Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Subspace decomposition in regularized least-squares: solution properties, restricted coercivity and beyond

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A subspace split turns regularized least-squares solution properties into simple kernel-intersection checks.

desk verdict The main solution-set formula is right, but the claimed unification of uniqueness criteria via the tangent cone is false as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20686 v2 pith:42RWZ5JI submitted 2025-07-28 math.OC

Feng Xue , Hui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 47H0549M2949M2790C25
keywords regularizedleast-squaressolutionexistencecompactnessuniquenessrestrictedcoercivityrecessionfunctionconjugatesubdifferentiallasso
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 tries to establish that the solution set of $\min_x f(x)+\tfrac12\|Ax-b\|^2$ splits into a fixed range-space component and a kernel component selected by the conjugate subdifferential. If the central formula is right, the three basic solution properties—non-emptiness, boundedness, and uniqueness—become direct set-intersection checks instead of separate coercivity analyses. The paper also claims to unify earlier recession-cone, sublevel-set, descent-cone, and radial-cone criteria through a bridge lemma that matches the recession function of $f$ with the recession cone of $\partial f^*(A^T r)$. A parallel treatment of the equality-constrained problem links the two formulations through exact infimal postcomposition. This matters because the resulting geometric conditions are concrete enough to apply directly to the lasso and other regularized estimators.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the orthogonal decomposition $\mathbb R^n=\operatorname{ran}A^T\oplus\ker A$, applied through Fermat's optimality condition. Every candidate $x$ is written as $x_r+x_k$; the range component $x_r$ is forced by the least-squares term to be the resolvent point $A^\dagger(I_m+A\triangleright\partial f)^{-1}(b)$, and the kernel component $x_k$ must lie in $(\partial f^*(A^T r)-x_r)\cap\ker A$. The load-bearing bridge is Lemma 2.15, which states that the recession function obeys $f^\infty(d)=\langle A^T r,d\rangle$ exactly when $d$ lies in $(\partial f^*(A^T r))^\infty$, with strict inequality otherwise; this is what converts all recession-cone and sublevel-set criteria into the conjugate-subdifferential language in which the solution set is written.

What would settle it

A direct computation on the paper's paired examples would settle the central identity: take $f(x_1,x_2)=\max\{e^{x_2}-x_1,0\}$ with $A=[1\;0]$ and $b=0$ (predicted empty solution set) versus $A=[0\;1]$ and $b=0$ (predicted non-empty, unbounded solution set). Evaluating the right-hand side of $X=x^\star_r+[(\partial f^*(A^T r)-x^\star_r)\cap\ker A]$ and comparing it with the set of points satisfying Fermat's condition would refute the paper's claim if any minimizer is missed or any non-minimizer is included.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a proper lower semicontinuous convex $f$ and a linear map $A$, the solution set $X$ of (1.1) admits the explicit expression $X=x^\star_r+[(\partial f^*(A^T r)-x^\star_r)\cap\ker A]$, where $x^\star_r=A^\dagger(I_m+A\triangleright\partial f)^{-1}(b)$ and $r=b-Ax^\star_r$. From this identity the paper reads off: $X\neq\emptyset$ exactly when $b\in\operatorname{ran}(I_m+A\triangleright\partial f)$; $X$ is compact exactly when the recession cone $(\partial f^*(A^T r))^\infty$ meets $\ker A$ only at the origin; and $X$ is a singleton exactly when $(\partial f^*(A^T r)-x^\star)\cap\ker A=\{0\}$. The paper further proves these conditions are equivalent to the classical criteria involving the recession cone $R_f$, the recession function kernel $\ker f^\infty$, sublevel sets, descent cones, and radial cones, thereby unifying previously separate results. The equality-constrained version is given the same subspace treatment, and its relation to (1.1) is expressed through exactness of the infimal postcomposition $A\triangleright f$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 2.15, which asserts that the recession function satisfies $f^\infty(d)=\langle A^T r,d\rangle$ exactly when $d$ lies in the recession cone of $\partial f^*(A^T r)$, with strict inequality otherwise; because the proof fixes the minimizer $x^\star$ as the reference point, the claimed unification with all recession-cone criteria collapses if this lemma fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All solutions of (1.1) share the same vector $Ax$, the same residual $r$, and the same range component $x^\star_r$; only the kernel component can vary.
  • For any fixed $b$, existence holds exactly when $b\in\operatorname{ran}(I_m+A\triangleright\partial f)$, and existence for every $b$ is equivalent to maximal monotonicity of $A\circ\partial f^*\circ A^T$.
  • The solution set is compact exactly when $(\partial f^*(A^T r))^\infty\cap\ker A=\{0\}$, and it is a singleton exactly when $(\partial f^*(A^T r)-x^\star)\cap\ker A=\{0\}$.
  • These conditions are equivalent to the classical criteria $R_f\cap\ker A=\{0\}$, $\ker f^\infty\cap\ker A=\{0\}$, and the descent-cone or radial-cone conditions used in earlier uniqueness theorems.
  • For the lasso ($f=\|\cdot\|_1$), the solution set takes the explicit normal-cone form with respect to the $\ell_\infty$ unit ball, and a lasso solution exists for every $b$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence is that algorithm designers can certify a unique residual and a unique range component even when the full solution set is unbounded, a distinction that bundled existence-compactness conditions do not expose.
  • The normal-cone picture for the lasso suggests a direct probabilistic route to lasso uniqueness: estimate the chance that the normal cone $N_{\ell_\infty}(A^T r)$ intersects $\ker A$ nontrivially, without passing through descent cones.
  • The same subspace split should transfer to analysis formulations $f(Dx)+\tfrac12\|Ax-b\|^2$ and to generalized lasso, with the kernel of $A$ replaced by the relevant subspace determined by both $A$ and $D$, as the paper's concluding remarks indicate.
  • The paired examples with the same $f$ but different orientations of $A$ show that emptiness versus unboundedness is a property of the pair $(f,A)$, not of $f$ alone; this invites a design-oriented question about which orientations make $A\triangleright\partial f$ maximal monotone.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the regularized least-squares problem min f(x)+1/2||Ax-b||^2 and its equality-constrained analogue, using the orthogonal decomposition of R^n into ran A^T and ker A. The central result is an explicit solution-set formula X = x*_r + [(∂f*(A^T r)-x*_r) ∩ ker A] (Theorem 2.2), from which the authors derive existence, compactness, and uniqueness criteria in terms of ∂f*, and then connect these criteria to existing conditions based on recession cones, sublevel sets, restricted coercivity, and the radial/tangent/descent cones used in prior work. The constrained problem (1.2) is treated analogously and linked to (1.1) through infimal postcomposition. The paper also contains extensive worked examples, including lasso illustrations.

