Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Robust Paths: Geometry and Computation

T0 review · 2 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 One proximal-point run on the deterministic counterpart approximates, and sometimes exactly reproduces, the full robust path of a linear robust optimization problem.

desk verdict Genuinely nice Bregman-projection unification of robust and deterministic paths, but the headline result only covers the regularized subpath P′(V) — the abstract overstates it, and the paper should be revised, not rejected. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20039 v1 pith:KI67C3DF submitted 2025-08-27 math.OC

Hao Hao , Peter Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C4790C2549N15
keywords robustoptimizationuncertaintysetcalibrationpathBregmanprojectionproximalpointmethodregularizationpathsParetoefficientsolutionsgaugefunctions
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 tries to make uncertainty-set calibration in robust optimization cheap. Instead of solving the robust counterpart many times for different uncertainty-set shapes and radii, the authors define the robust path—all robust solutions as the radius grows—and show that this path is a Bregman projection of a curve in the dual space onto the feasible region. The same projection identity describes the central path and the proximal point path of the deterministic counterpart, so a single proximal-point run initialized at the most robust solution approximates the entire robust path. The approximation error is controlled by the geometry of the feasible region and the uncertainty set, and in two cases—polyhedrally monotone feasible regions, and polar-pair feasible and uncertainty sets—the approximation is exact. The payoff is that entire trade-off curves for portfolio optimization and adversarial training can be produced in one pass instead of many robust solves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bregman projection $\Pi_X^\varphi$ of a dual-space curve onto the feasible set, where $\varphi=g\circ\|\cdot\|_{V^\circ}$ is a Legendre function built from the polar of the uncertainty set. Passing through the bijection $\nabla\varphi$, the robust path, the central path, and each proximal iterate are all projections of rays of the form $\nabla\varphi(0)-\omega^{-1}a_0$ or $\nabla\varphi(x_R)-\omega^{-1}a_0$; the paths differ only in where the ray starts. The supporting machinery is the dual characterization of Bregman projections onto affine subspaces and translated cones, the $\kappa$-expansiveness of the projection, and a face-monotonicity condition that makes proximal iterates coincide with central-path points on polyhedral feasible regions.

What would settle it

Enumerate the robust path by solving the min-max problem over a fine grid of radii $r$ for a concrete instance with a compact strictly convex smooth uncertainty set $V$ and a convex feasible set $X$, and compare it with the regularized path $\arg\min_{x\in X}\langle a_0,x\rangle+\omega g(\|x\|_{V^\circ})$ over a fine grid of $\omega$. A single robust solution not reproduced by any regularized solution would falsify the claim that the proximal path covers the full robust path.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that robust solutions of the min-max problem are, on a characterizable subset, the regularized solutions $\arg\min_{x\in X}\langle a_0,x\rangle+\omega(g\circ\|\cdot\|_{V^\circ})(x)$, and this regularized path equals the Bregman projection $P'(V)=\{\Pi_X^\varphi(\nabla\varphi^*(\nabla\varphi(0)-\omega^{-1}a_0)):\omega\in[0,\infty)\}$ with $\varphi=g\circ\|\cdot\|_{V^\circ}$. The central path of the deterministic problem, using the same $\varphi$ and initialized at the most robust solution $x_R=\arg\min_{x\in X}\varphi(x)$, satisfies the sharp bound $D_\varphi(x_{CP}(\omega),x'_R(\omega))\le\kappa^2 D_\varphi(\Pi_X^\varphi(0),\Pi_{\mathrm{Aff}(X)}^\varphi(0))$. The proximal point path approximates that central path, and under $\kappa$-expansiveness, $\Pi_X^\varphi(0)=\Pi_{\mathrm{Aff}(X)}^\varphi(0)$ and monotonicity on a polyhedral $X$, every proximal iterate $x_k$ is exactly a robust solution with radius $r_k=\omega_k\nabla g(\|x_k\|_{V^\circ})$, where $\omega_k=(\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\lambda_j^{-1})^{-1}$. Thus choosing the uncertainty-set shape is equivalent to choosing the distance-generating function, and choosing the step-size cadence chooses the radii of the robust solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The central guarantee covers the characterizable regularized path $P'(V)$, and the paper proves only $P'(V)\subseteq P(V)$; if the true robust path contains a solution that no regularized problem with the chosen $g$ reproduces, the approximation bounds do not cover it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single proximal-point pass on the deterministic counterpart, initialized at the most robust solution, yields an approximate robust path; the practitioner no longer needs to solve the robust min-max problem at many radii.
  • The uncertainty-set shape $V$ maps to the distance-generating function $\varphi=g\circ\|\cdot\|_{V^\circ}$, and the proximal step sizes $\{\lambda_k\}$ map to the radii $\{r_k\}$, so both design levers have exact algorithmic counterparts.
  • On polyhedrally monotone feasible regions (for example a simplex under ellipsoidal uncertainty) and when $X$ and $V$ are polar pairs up to rescaling, the proximal iterates are exact robust solutions, not merely approximations.
  • The approximation error is governed by two geometric quantities: the $\kappa$-expansiveness of the Bregman projection and the divergence between the projections of the origin onto $X$ and onto $\mathrm{Aff}(X)$, so the bound can be checked before any robust problem is solved.
  • In adversarial deep learning—where the linear-objective assumption fails—the same one-pass recipe produces clean-accuracy and robust-accuracy trade-offs comparable to repeated adversarial training, with a reported 85% reduction in computational time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same one-pass recipe would plausibly extend to convex nonlinear objectives through an epigraph reformulation, turning any regularization-path method on the enlarged problem into a robust-path method; the paper gestures at this but does not prove it.
  • Because the robust path is one-dimensional and traceable without repeated robust solves, the remaining deployment choice—which uncertainty radius to use—could be automated by scanning the recovered path with out-of-sample performance, reducing a high-dimensional calibration problem to a line search.
  • The bound involving $\Pi_{\mathrm{Aff}(X)}^\varphi(0)$ suggests a cheap pre-computation: if the divergence between the projection of the origin onto $X$ and onto its affine hull is tiny, the proximal path is guaranteed close to the robust path before running any algorithm.
  • The results imply an exact equivalence between two previously separate notions only when the feasible region is straight enough relative to the origin; curved feasible sets would require an extra quantitative control on that projection gap, which the paper does not provide.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies linear robust optimization problems with gauge uncertainty sets and introduces the "robust path" P(V), the collection of robust optimal solutions as the uncertainty-set radius varies. Its central object is a redefined "characterizable robust path" P'(V), whose points are minimizers of the regularized problem argmin_{x in X} <a0,x> + omega g(||x||_{V°}). Section 3 proves a Bregman projection representation for P'(V), the central path, and the proximal path (Theorem 1). Section 4 bounds the divergence between the central path and P'(V) (Theorem 2), identifies zero-gap cases (Corollary 1 and Propositions 1-2), bounds central-versus-proximal path distance (Theorem 3), and gives sufficient conditions under which proximal iterates are exact P'(V) points with a closed-form radius formula (Theorem 4). Algorithm 1 operationalizes the proximal-path recovery, and Section 5 reports portfolio optimization and adversarial deep learning experiments.

