Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 55 references

A Generic Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for $\ell_0$-Penalized Problems with Supplementary Material

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any ℓ0-penalized problem whose coordinate penalty is closed, convex, coercive, and even, the paper derives closed-form formulas for every quantity a branch-and-bound solver requires.

desk verdict Closed-form biconjugate and a working solver make this a real contribution; the empirical section just needs more care. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03974 v1 pith:NYW3OEB6 submitted 2025-06-04 math.OC cs.LGstat.ML

Clément Elvira , Théo Guyard , Cédric Herzet This is my paper
classification math.OCcs.LGstat.ML MSC 90C2590C5790C90
keywords ℓ0regularizationbranch-and-boundconvexrelaxationbiconjugatesparseoptimizationproximaloperatorBernoullimixturemodelEl0ps
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

This paper claims that for any ℓ0-penalized optimization problem whose regularizer splits coordinate-wise as g(x)=λ∥x∥0+h(x), with h closed, convex, coercive, and even, all the ingredients a branch-and-bound solver needs can be written in closed form. The central object is the biconjugate g⋆⋆, the tightest convex lower bound on g, and the paper gives its explicit expression using only three scalar parameters. If the derivation is correct, a single generic solver can handle far more losses and penalties than earlier methods, including logistic and SVM losses and many Bayesian priors. The paper also introduces an open-source Python solver implementing these formulas and reports large speedups on machine-learning and signal-processing instances.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the biconjugate g⋆⋆, the largest proper closed convex function below g, together with the three scalars τ, μ, and κ defined by equations (7)-(9): τ is the first level at which the conjugate h⋆ crosses λ, μ is the corresponding subgradient endpoint, and κ records how steeply h rises at μ. Proposition 2 expresses g⋆⋆ as a rescaled absolute value in a central interval and as h+λ outside it. Propositions 3-7 then derive the subdifferentials and proximal operators of g⋆⋆ and g⋆ from these same parameters, so the numerical routines that solve the convex relaxations have closed-form oracles. The construction works for any f that is closed, convex, differentiable, lower-bounded, and satisfies 0∈int(dom f), and for any h satisfying the blanket assumptions with h(0)=0, closedness, convexity, coercivity, and evenness.

What would settle it

Compute the true biconjugate of g(x)=λ∥x∥0+σ|x| by numerical Legendre transform on a fine grid and compare it with formula (23) for several values of λ and σ, especially around x=μ; any mismatch, or any instance where the solver's lower bound exceeds the known global optimum, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that under assumptions (H1)-(H5), the biconjugate of g(x)=λ∥x∥0+h(x) is g⋆⋆(x)=τ|x| for |x|≤μ and g⋆⋆(x)=h(x)+λ for |x|≥μ, where τ is the largest nonnegative z with h⋆(z)≤λ and μ is the largest nonnegative element of ∂h⋆(τ), taken as +∞ when that subdifferential is empty. Because g⋆⋆ is the tightest proper closed convex lower bound on g, this one formula provides the convex relaxation on which branch-and-bound lower bounds are built. The same parameters, together with κ=sup{z≥0:z∈∂h(μ)}, give closed forms for the subdifferentials and proximal operators of both g⋆⋆ and its conjugate g⋆(z)=[h⋆(z)−λ]+, proved as Propositions 3-7. This is what lets the accompanying solver run branch-and-bound with general f and h, unifying earlier special cases that were derived separately for particular penalties.

