Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 61 references

A Proximal Variable Smoothing for Minimization of Nonlinearly Composite Nonsmooth Function -- Finite-Max Minimization and MIMO Applications

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Replacing a nonsmooth inner composition by Moreau-envelope smoothing and taking one proximal-gradient step per iteration yields iterates whose cluster points are stationary for $h+g\circ S+\phi$, with an $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ iteration…

desk verdict The asymptotic convergence result is real and the extension is novel, but the advertised O(ε^{-3}) rate is for a smoothed surrogate measure, not the original stationarity measure, and the paper needs to fix that claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05974 v2 pith:32E5PKT2 submitted 2025-06-06 math.OC eess.SP

Keita Kume , Isao Yamada This is my paper
classification math.OCeess.SP MSC 90C2690C3049J5265K05
keywords proximalvariablesmoothingweaklyconvexcompositeMoreauenvelopegradientmappingstationaritynonsmoothnonconvexoptimizationfinite-maxminimizationmaxmindispersionproblemMIMOsignaldetection
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 tackles the nonsmooth, possibly nonconvex problem of minimizing $h+g\circ S+\phi$, where $h$ and $S$ are smooth, $g$ is Lipschitz and weakly convex (convex after adding a quadratic), and $\phi$ is a convex term with a computable proximity operator. The proposed algorithm is a single-loop proximal gradient method applied to the time-varying smoothed surrogate $h+{}^{\mu_n}g\circ S$, where ${}^{\mu_n}g$ is the Moreau envelope of $g$ at a shrinking scale, followed by one proximity step for $\phi$. The central claim is that this iteration still finds stationary points of the original nonsmooth problem, not merely of the smoothed one, and needs only $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ iterations to reach an $\epsilon$-stationary point. The paper also shows that the maxmin dispersion problem --- placing a point to maximize its smallest weighted distance to given points --- fits the framework through a nonlinear map $S$ and a finite-max $g$, giving it a stationary-point-guaranteed algorithm that needs no iterative subproblem solver, and it reports lower bit error rates in wireless MIMO signal detection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gradient mapping-type stationarity measure $M_{F,\phi}^{\gamma}(x)=\operatorname{dist}\big(0,\gamma^{-1}(x-\operatorname{prox}_{\gamma\phi}(x-\gamma\partial_L F(x)))\big)$, which vanishes exactly at stationary points. The algorithm drives this measure for the smoothed surrogate $F_n=h+{}^{\mu_n}g\circ S$ to zero, and the proof's second key ingredient is the asymptotic upper bound (15): $\liminf_n M_{F_n,\phi}^{\gamma}(x_n)\ge M_{F,\phi}^{\gamma}(\bar{x})$ for any limit point $\bar{x}$ of the sequence, which transfers stationarity from the smoothed problem to the original one. The rate argument uses the Moreau-envelope fact that $\nabla{}^{\mu}g$ has Lipschitz constant of order $\max(1/\mu,\eta/(1-\eta\mu))$, so $\nabla F_n$ is $\varpi_1+\varpi_2/\mu_n$-Lipschitz; this makes the backtracked stepsize $\gamma_n$ at least a constant multiple of $\mu_n$, and that lower bound, inserted into the Armijo sufficient-decrease inequality and a telescoping sum, yields the finite-window bound (20).

