematical programming 36:307--339

    Duran MA, Grossmann IE (1986) An outer-approximation algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs. Mathematical programming 36:307--339

    1986

  16. [24]

    Computer Science Review 20:29--50

    Elahi M, Ricci F, Rubens N (2016) A survey of active learning in collaborative filtering recommender systems. Computer Science Review 20:29--50

    2016

  17. [25]

    2017 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 133--138 (IEEE)

    Gope J, Jain SK (2017) A survey on solving cold start problem in recommender systems. 2017 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 133--138 (IEEE)

    2017

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11200

    Hendrych D, Besan c on M, Pokutta S (2023) Solving the optimal experiment design problem with mixed-integer convex methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11200

    2023

  19. [27]

    Journal of chemical information and computer sciences 37(5):861--870

    Higgs RE, Bemis KG, Watson IA, Wikel JH (1997) Experimental designs for selecting molecules from large chemical databases. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences 37(5):861--870

    1997

  20. [28]

    Quality and Reliability Engineering International 24(4):417--428

    Ilzarbe L, \'A lvarez MJ, Viles E, Tanco M (2008) Practical applications of design of experiments in the field of engineering: a bibliographical review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 24(4):417--428

    2008

  21. [29]

    Jobson JD (2012) Applied multivariate data analysis: regression and experimental design (Springer Science & Business Media)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Journal of Quality Technology 53(4):369--382

    Jones B, Allen-Moyer K, Goos P (2021) A-optimal versus d-optimal design of screening experiments. Journal of Quality Technology 53(4):369--382

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 47(4):2547--2584

    Kim J, Tawarmalani M, Richard JPP (2022) Convexification of permutation-invariant sets and an application to sparse principal component analysis. Mathematics of Operations Research 47(4):2547--2584

    2022

  24. [32]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(2)

    Krause A, Singh A, Guestrin C (2008) Near-optimal sensor placements in gaussian processes: Theory, efficient algorithms and empirical studies. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(2)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Analytica chimica acta 652(1-2):161--172

    Leardi R (2009) Experimental design in chemistry: A tutorial. Analytica chimica acta 652(1-2):161--172

    2009

  26. [34]

    Journal of Convex Analysis 2(1):173--183

    Lewis AS (1995) The convex analysis of unitarily invariant matrix functions. Journal of Convex Analysis 2(1):173--183

    1995

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10078

    Li Y (2024) The augmented factorization bound for maximum-entropy sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10078

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    INFORMS Journal on Computing 36(1):97--120

    Li Y, Fampa M, Lee J, Qiu F, Xie W, Yao R (2024) D-optimal data fusion: Exact and approximation algorithms. INFORMS Journal on Computing 36(1):97--120

    2024

  29. [37]

    Operations Research 72(2):493--513

    Li Y, Xie W (2024) Best principal submatrix selection for the maximum entropy sampling problem: scalable algorithms and performance guarantees. Operations Research 72(2):493--513

    2024

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18392

    Liang L, Yang H (2024) Pnod: An efficient projected newton framework for exact optimal experimental designs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18392

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Expert systems with applications 41(4):2065--2073

    Lika B, Kolomvatsos K, Hadjiefthymiades S (2014) Facing the cold start problem in recommender systems. Expert systems with applications 41(4):2065--2073

    2014

  32. [40]

    Conference on Learning Theory, 2210--2258 (PMLR)

    Madan V, Singh M, Tantipongpipat U, Xie W (2019) Combinatorial algorithms for optimal design. Conference on Learning Theory, 2210--2258 (PMLR)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Marshall A (1979) Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications

    1979

  34. [42]

    Mason RL, Gunst RF, Hess JL (2003) Statistical design and analysis of experiments: with applications to engineering and science (John Wiley & Sons)

    2003

  35. [43]

    Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 861--870

    Nikolov A (2015) Randomized rounding for the largest simplex problem. Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 861--870

    2015

  36. [44]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 47(2):847--877

    Nikolov A, Singh M, Tantipongpipat U (2022) Proportional volume sampling and approximation algorithms for a-optimal design. Mathematics of Operations Research 47(2):847--877

    2022

  37. [45]

    Pukelsheim F (2006) Optimal design of experiments (SIAM)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Computers & chemical engineering 16(10-11):937--947

    Quesada I, Grossmann IE (1992) An lp/nlp based branch and bound algorithm for convex minlp optimization problems. Computers & chemical engineering 16(10-11):937--947

    1992

  39. [47]

    Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists (Cambridge university press)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Statistical Science 39(1):100--114

    Rainforth T, Foster A, Ivanova DR, Bickford Smith F (2024) Modern bayesian experimental design. Statistical Science 39(1):100--114

    2024

  41. [49]

    Rockafellar RT (1997) Convex analysis, volume 28 (Princeton university press)

    1997

  42. [50]

    IPSJ Online Transactions 2:240--249

    Rubens N, Tomioka R, Sugiyama M (2009) Output divergence criterion for active learning in collaborative settings. IPSJ Online Transactions 2:240--249

    2009

  43. [51]

    Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 141(5):1684--1708

    Sagnol G (2011) Computing optimal designs of multiresponse experiments reduces to second-order cone programming. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 141(5):1684--1708

    2011

  44. [52]

    The Annals of Statistics 43(5):2198--2224

    Sagnol G, Harman R (2015) Computing exact d-optimal designs by mixed integer second-order cone programming. The Annals of Statistics 43(5):2198--2224

    2015

  45. [53]

    Sedrakyan H, Sedrakyan N (2018) Algebraic inequalities (Springer)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Technometrics 65(4):492--501

    Stallrich J, Allen-Moyer K, Jones B (2023) D-and a-optimal screening designs. Technometrics 65(4):492--501

    2023

  47. [55]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11182

    Tantipongpipat U (2020) -regularized a-optimal design and its approximation by -regularized proportional volume sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11182

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Proceedings of the Recommender Systems Challenge 2017, 1--6

    Volkovs M, Yu GW, Poutanen T (2017) Content-based neighbor models for cold start in recommender systems. Proceedings of the Recommender Systems Challenge 2017, 1--6

    2017

  49. [57]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 18(143):1--41

    Wang Y, Yu AW, Singh A (2017) On computationally tractable selection of experiments in measurement-constrained regression models. Journal of Machine Learning Research 18(143):1--41

    2017

  50. [58]

    Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 15(1):17--25

    Welch WJ (1982) Algorithmic complexity: three np-hard problems in computational statistics. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 15(1):17--25

    1982

  51. [59]

    (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, volume 2 (Mcgraw-hill New York)

    Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM, et al. (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, volume 2 (Mcgraw-hill New York)

    1971

  52. [60]

    Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval, 71--80

    Zhao X, Wang J (2015) A theoretical analysis of two-stage recommendation for cold-start collaborative filtering. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval, 71--80

    2015

  53. [61]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sen...

  54. [62]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.