Load-bearing premise

The construction hinges on h being convex: when h is not convex, h≠h⋆⋆, the claimed expression for g⋆⋆ is no longer the biconjugate, and the lower bounds used to prune nodes in the branch-and-bound tree may be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user only needs to specify f and h; the relaxation, subdifferentials, and proximal steps are built automatically from formulas (23)-(29), so losses beyond least squares, such as logistic and SVM classification, become exactly solvable by the same solver.
  • Early stopping of the relaxed subproblem is safe, because the dual objective (21) can be evaluated at any point and still gives a valid lower bound on the node's optimum.
  • Previously published relaxations, including the interval constraint h(x)=η(|x|≤M) and the quadratic penalty h(x)=σ/2 x², are special cases of one formula, so the framework unifies them.
  • For signal-processing models with Bernoulli mixture priors, including Laplace and exponential priors, the solver reaches optimality on instances that no compared solver completed within the time budget.
  • On the tested regularization-path and mixture-model instances, the solver reports speedups of one to four orders of magnitude over the compared implementations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the formula is correct, a direct extension is to allow h to be any even closed convex coercive function with tractable conjugate and proximal operators; users would only need to code h, h⋆, and prox_h, not the branch-and-bound logic.
  • For nonconvex h, such as SCAD or MCP penalties, formula (23) would not hold, but replacing h by its convex envelope in the same derivation would still give a valid albeit weaker lower bound; whether that bound preserves speed is a testable question.
  • The explicit biconjugate could also be used outside branch-and-bound, for instance in safe screening or as a warm-start relaxation for continuous optimization, where the closed form might accelerate existing methods.
  • Because the interval [−μ, μ] and slope τ track the trade-off between λ and h, the closed form could guide adaptive tuning of λ along regularization paths.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a generic branch-and-bound (BnB) framework for the exact solution of ℓ0-penalized problems of the form min_x f(Ax)+Σ g(x_i) with g(x)=λ‖x‖0+h(x). The central theoretical result is that, under assumptions (H1)-(H5), the biconjugate g**, the conjugate g*, their subdifferentials, and their proximal operators admit closed-form expressions involving three scalar parameters τ, μ, and κ; in particular, g**(x)=τ|x| for |x|≤μ and g**(x)=h(x)+λ otherwise. The authors show that this unifies earlier results for quadratic and box penalties, and they introduce El0ps, an open-source Python solver implementing the framework. Numerical experiments compare El0ps with Cplex, Mosek, an outer-approximation baseline, and L0bnb on feature-selection and Bernoulli-mixture recovery problems.

Significance. The theoretical characterization is elegant and, if correct, valuable: all BnB ingredients are reduced to three scalar parameters and standard operators of h, and the appendix supplies detailed step-by-step proofs that recover the known formulas (6a)-(6b) as special cases. The paper also contributes an open-source solver and detailed experimental scripts, which aids reproducibility. The convexity assumption (H3) is clearly stated and constitutes an explicit scope limitation rather than a hidden flaw. However, the experimental section uses two penalties that violate the evenness assumption (H5) of the main theorems, and the promised relaxation of (H5) is not proved; this gap must be closed before the experimental claims in Section 5.3 can be considered fully supported.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5.3, Table 3; Propositions 2-7, Eq. (23)] The 'Exponential' and 'Half-Normal' densities in Table 3 give penalties h(x) = -ζ² log ϕ(x) that are +∞ on (-∞,0), hence not even; (H5) fails. All formal results in Propositions 2-7 are stated and proved under (H5), and the proof of Proposition 2 in Appendix F.1 explicitly uses evenness to restrict attention to x ≥ 0 and to symmetrize via Corollary 8. The footnote in Section 1 saying that (H5) 'can be relaxed' does not state or prove the one-sided versions used in these experiments. As written, formula (23) would give finite τ|x| for x<0 in such cases; for example, for h(x)=σx+η(x≥0) one has g**(x)=+∞ for x<0, not σ|x|. The lower bounds and proximal/subdifferential formulas used by the solver are therefore not mathematically justified for these instances. Please add a one-sided (non-even) statement of Propositions 2 and 5-7 with proofs, or restrict the corresponding numerical claims to penalties satisfying (H5).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 2] Averaging over 10 runs is reported, but no standard deviation, error bars, or quantiles are shown; because the speedups are a central empirical claim, please add variability information.
  2. [§5.1, Appendix H.3] The Oa baseline is implemented by the authors because no public implementation exists; please describe how this implementation was verified (for example, agreement with known small instances) so that the comparison is transparent.
  3. [Fig. 2] The legend entry 'Lobnb' is a typo for L0bnb.
  4. [§5.2] The phrase 'an acceleration factor varying between two and three in average' is ambiguous; please specify whether this is a factor of 2-3× or 2-3 orders of magnitude.
  5. [§5.3] The statement that El0ps is 'the only procedure able to address' the Laplace and Exponential instances should be qualified as 'the only procedure that solved any instance within the 10-minute budget', since the baselines can in principle encode the same MIP formulations (Appendix H.2).
  6. [Appendix H.1] The appendix lists software versions but not commit hashes of the El0ps and l0exp repositories; pinning these would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central closed-form characterization is derived from standard convex analysis, and the self-citations concern solver acceleration details rather than the main theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Proposition 2, is not circular. The parameters tau and mu are defined from h* via (7)-(8), and g** is then computed from these definitions using Fenchel duality and standard subdifferential calculus in Appendices E-F. The formula g**(x) = tau|x| for |x| <= mu and g**(x)=h(x)+lambda for |x| >= mu is derived, not assumed: the proof in Appendix F.1 uses Proposition 6 to identify x in [0, mu] with subgradients of g*, then applies the Fenchel-Moreau identity. Proposition 5 similarly computes g* directly from the definition of the conjugate. No equation is presupposed as its own conclusion; the only structural input is the explicitly stated convexity assumption (H3), which is a clear scope condition rather than a hidden circularity. The self-citations in the paper, mainly to [30]-[32], concern branch-and-bound acceleration strategies and the companion software paper [31]; they are not used as the load-bearing justification for the closed-form expressions, which rest on the included proofs. The numerical comparisons are between independent solver implementations, not between a fitted model and a prediction derived from that same fit. Thus there is no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The convexity limitation for nonconvex penalties such as SCAD or MCP is openly signposted through assumption (H3) and does not constitute an internal inconsistency.