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on the maxmin dispersion benchmark of Section V-A with $d=10$, $m=10$, $\epsilon=10^{-5}$, and $\mu_n=(2\eta)^{-1}n^{-1/3}$, and record $\min_{k\le n}M_{F_k,\phi}^{\bar{\gamma}}(x_k)$ together with $\sum_{k=1}^n\mu_k$ for $n$ up to $10^6$. If the recorded minimum decays systematically slower than $O(n^{-1/3})$, or if the cluster point of the subsequence where the measure tends to zero fails to satisfy $0\in\partial_L(h+g\circ S)(x^\star)+\partial\phi(x^\star)$, then the claimed rate or stationarity guarantee is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Define $F_n:=h+{}^{\mu_n}g\circ S$ with ${}^{\mu_n}g$ the Moreau envelope of $g$. Algorithm 1 updates $x_{n+1}=\operatorname{prox}_{\gamma_n\phi}(x_n-\gamma_n\nabla F_n(x_n))$, where $\gamma_n$ is chosen by an Armijo-type backtracking condition. Theorem III.6 states that, under Assumption III.4, $\liminf_{n\to\infty}M_{F_n,\phi}^{\bar\gamma}(x_n)=0$; every cluster point of a subsequence on which this stationarity measure tends to $0$ is a stationary point of the original $F+\phi=h+g\circ S+\phi$; and the finite-window estimate (20) gives an $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ iteration complexity for an $\epsilon$-stationary point when $\mu_n=O(n^{-1/3})$. The bridge is Theorem III.2(b): the limit inferior of the smoothed stationarity measure dominates the true stationarity measure at any cluster point. As applications, the maxmin dispersion problem is reformulated with $h=0$, $g(z)=\max_i z_i$, and $S(x)=(-w_j\|x-u_j\|^2)_j$, and a polar-coordinate regularizer is introduced for MIMO PSK detection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gradient of the smoothed problem stays controlled as smoothing shrinks: its Lipschitz constant must be at most a constant plus another constant divided by the smoothing parameter; if the nonlinear map $S$ has unbounded or wildly varying derivatives on the feasible set, this scaling fails and the rate and stationarity conclusions lose their support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any instance satisfying Problem I.1 and Assumption III.4, Algorithm 1 produces an $\epsilon$-stationary point in $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ iterations, measured by the smoothed gradient-mapping stationarity measure at a fixed stepsize $\bar{\gamma}$.
  • Every cluster point reached along a subsequence with the stationarity measure tending to zero is a stationary point of the original nonsmooth composite $h+g\circ S+\phi$.
  • For the maxmin dispersion problem, the reformulation with a finite-max $g$ and a nonlinear $S$ yields the first stationary-point-guaranteed algorithm in the paper's comparison that needs no iterative subproblem solver per iteration.
  • For MU-MIMO PSK detection, the proposed polar-coordinate regularizer solved by Algorithm 1 attains lower bit error rates than LMMSE, the modulus-constrained model, and the sum-of-absolute-values model in the reported settings.
  • The algorithm remains single-loop whenever $g$ and $\phi$ are prox-friendly, so common penalties such as $\ell^1$ and finite-max functions can be handled at one prox per iteration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the stationarity bridge in Theorem III.2(b) is independent of the specific proximal-gradient update, so any algorithm that drives the smoothed measures $M_{F_n,\phi}^{\gamma}(x_n)$ to zero fast enough would inherit the same stationarity guarantee; stochastic or block-coordinate versions of the smoothing idea are a natural next test.
  • Editorial extension: on the maxmin reformulation, each iteration costs one evaluation of $m$ squared distances, one gradient of the finite-max surrogate, and one projection, so the practical bottleneck at large $m$ should shift to memory rather than subproblem solving; scaling tests beyond $m=1000$ would check this directly.
  • Editorial extension: the $O(\epsilon^{-3})$ rate is tied to the schedule $\mu_n=O(n^{-1/3})$; decaying $\mu_n$ faster reduces smoothing bias but slows the denominator $\sum_k\mu_k$ in (20), so an adaptive schedule that balances these two terms is a concrete open question.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a single-loop proximal variable smoothing algorithm (Algorithm 1) for minimizing h + g∘S + φ, where h is smooth, g is Lipschitz and weakly convex, S is continuously differentiable, and φ is convex and prox-friendly. At each iteration the forward step performs a gradient step on the smoothed surrogate F_n = h + ^{μ_n}g∘S, and the backward step applies the proximity operator of φ. The main theoretical results are Theorem III.2, which establishes lower semicontinuity of the gradient-mapping-type stationarity measure and an asymptotic upper bound of the original measure by the smoothed measure, and Theorem III.6, which proves subsequential convergence to stationary points under Assumption III.4 and gives the quantitative bound (20) for the smoothed stationarity measure, from which the abstract claims an O(ε^{-3}) iteration complexity. Numerical experiments on maxmin dispersion and MU-MIMO detection compare the algorithm with ProjVS, AGP, PGD, PDS, and a subgradient method.