Significance. The core solution-set formula in Theorem 2.2 is clean, self-contained, and appears correct, and the separate treatment of existence versus compactness is a genuine clarification of earlier bundled criteria. The derivations are parameter-free and analytical, with no fitted constants or circular reliance on prior work. The infimal-postcomposition connection in Section 3.4 and the many worked examples are valuable. However, the claimed unification of uniqueness criteria contains false statements: Lemma 2.20(i) is wrong, Lemma 2.22 fails as a set equality, and Lemma 3.8(ii) is false. These errors are in the uniqueness/unification sections and therefore affect load-bearing claims, although the central solution-set derivation and most existence/compactness results remain sound.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4.2, Lemma 2.20(i) and Proposition 2.21(i)] The asserted equality Df(x⋆)=T_{slev_{x⋆}f}(x⋆) is false under the paper's own definitions: by Definition 2.19(iii), T is the closure of the radial cone, while Df is the unclosed cone R_+(slev_{x⋆}f−x⋆). The reverse inclusion in the proof assumes that every point of the closure is already in the radial cone, which is not true. A concrete counterexample is f(x1,x2)=e^{x1}−x1−1−x2, A=[0 1], b=−1. The unique minimizer is x⋆=(0,0); one computes Df(x⋆)={(d1,d2): d2>0}∪{(0,0)}, while T_{slev_{x⋆}f}(x⋆)={(d1,d2): d2≥0}. With kerA=span{(1,0)}, Df(x⋆)∩kerA={0} but T_{slev_{x⋆}f}(x⋆)∩kerA=R×{0}. Hence Proposition 2.21(i) predicts non-uniqueness even though the solution is unique, so the equivalence (i)⇔(ii)⇔(iii) in Proposition 2.21 fails as stated. The correct object for the equivalence is the radial cone, which equals Df(x⋆).
  2. [§2.4.2–2.4.3, Lemma 2.20(ii) and Lemma 2.22] The claimed set equality (∂f*(A^T r)−x⋆)∩kerA = (slev_{x⋆}f−x⋆)∩kerA = Df(x⋆)∩kerA is false. The paper's own Table 2.2, Example-4, already exhibits the failure: for f(x)=max{|x1|−1,0}, A=[0 1], b=1, x⋆=(0,1), the table gives Df(x⋆)∩kerA=R×{0} while (∂f*(0)−x⋆)∩kerA=[−1,1]×{0}. The inclusion Df∩kerA⊆(∂f*−x⋆)∩kerA fails because d∈Df only guarantees f(x⋆+ξd)≤f(x⋆) for some ξ>0, not for d itself. The correct identity is Df(x⋆)∩kerA=R_+((∂f*(A^T r)−x⋆)∩kerA). Since the positive hull of a set containing 0 is {0} exactly when the set is {0}, the uniqueness criteria in Proposition 2.21 survive as zero/nonzero tests, but the stated equalities and their proofs need to be revised.
  3. [§3.3, Lemma 3.8(ii)] The equality R_{∂f*(y)}(x⋆)=∪_{v∈R^m: A^T v∈∂f(x⋆)}(∂f*(A^T v)−x⋆) is false. Take f=ι_{[-1,1]} on R, A=1, b=0, x⋆=0, and y=0∈∂f(x⋆)∩ranA^T. Then ∂f*=∂|·|, so ∂f*(0)=[−1,1] and R_{∂f*(0)}(0)=R_+([−1,1])=R, while the union over all v with A^T v∈∂f(x⋆)=R is ∂f*(R)=[−1,1]. Thus Lemma 3.8(ii) cannot serve as the bridge between the radial-cone condition and the union condition for (1.2). The proof of Theorem 3.9 should rely on Proposition 3.6, which remains a valid solution-set criterion, rather than on Lemma 3.8(ii).
  4. [§2.3.4, Theorem 2.14(v)] The step from σ_{PkerA(dom f*)}(d)>0 for all d∈kerA\{0} to 0∈ri PkerA(dom f*) is stated without proof or citation. This is standard support-function/relative-interior machinery, but since it supports the restricted-coercivity discussion, a one-sentence justification or a precise reference should be added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 2.1(iv)] In the proof of Lemma 2.1(iv), the sentence 'which yields (iii)' should read 'which yields (iv)'.