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

The central derivations rest only on the explicitly stated hypotheses (H0)-(H5) and standard convex-analysis theorems. The parameters τ, µ, κ are obtained by computing suprema from h⋆, not by fitting to data. The empirical comparison adds no new assumptions to the mathematical claim.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption (H0) f is closed, convex, differentiable, lower-bounded, and 0 ∈ int(dom f).
    Used throughout for convexity of the relaxed subproblem (20), for Fenchel-Rockafellar duality (21), and for existence of minimizers (Appendix G).
  • domain assumption (H1) h(x) ≥ h(0) = 0 and dom h ∩ R+ minus {0} ≠ ∅.
    Ensures g(0)=0, properness of g and its conjugates, and the non-degeneracy needed in Lemma 6 and Prop. 9.
  • domain assumption (H2) h is closed.
    Required with (H3) for h = h⋆⋆ (Fenchel-Moreau), which gives the second branch of the biconjugate formula in Prop. 2.
  • domain assumption (H3) h is convex.
    The most load-bearing premise: it makes h = h⋆⋆, makes the relaxed subproblems (20) convex, and enters Props. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7. Nonconvex penalties such as SCAD are excluded.
  • domain assumption (H4) h is coercive.
    Gives coercivity of the objective in (1) and of the BnB node subproblems, guaranteeing existence of minimizers (Appendix G).
  • domain assumption (H5) h is even.
    Simplifies the formulas (symmetry); the paper notes it can be relaxed, so it is a convenience assumption rather than a hard requirement.
  • standard math Standard convex analysis: Fenchel-Moreau theorem, Moreau decomposition, subdifferential calculus for proper closed convex functions (from Bauschke-Combettes [6] and Beck [7]).
    The proofs of Props. 3-7 explicitly rely on these theorems, e.g., Lemma 2 in Appendix A, [7, Theorem 6.45] in F.3, [6, Prop. 9.14] in G.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Generic Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for $\ell_0$-Penalized Problems with Supplementary Material." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYW3OEB6