Significance. If fully established, the algorithm is a useful extension of variable smoothing to nonlinearly composite nonsmooth problems with a convex prox-friendly term, and its single-loop structure avoids iterative inner solvers. The paper's strengths include detailed appendices for the proofs (Appendices B and C), explicit sufficient conditions for the key assumptions (Example III.5), and a broad set of numerical comparisons on two nontrivial applications. The asymptotic stationarity result appears sound. However, the advertised O(ε^{-3}) rate is currently stated for a stationarity measure of the smoothed surrogate, not for the original problem's stationarity measure, and the paper does not define an ε-stationary point; this discrepancy is load-bearing for the central claim and must be fixed before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Theorem III.6(a) and Eq. (20)] The abstract advertises 'a convergence rate O(ε^{-3}) for achieving an ε-stationary point,' but Eq. (20) bounds min_{k≤n≤k} M_{F_n,φ}^{sγ}(x_n), where F_n = h + ^{μ_n}g∘S is the smoothed surrogate. No transfer inequality between M_{F_n,φ}^{sγ} and the original measure M_{F,φ}^{sγ} is provided; Theorem III.2(b) is only a liminf asymptotic upper bound. In the elementary instance h=0, g=|·|, S=id, φ=0, any x_n>0 satisfies M_{F,φ}^{sγ}(x_n)=1, while for x_n=μ_n ε/2 the smoothed measure M_{F_n,φ}^{sγ}(x_n)=ε/2 can be made arbitrarily small. Hence no uniform bound M_{F,φ}^{sγ} ≤ C M_{F_n,φ}^{sγ} + o(1) exists, and (20) cannot be quoted as a rate for an ε-stationary point of the original Problem I.1. The authors should either define ε-stationarity via the smoothed measure with an explicit relation between ε and μ_n, or state the rate only for that surrogate measure and add a transfer result if the original measure is intended.
  2. [Assumption III.4(c) and proof of Theorem III.6(a), around Eq. (C.6)] The derivation of the quantitative rate depends on the assumed scaling L_{∇F_n} = ϖ_1 + ϖ_2/μ_n, which is used to lower-bound the backtracked stepsize by a multiple of μ_n. This scaling is not part of Problem I.1 and can fail when S is nonlinear and dom(φ) is unbounded; Example III.5(b) provides sufficient conditions, but they are not included in the problem statement. Since the rate claim is a headline contribution, the manuscript should state explicitly that Theorem III.6(a) and the O(ε^{-3}) complexity are conditional on Assumption III.4(c), and it should discuss the scope of that assumption more prominently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II and Theorem III.6] The paper uses the term 'ε-stationary point' in the abstract but never defines it; please add a definition near Definition II.3 or immediately before Theorem III.6, specifying which stationarity measure is used and how it relates to ε.
  2. [Section V, first paragraph] The text refers to 'Remark III.5 (c) (ii)' when the intended reference is 'Example III.5 (c) (ii)'.
  3. [Theorem III.6(a), Eq. (20)] The notation min_{k≤n≤k} is visually confusing because the two bounds share the symbol k; using N and N' or k_1 and k_2 would improve readability.