  2. [Tables 2.1–3.2] The tables contain the placeholder '/reve' in most evaluation cells; these should be replaced with the intended check/cross symbols and the numerical values should be completed.
  3. [Table 2.2, Example-4 row for ∂f*] In the displayed formula for ∂f*, the last case condition uses '(x1,x2)' where '(u1,u2)' is meant.
  4. [Theorem 3.9 proof] There is a typo 'suth that' which should be 'such that'.
  5. [Proposition 2.12(ix)] The condition 'inf_{t>0,d∈kerA} f(x+td)>−∞' would be clearer with a comma: 'inf_{t>0, d∈kerA} f(x+td)>−∞'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the main solution-set and solution-property results are derived self-containedly from standard convex analysis, with self-citations used only for comparison.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2.2 obtains the solution-set expression X = x*_r + [(∂f^*(A^T r) − x*_r) ∩ ker A] directly from Fermat's rule, the identity (∂f)^{-1} = ∂f^*, and the orthogonal decomposition x = x_r + x_k; no part of this step assumes the conclusion. Lemma 2.4 and Theorem 2.5 translate the existence condition into b ∈ ran(I_m + A▷∂f) via elementary resolvent and Minty-type arguments, again without importing the result. Proposition 2.8 derives compactness from recession-cone calculus (Lemma 2.7), and Lemma 2.15/Theorem 2.16 connect the recession cone of ∂f^*(A^T r) to classical recession cones using subgradient inequalities; the proof is internal and does not invoke the claimed equivalence as an assumption. Uniqueness claims in Proposition 2.18 follow directly from Theorem 2.2, and the cone equivalences in Proposition 2.21 are proved within Lemmas 2.20 and 2.22. The authors cite their own prior work [34] only for a lasso example and as a comparison point, not as a load-bearing premise; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citations. A potential mathematical gap in Lemma 2.20(i) — identifying the descent cone with the closed tangent cone — would be a correctness concern, not a circularity, since it does not make the derivation depend on its own conclusion. Overall, the paper's central claims have independent derivation from standard convex analysis and monotone operator theory.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are self-contained given standard convex analysis and the standing Γ0 assumption. No parameters are fitted to data; the only new concepts are mathematical definitions such as restricted coercivity, not postulated entities. The proofs rest on the elementary subspace decomposition x = x_r + x_k.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption f is proper, lower semicontinuous and convex, f ∈ Γ0(R^n).
    Assumed throughout (Section 1.1); guarantees Fenchel-Moreau duality, (∂f)^{-1} = ∂f^*, and the subdifferential sum rule used with the quadratic term.
  • standard math Standard convex analysis facts, including Fenchel-Moreau, Minty's theorem, recession functions, and monotone operator composition identities.
    Used in Lemmas 2.1, 2.10, 2.15 and Theorems 2.5, 3.12; accepted background from Bauschke-Combettes and Rockafellar.
  • domain assumption Viability condition ran∂f ∩ ranA^T ≠ ∅ whenever the operators A▷∂f or the solution set are nonempty.
    Stated in Lemma 2.4 and Remark 4. The central solution-set expression requires nonempty X, and in that regime the viability condition holds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subspace decomposition in regularized least-squares: solution properties, restricted coercivity and beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42RWZ5JI