@misc{pith2026250603974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Generic Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for $\ell_0$-Penalized Problems with Supplementary Material},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYW3OEB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03974}
}
read the original abstract

We present a generic Branch-and-Bound procedure designed to solve L0-penalized optimization problems. Existing approaches primarily focus on quadratic losses and construct relaxations using "Big-M" constraints and/or L2-norm penalties. In contrast, our method accommodates a broader class of loss functions and allows greater flexibility in relaxation design through a general penalty term, encompassing existing techniques as special cases. We establish theoretical results ensuring that all key quantities required for the Branch-and-Bound implementation admit closed-form expressions under the general blanket assumptions considered in our work. Leveraging this framework, we introduce El0ps, an open-source Python solver with a plug-and-play workflow that enables user-defined losses and penalties in L0-penalized problems. Through extensive numerical experiments, we demonstrate that El0ps achieves state-of-the-art performance on classical instances and extends computational feasibility to previously intractable ones.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(12), 6745–6750 (1999)

    Alon, U., Barkai, N., Notterman, D.A., Gish, K., Ybarra, S., Mack, D., Levine, A.J.: Broad patterns of gene expression revealed by clustering analysis of tumor and normal colon tissues probed by oligonucleotide arrays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(12), 6745–6750 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    ApS, M.: Mosek modeling cookbook (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Version 10.1

    ApS, M.: The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.1. (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Atamturk, A., G´ omez, A.: Safe screening rules for l0-regression from perspective relax- ations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 421–430. PMLR (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Optimization for Machine Learning 5, 19–53 (2011)

    Bach, F., Jenatton, R., Mairal, J., Obozinski, G., et al.: Convex optimization with sparsity- inducing norms. Optimization for Machine Learning 5, 19–53 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Springer (2017)

    Bauschke, H.H., Combettes, P.L.: Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces. Springer (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    SIAM (2017)

    Beck, A.: First-Order Methods in Optimization. SIAM (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 2(1), 183–202 (2009)

    Beck, A., Teboulle, M.: A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 2(1), 183–202 (2009)

    2009

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Optimization Methods and Software 37(5), 1740–1769 (2022)

    Ben Mhenni, R., Bourguignon, S., Ninin, J.: Global optimization for sparse solution of least squares problems. Optimization Methods and Software 37(5), 1740–1769 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 38950–38965 (2022)

    Bertrand, Q., Klopfenstein, Q., Bannier, P.A., Gidel, G., Massias, M.: Beyond l1: Faster and better sparse models with skglm. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 38950–38965 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 31(3), 2340– 2367 (2021)

    Bertsimas, D., Cory-Wright, R., Pauphilet, J.: A unified approach to mixed-integer opti- mization problems with logical constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization 31(3), 2340– 2367 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    The Annals of Statistics 44(2), 813–852 (2016)

    Bertsimas, D., King, A., Mazumder, R.: Best subset selection via a modern optimization lens. The Annals of Statistics 44(2), 813–852 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 27(3), 265–274 (2009)

    Blumensath, T., Davies, M.E.: Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 27(3), 265–274 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 64(6), 1405–1419 (2015)

    Bourguignon, S., Ninin, J., Carfantan, H., Mongeau, M.: Exact sparse approximation problems via mixed-integer programming: Formulations and computational performance. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 64(6), 1405–1419 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Foundations and Trends® in Machine learning 3(1), 1–122 (2011)

    Boyd, S., Parikh, N., Chu, E., Peleato, B., Eckstein, J., et al.: Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Foundations and Trends® in Machine learning 3(1), 1–122 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 1, 255–278 (2014)

    B¨ uhlmann, P., Kalisch, M., Meier, L.: High-dimensional statistics with a view toward applications in biology. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 1, 255–278 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Springer Science & Business Media (2021)

    Bynum, M.L., Hackebeil, G.A., Hart, W.E., Laird, C.D., Nicholson, B.L., Siirola, J.D., Watson, J.P., Woodruff, D.L.: Pyomo–optimization modeling in python. Springer Science & Business Media (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp

    Chaari, L., Batatia, H., Dobigeon, N., Tourneret, J.Y.: A hierarchical sparsity-smoothness bayesian model for l0 + l1 + l2 regularization. In: Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 1901–1905. IEEE (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the European Signal Processing Conference, pp

    Chaari, L., Tourneret, J.Y., Batatia, H.: Sparse bayesian regularization using bernoulli- laplacian priors. In: Proceedings of the European Signal Processing Conference, pp. 1–5. IEEE (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2(3), 1–27 (2011)

    Chang, C.C., Lin, C.J.: Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2(3), 1–27 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    International Journal of Control 50(5), 1873–1896 (1989)

    Chen, S., Billings, S.A., Luo, W.: Orthogonal least squares methods and their application to non-linear system identification. International Journal of Control 50(5), 1873–1896 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    Mathematical Programming 143(1), 371–383 (2014)

    Chen, X., Ge, D., Wang, Z., Ye, Y.: Complexity of unconstrained l2-lp minimization. Mathematical Programming 143(1), 371–383 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    1: User’s manual for cplex

    Cplex, I.I.: V12. 1: User’s manual for cplex. International Business Machines Corporation 46(53), 157 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    The Journal of Machine Learning Research22(1), 6008– 6054 (2021)

    Dedieu, A., Hazimeh, H., Mazumder, R.: Learning sparse classifiers: Continuous and mixed integer optimization perspectives. The Journal of Machine Learning Research22(1), 6008– 6054 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    In: arXiv preprint (2022) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 39

    Deza, A., Atamt¨ urk, A.: Safe screening for logistic regression with l0-l2 regularization. In: arXiv preprint (2022) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 39

    2022

  18. [26]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 18(9), 2059–2070 (2009)

    Dobigeon, N., Hero, A.O., Tourneret, J.Y.: Hierarchical bayesian sparse image reconstruc- tion with application to mrfm. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 18(9), 2059–2070 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    The Annals of Applied Statistics 3(2), 521–541 (2009)

    Fan, J., Feng, Y., Wu, Y.: Network exploration via the adaptive lasso and scad penalties. The Annals of Applied Statistics 3(2), 521–541 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Journal of Statistical Software 33(1), 1–22 (2010)

    Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R.: Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software 33(1), 1–22 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Science 286(5439), 531–537 (1999)

    Golub, T.R., Slonim, D.K., Tamayo, P., Huard, C., Gaasenbeek, M., Mesirov, J.P., Coller, H., Loh, M.L., Downing, J.R., Caligiuri, M.A., et al.: Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286(5439), 531–537 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp

    Guyard, T., Herzet, C., Elvira, C.: Node-screening tests for the l0-penalized least-squares problem. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 5448–5452. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint (2025)

    Guyard, T., Herzet, C., Elvira, C.: El0ps: An exact l0-regularized problems solver. arXiv preprint (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Guyard, T., Herzet, C., Elvira, C., Arslan, A.N.: A new branch-and-bound pruning frame- work for l0-regularized problems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 48077–48096. PMLR (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    In: NIPS Workshop on Feature Extraction and Feature Selection, vol

    Guyon, I.: Design of experiments of the nips 2003 variable selection benchmark. In: NIPS Workshop on Feature Extraction and Feature Selection, vol. 253, p. 40 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 24(205), 1–8 (2023)

    Hazimeh, H., Mazumder, R., Nonet, T.: L0learn: A scalable package for sparse learning using l0 regularization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24(205), 1–8 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Mathematical Programming 196(1), 347–388 (2022)

    Hazimeh, H., Mazumder, R., Saab, A.: Sparse regression at scale: Branch-and-bound rooted in first-order optimization. Mathematical Programming 196(1), 347–388 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the European Signal Processing Conference, pp

    Herzet, C., Dr´ emeau, A.: Bayesian pursuit algorithms. In: Proceedings of the European Signal Processing Conference, pp. 1474–1478. IEEE (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Optimization and Engineering 20, 397–455 (2019)