  4. [Fact II.4(b) and [11]] The subdifferential representation in Fact II.4(b) is imported from [11], an arXiv preprint that is not peer-reviewed. Given that this fact underpins the asymptotic upper bound in Theorem III.2(b), the authors should either include a proof in the appendix or cite a peer-reviewed version if one becomes available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence theorem derives residual bounds from explicit assumptions, and the smoothed-residual stationarity transfer is a supporting lemma, not a restatement of the conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem III.6(a) obtains the bound min_{k<=n<=k} M_{F_n,phi}_{sgamma}(x_n) <= sqrt(chi / sum mu_n) by summing the Armijo-type sufficient decrease (C.1) with the mu-shift inequality (C.2) and the lower stepsize bound beta mu_n / (varpi_1 + varpi_2 / mu_n); no fitted parameter or pre-supposed residual value enters. Theorem III.2(b) transfers liminf of the smoothed residual to the original stationarity measure via outer limits and the subdifferential formula Fact II.4(b) (cited from the authors' prior work), but that formula is a parameter-free supporting lemma whose assumptions do not include the target stationarity conclusion, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. Assumption III.4 is explicit, with sufficient conditions given in Example III.5. The main caveat lies outside circularity: the O(epsilon^-3) rate in the abstract is stated for the smoothed surrogate residual M_{F_n,phi}, and the paper gives no modulus transferring that finite-time bound to the original measure M_{F,phi}; that is a correctness/quantification gap, not an input-output equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in the convergence derivation; algorithm hyperparameters (c, rho, gamma_init, mu_n schedule) are chosen by standard rules and do not enter the worst-case bound except through constants. The load-bearing assumptions are the classical composite optimization hypotheses plus the Lipschitz-scaling assumption Assumption III.4(c). The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption g is eta-weakly convex and L_g-Lipschitz, and prox-friendly for mu in (0, eta^{-1}) (Problem I.1 (iv)).
    Required for the Moreau envelope gradient to be computable and bounded; used in Fact A.2 and in the proof of Theorem III.6.
  • domain assumption phi is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function and prox-friendly (Problem I.1 (i)).
    Provides the backward splitting step and the stationarity measure M_{F,phi}_gamma.
  • domain assumption h is differentiable with Lipschitz gradient on dom(phi) (Problem I.1 (ii)).
    Standard smooth part of the objective; needed for the forward step and the Armijo condition.
  • domain assumption S is continuously differentiable, and Assumption III.4 (b)-(c) hold: grad(h+mu_n g∘S) is Lipschitz with constant varpi_1 + varpi_2 / mu_n (Problem I.1 (iii) plus Example III.5 (b)).
    This is the load-bearing scaling assumption that gives the lower bound on gamma_n in the proof of Theorem III.6(a), and is the weakest assumption identified.
  • standard math Standard variational analysis facts: limiting subdifferential calculus, moreau envelope differentiability, outer semicontinuity, etc. from Rockafellar-Wets and Bauschke-Combettes.
    Used throughout the appendices; these are textbook results.
  • domain assumption Fact II.4(b) from the authors' prior work [11]: the limiting subdifferential of h+g∘S is the outer limit of gradients of h+mu_n g∘S as mu_n goes to 0.
    This result is not proved in the present paper and is taken from the authors' earlier variable smoothing paper; it underpins Theorem III.2(b).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Proximal Variable Smoothing for Minimization of Nonlinearly Composite Nonsmooth Function -- Finite-Max Minimization and MIMO Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32E5PKT2