@misc{pith2026250720686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subspace decomposition in regularized least-squares: solution properties, restricted coercivity and beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42RWZ5JI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20686}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the solution properties of the regularized least-squares problem. Using a subspace decomposition technique, we derive expressions for the solution set in terms of the conjugate function, from which various properties, including existence, compactness and uniqueness, can then be easily analyzed. A key distinction of our approach from existing works is the separate treatment of existence and compactness. We unify many existing results based on recession cones and sublevel sets, and link them to our findings by connecting the recession function with the recession cone of the subdifferential of the conjugate function. In particular, the concept of restricted coercivity is developed and discussed in various aspects. The associated linearly constrained counterpart is discussed in a similar manner. Its connections to regularized least-squares are further established via the exactness of infimal postcomposition. Our results are supported by numerous examples, among which the geometric interpretation of the lasso solution deserves further investigations in near future.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    McCoy, and Joel A

    Dennis Amelunxen, Martin Lotz, Michael B. McCoy, and Joel A. Tropp , Living on the edge: phase transitions in convex programs with random data , Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 3 (2014), pp. 224–294

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Alfred Auslender and Marc Teboulle , Asymptotic Cones and Functions in Optimization and Variational Inequalities, Springer New York, NY, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Barbara, A

    A. Barbara, A. Jourani, and S. Vaiter, Maximal solutions of sparse analysis regularization , Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 180 (2019), pp. 374–396. 25

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bauschke and Patrick L

    Heinz H. Bauschke and Patrick L. Combettes , Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces , Second Edition, CMS Books in Mathematics, Springer, New York, NY, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Amir Beck, First-Order Methods in Optimization , SIAM-Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    A. Berk, S. Brugiapaglia, and T. Hoseisel , Lasso reloaded: A variational analysis perspec- tive with applications to compressed sensing, SIAM J. Math. Data Sci., 5 (2023), pp. 1102– 1129

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    J. Fr´ed´eric Bonnans and Alexander Shapiro, Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Prob- lems, Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Springer New York, NY, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Bredies, E

    K. Bredies, E. Chenchene, D.A. Lorenz, and E. Naldi, Degenerate preconditioned proximal point algorithms, SIAM J. Optim., 32 (2022), pp. 2376–2401

    work page 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    B `ui and Patrick L

    Minh N. B `ui and Patrick L. Combettes , Warped proximal iterations for monotone inclu- sions, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 491 (2020), p. 124315

    2020

  2. [10]

    Chandrasekaran, B

    V. Chandrasekaran, B. Recht, P. A. Parrilo, and A. S. Willsky , The convex geometry of linear inverse problems , Found. Comput. Math., 12 (2012), pp. 805–849

    2012

  3. [11]

    Combettes, The geometry of monotone operator splitting methods, Acta Numerica, 33 (2024), pp

    Patrick L. Combettes, The geometry of monotone operator splitting methods, Acta Numerica, 33 (2024), pp. 487–632

    2024

  4. [12]

    Laurent Condat, Daichi Kitahara, Andr´es Contreras, and Akira Hirabayashi, Proximal splitting algorithms for convex optimization: A tour of recent advances, with new twists , SIAM Review, 65 (2023), pp. 375–435

    2023

  5. [13]

    Optim., 33 (2023), pp

    Xavier Dupuis and Samuel Vaiter, The geometry of sparse analysis regularization , SIAM J. Optim., 33 (2023), pp. 842–867

    2023

  6. [14]

    Jalal Fadili, Tran T. A. Nghia, and Duy Nhat Phan , Solution uniqueness of convex opti- mization problems via the radial cone , Arxiv preprint: arXiv:2401.10346v1, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jalal Fadili, Tran T. A. Nghia, and Trinh T. T. Tran, Sharp, strong and unique minimiz- ers for low-complexity robust recovery , Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 12 (2023), pp. 1461–1513