    Kronqvist, J., Bernal, D.E., Lundell, A., Grossmann, I.E.: A review and comparison of solvers for convex minlp. Optimization and Engineering 20, 397–455 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Lee, H., Battle, A., Raina, R., Ng, A.Y.: Efficient sparse coding algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 801–808 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Computing Surveys 50(6), 1–45 (2017)

    Li, J., Cheng, K., Wang, S., Morstatter, F., Trevino, R.P., Tang, J., Liu, H.: Feature selection: A data perspective. Computing Surveys 50(6), 1–45 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Cell 173(2), 400– 416 (2018)

    Liu, J., Lichtenberg, T., Hoadley, K.A., Poisson, L.M., Lazar, A.J., Cherniack, A.D., Ko- vatich, A.J., Benz, C.C., Levine, D.A., Lee, A.V., et al.: An integrated tcga pan-cancer clinical data resource to drive high-quality survival outcome analytics. Cell 173(2), 400– 416 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    SIAM (2013)

    Locatelli, M., Schoen, F.: Global Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. SIAM (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    In: NIPS Workshop on Optimization for Machine Learning (2017)

    Massias, M., Gramfort, A., Salmon, J.: From safe screening rules to working sets for faster lasso-type solvers. In: NIPS Workshop on Optimization for Machine Learning (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp

    Mhenni, R.B., Bourguignon, S., Mongeau, M., Ninin, J., Carfantan, H.: Sparse branch and bound for exact optimization of l0-norm penalized least squares. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 5735–5739. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 26(3), 301–321 (2009)

    Needell, D., Tropp, J.A.: Cosamp: Iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 26(3), 301–321 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Mathematical Programming 151(1), 63–87 (2015)

    Pilanci, M., Wainwright, M.J., El Ghaoui, L.: Sparse learning via boolean relaxations. Mathematical Programming 151(1), 63–87 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Research Synthesis Methods 12(4), 448–474 (2021)

    R¨ over, C., Bender, R., Dias, S., Schmid, C.H., Schmidli, H., Sturtz, S., Weber, S., Friede, T.: On weakly informative prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter in bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 12(4), 448–474 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Optimization Methods and Software 39(1), 4–41 (2024)

    Samain, G., Bourguignon, S., Ninin, J.: Techniques for accelerating branch-and-bound algorithms dedicated to sparse optimization. Optimization Methods and Software 39(1), 4–41 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 8(3), 1607–1639 (2015)

    Soubies, E., Blanc-F´ eraud, L., Aubert, G.: A continuous exact l0-penalty (cel0) for least squares regularized problem. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 8(3), 1607–1639 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 59(10), 4572–4584 (2011)

    Soussen, C., Idier, J., Brie, D., Duan, J.: From bernoulli–gaussian deconvolution to sparse signal restoration. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 59(10), 4572–4584 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 58(1), 267–288 (1996) 40 Cl´ ement Elvira et al

    Tibshirani, R.: Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 58(1), 267–288 (1996) 40 Cl´ ement Elvira et al

    1996

  43. [51]

    SIAM Review 66(3), 403–477 (2024)

    Tillmann, A.M., Bienstock, D., Lodi, A., Schwartz, A.: Cardinality minimization, con- straints, and regularization: a survey. SIAM Review 66(3), 403–477 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Proceedings of the IEEE 98(6), 948–958 (2010)

    Tropp, J.A., Wright, S.J.: Computational methods for sparse solution of linear inverse problems. Proceedings of the IEEE 98(6), 948–958 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Mathematical programming 151(1), 3–34 (2015)

    Wright, S.J.: Coordinate descent algorithms. Mathematical programming 151(1), 3–34 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    The Annals of Statistics 38(2), 894–942 (2010)

    Zhang, C.H.: Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty. The Annals of Statistics 38(2), 894–942 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 67(2), 301–320 (2005)

    Zou, H., Hastie, T.: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 67(2), 301–320 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

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