@misc{pith2026250605974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Proximal Variable Smoothing for Minimization of Nonlinearly Composite Nonsmooth Function -- Finite-Max Minimization and MIMO Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32E5PKT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05974}
}
abstract

We propose a proximal variable smoothing algorithm for a nonsmooth optimization problem whose cost function is the sum of three functions including a weakly convex composite function. The proposed algorithm has a single-loop structure inspired by a proximal gradient-type method. More precisely, the proposed algorithm consists of two steps: (i) a gradient descent of a time-varying smoothed surrogate function designed partially with the Moreau envelope of the weakly convex function; (ii) an application of the proximity operator of the remaining function not covered by the smoothed surrogate function. For the proposed algorithm, we present a subsequential convergence guarantee in terms of a stationary point, and a convergence rate ${O}(\epsilon^{-3})$ for achieving an $\epsilon$-stationary point. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in two scenarios: (i) robust target localization and (ii) multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) signal detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. BER vs SNR (B “ U) for (27) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. For (31), Alg. 1 vs “PDS” [59] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Proximal variable smoothing method for three- composite nonconvex nonsmooth minimization with a linear operator,

    Y . Liu and F. Xia, “Proximal variable smoothing method for three- composite nonconvex nonsmooth minimization with a linear operator,” Numer. Algorithms, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 237–266, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [11]

    A variable smoothing for weakly convex com- posite minimization with nonconvex constraint,

    K. Kume and I. Yamada, “A variable smoothing for weakly convex com- posite minimization with nonconvex constraint,”arXiv (2412.04225v2), 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [31]

    An efficient algorithm for nonconvex-linear minimax optimization problem and its application in solving weighted maximin dispersion problem,

    W. Pan, J. Shen, and Z. Xu, “An efficient algorithm for nonconvex-linear minimax optimization problem and its application in solving weighted maximin dispersion problem,”Comput. Optim. Appl., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 287–306, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [32]

    A Projected Variable Smoothing for Weakly Convex Optimization and Supremum Functions

    S. L ´opez-Rivera, P. P ´erez-Aros, and E. Vilches, “A projected variable smoothing for weakly convex optimization and supremum functions,” arXiv (2502.00525v1), 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [1]

    A proximal variable smoothing for nons- mooth minimization involving weakly convex composite with MIMO application,

    K. Kume and I. Yamada, “A proximal variable smoothing for nons- mooth minimization involving weakly convex composite with MIMO application,” inIEEE ICASSP, 2025, pp. 1–5

    work page 2025

  6. [2]

    Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method

    A. N. Tikhonov, “Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method.”Soviet Math. Dokl., vol. 4, pp. 1035–1038, 1963

    work page 1963

  7. [3]

    Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,

    R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,”J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996

    1996

  8. [4]

    The convergence guarantees of a non-convex approach for sparse recovery,

    L. Chen and Y . Gu, “The convergence guarantees of a non-convex approach for sparse recovery,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 15, pp. 3754–3767, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 61 references
  1. [5]

    Sparse regularization via convex analysis,

    I. Selesnick, “Sparse regularization via convex analysis,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 17, pp. 4481–4494, 2017

    2017

  2. [6]

    Linearly involved generalized Moreau enhanced models and their proximal splitting algorithm under overall convexity condition,

    J. Abe, M. Yamagishi, and I. Yamada, “Linearly involved generalized Moreau enhanced models and their proximal splitting algorithm under overall convexity condition,”Inverse Problems, vol. 36, no. 3, 2020

    2020

  3. [7]

    A constrained LiGME model and its proximal splitting algorithm under overall convexity condition,

    W. Yata, M. Yamagishi, and I. Yamada, “A constrained LiGME model and its proximal splitting algorithm under overall convexity condition,” J. Appl. Numer. Optim., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 245–271, 2022

    2022

  4. [8]

    Block-sparse recovery with optimal block partition,

    H. Kuroda and D. Kitahara, “Block-sparse recovery with optimal block partition,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 1506–1520, 2022

    2022

  5. [9]

    Convex sparse spectral clustering: single- view to multi-view,

    C. Lu, S. Yan, and Z. Lin, “Convex sparse spectral clustering: single- view to multi-view,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 2833–2843, 2016

    2016

  6. [10]

    A manifold proximal linear method for sparse spectral clustering with application to single-cell RNA sequencing data analysis,

    Z. Wang, B. Liu, S. Chen, S. Ma, L. Xue, and H. Zhao, “A manifold proximal linear method for sparse spectral clustering with application to single-cell RNA sequencing data analysis,”INFORMS J. on Optim., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 200–214, 2022

    2022

  7. [12]

    Solving (most) of a set of quadratic equalities: composite optimization for robust phase retrieval,

    J. C. Duchi and F. Ruan, “Solving (most) of a set of quadratic equalities: composite optimization for robust phase retrieval,”Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 471–529, 2018