    2023

  8. [16]

    Fadili, Gabriel Peyr´e, Samuel Vaiter, Charles-Alban Deledalle, and Joseph Salmon, Stable recovery with analysis decomposable priors, in Proc

    Jalal M. Fadili, Gabriel Peyr´e, Samuel Vaiter, Charles-Alban Deledalle, and Joseph Salmon, Stable recovery with analysis decomposable priors, in Proc. SampTA, 2013, pp. xx– xx

    2013

  9. [17]

    Gilbert, On the solution uniqueness characterization in the L1 norm and polyhedral gauge recovery, J

    J.C. Gilbert, On the solution uniqueness characterization in the L1 norm and polyhedral gauge recovery, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 172 (2017), pp. 70–101

    2017

  10. [18]

    Glowinski, S

    R. Glowinski, S. Osher, and W. Yin, Splitting Methods in Communication, Imaging, Science, and Engineering, Springer Cham, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Markus Grasmair, Otmar Scherzer, and Markus Haltmeier , Necessary and sufficient conditions for linear convergence of ℓ1-regularization, Communications on Pure and Ap- plied Mathematics, 64 (2011), pp. 161–182

    2011

  12. [20]

    J. He, C. Kan, and W. Song , On solution uniqueness and robust recovery for sparse regular- ization with a gauge: From dual point of view , Set-Valued Var. Anal., 33 (2025), pp. xx–xx

    2025

  13. [21]

    Jean-Baptiste Hiriart-Urruty and Claude Lemar ´echal, Convex analysis and minimiza- tion algorithms I: Fundamentals, volume 305, Grundlehren Der Mathematischen, Springer- Verlag, 1993

    1993

  14. [22]

    A. S. Lewis, Active sets, nonsmoothness, and sensitivity , SIAM J. Optim., 13 (2003), pp. 702– 725

    2003

  15. [23]

    Seyed Ahmad Mousavi and Jing Lai Shen , Solution uniqueness of convex piecewise - affine functions based optimization with applications to constrained ℓ1 minimization, ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 25 (2019), pp. 56–82

    2019

  16. [24]

    R. T. Rockafellar , Convex analysis , Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics and Physics, Princeton University Press, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B Wets, Variational Analysis, Springer, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaft, vol

    R. Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B Wets, Variational Analysis, Springer, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaft, vol. 317, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Ryu and Wotao Yin , Large-Scale Convex Optimization: Algorithms & Analyses via Monotone Operators, Cambridge University Press, 2022

    Ernest K. Ryu and Wotao Yin , Large-Scale Convex Optimization: Algorithms & Analyses via Monotone Operators, Cambridge University Press, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Tibshirani and Jonathan Taylor , Degrees of freedom in lasso problems , Ann

    Ryan J. Tibshirani and Jonathan Taylor , Degrees of freedom in lasso problems , Ann. Statist., 40 (2012), pp. 1198–1232. 26

    2012

  20. [28]

    Thesis, Universit´ e Paris–Dauphine, (2014)

    Samuel Vaiter, Low complexity regularizations of inverse problems , Ph.D. Thesis, Universit´ e Paris–Dauphine, (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Samuel Vaiter, Mohammad Golbabaee, Jalal Fadili, and Gabriel Peyr´e, Model selection with low complexity priors , Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 4 (2015), pp. 230–287

    2015

  22. [30]

    , Model selection with low complexity priors, Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 4 (2015), pp. 230–287

    2015

  23. [31]

    Vaiter, G

    S. Vaiter, G. Peyr´e, C. Dossal, and J. Fadili , Robust sparse analysis regularization, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 59 (2013), pp. 2001–2016

    2013

  24. [32]

    Dossal, and Jalal Fadili , Robust sparse analysis reg- ularization, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59 (2013), pp

    Samuel Vaiter, Gabriel Peyr´e, C. Dossal, and Jalal Fadili , Robust sparse analysis reg- ularization, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59 (2013), pp. 2001–2016

    2013

  25. [33]

    Vaiter, G

    S. Vaiter, G. Peyr ´e, and J. Fadili , Model consistency of partly smooth regularizers , IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 64 (2018), pp. 1725–1737

    2018

  26. [34]

    Hui Zhang, Wotao Yin, and Lizhi Cheng , Necessary and sufficient conditions of solution uniqueness in 1-norm minimization , Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 164 (2015), pp. 109–122. 27

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.