    2018

  8. [13]

    A new inexact proximal linear algorithm with adaptive stopping criteria for robust phase retrieval,

    Z. Zheng, S. Ma, and L. Xue, “A new inexact proximal linear algorithm with adaptive stopping criteria for robust phase retrieval,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 1081–1093, 2024

    2024

  9. [14]

    Variable smoothing algorithm for inner-loop-free DC composite optimizations,

    K. Yazawa, K. Kume, and I. Yamada, “Variable smoothing algorithm for inner-loop-free DC composite optimizations,”arXiv (2503.13990v1), 2025, (to appear in EUSIPCO 2025)

    2025 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Low-rank matrix recovery with composite optimization: Good conditioning and rapid convergence,

    V . Charisopoulos, Y . Chen, D. Davis, M. D´ıaz, L. Ding, and D. Drusvy- atskiy, “Low-rank matrix recovery with composite optimization: Good conditioning and rapid convergence,”Foundations of Computational Mathematics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1505–1593, 2021

    2021

  11. [16]

    Robust low-rank matrix recovery via hybrid ordinary-Welsch function,

    Z.-Y . Wang, H. C. So, and A. M. Zoubir, “Robust low-rank matrix recovery via hybrid ordinary-Welsch function,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 2548–2563, 2023

    2023

  12. [17]

    Rockafellar and R

    R. Rockafellar and R. J.-B. Wets,Variational Analysis, 3rd ed. Springer, 2010

    2010

  13. [18]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes,Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in Hilbert spaces, 2nd ed. Springer, 2017

    2017

  14. [19]

    Weakly convex regularized robust sparse recovery methods with theoretical guarantees,

    C. Yang, X. Shen, H. Ma, B. Chen, Y . Gu, and H. C. So, “Weakly convex regularized robust sparse recovery methods with theoretical guarantees,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 67, no. 19, pp. 5046–5061, 2019

    2019

  15. [20]

    Sparse stable outlier-robust signal recovery under Gaussian noise,

    K. Suzuki and M. Yukawa, “Sparse stable outlier-robust signal recovery under Gaussian noise,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 372– 387, 2023

    2023

  16. [21]

    Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax con- cave penalty,

    C.-H. Zhang, “Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax con- cave penalty,”Ann. Stat., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 894 – 942, 2010

    2010

  17. [22]

    Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties,

    J. Fan and R. Li, “Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties,”J. Am. Stat. Assoc., vol. 96, no. 456, pp. 1348– 1360, 2001

    2001

  18. [23]

    A proximal method for composite minimization,

    A. S. Lewis and S. J. Wright, “A proximal method for composite minimization,”Math. Program., vol. 158, no. 1, pp. 501–546, 2016

    2016

  19. [24]

    Efficiency of minimizing composi- tions of convex functions and smooth maps,

    D. Drusvyatskiy and C. Paquette, “Efficiency of minimizing composi- tions of convex functions and smooth maps,”Math. Program., vol. 178, no. 1-2, pp. 503–558, 2019

    2019

  20. [25]

    Subgra- dient methods for sharp weakly convex functions,

    D. Davis, D. Drusvyatskiy, K. J. MacPhee, and C. Paquette, “Subgra- dient methods for sharp weakly convex functions,”J. Optim. Theory Appl., vol. 179, no. 3, pp. 962–982, 2018

    2018

  21. [26]

    Incremental methods for weakly convex optimization,

    X. Li, Z. Zhu, A. M.-C. So, and J. D. Lee, “Incremental methods for weakly convex optimization,”arXiv (1907.11687v2), pp. 1–25, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  22. [27]

    A unified analysis for the subgra- dient methods minimizing composite nonconvex, nonsmooth and non- Lipschitz functions,

    D. Zhu, L. Zhao, and S. Zhang, “A unified analysis for the subgra- dient methods minimizing composite nonconvex, nonsmooth and non- Lipschitz functions,”arXiv (2308.16362v2), pp. 1–32, 2023

    2023

  23. [29]

    Beck,First-Order Methods in Optimization

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

    2017

  24. [30]

    Convex relaxations of the weighted maxmin dispersion problem,

    S. Haines, J. Loeppky, P. Tseng, and X. Wang, “Convex relaxations of the weighted maxmin dispersion problem,”SIAM J. Optim., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2264–2294, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Fifty years of MIMO detection: The road to large-scale MIMOs,

    S. Yang and L. Hanzo, “Fifty years of MIMO detection: The road to large-scale MIMOs,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1941–1988, 2015

    1941

  26. [34]

    Computationally efficient data detection algorithm for massive MU-MIMO systems using PSK modulations,

    J. C. Chen, “Computationally efficient data detection algorithm for massive MU-MIMO systems using PSK modulations,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 983–986, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Asymptotic performance of discrete- valued vector reconstruction via box-constrained optimization with sum ofℓ 1 regularizers,

    R. Hayakawa and K. Hayashi, “Asymptotic performance of discrete- valued vector reconstruction via box-constrained optimization with sum ofℓ 1 regularizers,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 4320–4335, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    An LiGME regularizer of designated isolated minimizers – an application to discrete-valued signal estimation,

    S. Shoji, W. Yata, K. Kume, and I. Yamada, “An LiGME regularizer of designated isolated minimizers – an application to discrete-valued signal estimation,”arXiv (2503.10126v2), 2025, (to appear in IEICE Trans. Fundamentals)

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    The rate of convergence of the generalized gradient descent method,

    N. Z. Shor, “The rate of convergence of the generalized gradient descent method,”Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 79–80, 1968

    1968

  30. [38]

    Incremental subgradient methods for nondifferentiable optimization,

    A. Nedic and D. P. Bertsekas, “Incremental subgradient methods for nondifferentiable optimization,”SIAM J. Optim., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 109– 138, 2001

    2001

  31. [39]

    Variable smoothing for weakly convex composite functions,

    A. B ¨ohm and S. J. Wright, “Variable smoothing for weakly convex composite functions,”J. Optim. Theory Appl., vol. 188, no. 3, pp. 628– 649, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    A variable smoothing for nonconvexly constrained nonsmooth optimization with application to sparse spectral clustering,

    K. Kume and I. Yamada, “A variable smoothing for nonconvexly constrained nonsmooth optimization with application to sparse spectral clustering,” inIEEE ICASSP, 2024, pp. 9296–9300

    2024

  33. [41]

    A variable smoothing algorithm for solving convex optimization problems,

    R. I. Bot ¸ and C. Hendrich, “A variable smoothing algorithm for solving convex optimization problems,”TOP, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 124–150, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    A global Cayley parametrization of Stiefel manifold for direct utilization of optimization mechanisms over vector spaces,

    K. Kume and I. Yamada, “A global Cayley parametrization of Stiefel manifold for direct utilization of optimization mechanisms over vector spaces,” inIEEE ICASSP, 2021, pp. 5554–5558

    2021

  35. [43]

    Generalized left-localized Cayley parametrization for optimiza- tion with orthogonality constraints,

    ——, “Generalized left-localized Cayley parametrization for optimiza- tion with orthogonality constraints,”Optimization, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 1113–1159, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    The effect of smooth parametriza- tions on nonconvex optimization landscapes,

    E. Levin, J. Kileel, and N. Boumal, “The effect of smooth parametriza- tions on nonconvex optimization landscapes,”Math. Program., vol. 209, no. 1, pp. 63–111, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Understanding notions of stationarity in nonsmooth optimization: A guided tour of various constructions of subdifferential for nonsmooth functions,

    J. Li, A. M. C. So, and W. K. Ma, “Understanding notions of stationarity in nonsmooth optimization: A guided tour of various constructions of subdifferential for nonsmooth functions,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 18–31, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Minimizing the Moreau envelope of nonsmooth convex functions over the fixed point set of certain quasi-nonexpansive mappings,

    I. Yamada, M. Yukawa, and M. Yamagishi, “Minimizing the Moreau envelope of nonsmooth convex functions over the fixed point set of certain quasi-nonexpansive mappings,” inFixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, H. H. Bauschke, R. S. Burachik, P. ...

    2011

  39. [47]

    Epi-convergence properties of smoothing by infimal convolution,

    J. V . Burke and T. Hoheisel, “Epi-convergence properties of smoothing by infimal convolution,”Set-Valued Var. Anal., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Forward-backward envelope for the sum of two nonconvex functions: Further properties and non- monotone linesearch algorithms,

    A. Themelis, L. Stella, and P. Patrinos, “Forward-backward envelope for the sum of two nonconvex functions: Further properties and non- monotone linesearch algorithms,”SIAM J. Optim., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2274–2303, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    A proximal variable smoothing for solving composite inclusion problems,

    A. Moudafi, “A proximal variable smoothing for solving composite inclusion problems,”hal-04992179v1, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    A maxmin location problem,

    B. Dasarathy and L. J. White, “A maxmin location problem,”Operations Research, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1385–1401, 1980

    1980

  43. [51]

    Dispersion in a polygon,

    T. Araki and S. Nakano, “Dispersion in a polygon,”IEICE Trans. Fundamentals, vol. E107-A, no. 9, pp. 1458–1464, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Cell switch-off algorithms for spatially irregular base station deployments,

    Q.-N. Le-The, T. Beitelmal, F. Lagum, S. S. Szyszkowicz, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Cell switch-off algorithms for spatially irregular base station deployments,”IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 354–357, 2017. 12

    2017

  45. [53]

    Minimax and maximin distance designs,

    M. Johnson, L. Moore, and D. Ylvisaker, “Minimax and maximin distance designs,”J. Stat. Plan. Inference, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 131–148, 1990

    1990

  46. [54]

    Minimax and maximin space-filling designs: some prop- erties and methods for construction,

    L. Pronzato, “Minimax and maximin space-filling designs: some prop- erties and methods for construction,”Journal de la soci ´et´e franc ¸aise de statistique, vol. 158, no. 1, pp. 7–36, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Facchinei and J.-S

    F. Facchinei and J.-S. Pang,Finite dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems Volume I. Springer, 2003

    2003

  48. [56]

    Discrete signal reconstruction by sum of absolute values,

    M. Nagahara, “Discrete signal reconstruction by sum of absolute values,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1575–1579, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Regularised approach to detection of constant modulus signals in MIMO channels,

    D. Ram ´ırez and I. Santamar ´ıa, “Regularised approach to detection of constant modulus signals in MIMO channels,”Electron. Lett., vol. 42, pp. 184–186, 2006

    2006

  50. [58]

    Projecting onto the intersection of a cone and a sphere,

    H. H. Bauschke, M. N. Bui, and X. Wang, “Projecting onto the intersection of a cone and a sphere,”SIAM J. Optim., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2158–2188, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    A primal–dual splitting method for convex optimization involving Lipschitzian, proximable and linear composite terms,

    L. Condat, “A primal–dual splitting method for convex optimization involving Lipschitzian, proximable and linear composite terms,”J. Optim. Theory Appl., vol. 158, no. 2, pp. 460–479, 2013

    2013

  52. [60]

    A regularization interpretation of the proximal point method for weakly convex functions,

    H. Tim, L. Maxime, and O. Adam, “A regularization interpretation of the proximal point method for weakly convex functions,”J. Dyn. Games, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 79–96, 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    Proximal mappings and Moreau envelopes of single-variable convex piecewise cubic functions and multivariable gauge functions,

    C. Planiden and X. Wang, “Proximal mappings and Moreau envelopes of single-variable convex piecewise cubic functions and multivariable gauge functions,” inNonsmooth Optimization and Its Applications, S. Hosseini, B. S. Mordukhovich, and A. Uschmajew, Eds. Springer, 2019, pp. 8...

    2019

Pith tools

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