Significance. The geometric view is elegant and largely correct: the Bregman projection derivation in Section 3 follows from standard variational properties, uses no fitted parameters, and provides explicit, falsifiable statements. Theorem 2's uniform bound and its sharpness example are valuable, and the two zero-error cases (polyhedral monotonicity and polar pairs) are genuine structural insights. The portfolio experiments support the algorithmic claims, and the deep learning experiment, while outside the assumptions, is honestly labeled as such. The main obstacle is that the theorems characterize P'(V), a subset of the robust path P(V), rather than P(V) itself; the paper's abstract and Algorithm 1 overstate what is proved. If that gap is resolved, or the claims are restricted to the regularized path, the contribution is solid and publishable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Definition 9, Lemma 7, Figure 1 caption] The central claims of the paper are stated for the characterizable path P'(V), not for the robust path P(V) of Definition 1. Lemma 7(i) proves only P'(V) is contained in P(V), and Lemma 7(ii) only attaches a radius r(omega)=omega grad_g(||x'_R(omega)||_{V°}) to each regularized solution. No result shows that every robust solution in P(V), or every radius r, is represented by some x'_R(omega) for the fixed g. The Figure 1 caption concedes this by saying P'(V) is 'a subset of P(V)'. The gap is not harmless: for X={t e1 : 0<=t<=1}, V the unit disk, a0=(-1,0), and g(t)=t^2, P(V) contains the origin for every r>1 and the whole segment [0,1]e1 at r=1, while P'(V) covers only (0,1]e1, with the origin obtained only as omega goes to infinity. Consequently Theorem 2 and Theorem 4 establish approximation or recovery only of the regularized subpath P'(V), not of P(V). The abstract's statement that 'a robust path can be characterized' is therefore not supported. The fix is to prove a surjectivity or representation theorem under additional conditions, to adopt and state an explicit closure convention for P(V), or to restrict the abstract, theorems, and Algorithm 1 to P'(V) and describe it as a subset of robust solutions.
  2. [Section 4.3, Theorem 4, Algorithm 1] Theorem 4's sufficient condition (Pi^phi_X(0)=Pi^phi_{Aff(X)}(0) plus monotonicity) proves that each proximal iterate equals x'_R(omega_k), and Lemma 7 then shows that x_k solves the robust problem at radius r_k=omega_k grad_g(||x_k||_{V°}). This is a valid statement about a subset of robust solutions, and the closed-form radius formula is useful. However, the theorem does not imply that the proximal path visits all of P(V), and Algorithm 1's description of its output as 'an (approximate) robust path of (RC)' overstates the coverage. The algorithm's output should be described as a regularized path contained in P(V), with approximation bounds measured against P'(V), unless the surjectivity issue identified above is resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'robust path can be characterized' should be qualified to refer to the characterizable robust path P'(V), since Theorem 1 applies to P'(V) rather than to P(V) as defined in Definition 1.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The word 'robsut' in the input line should be 'robust'.
  3. [Section 5.1.1, item (iii)] The text says the max-return portfolio is xR twice; the second occurrence should be xE.
  4. [Appendix E, Proposition 2] The use of the double polar U°° should be justified explicitly by the closed, convex, origin-containing assumption on U, or the notation should be simplified to avoid an unstated identification.
  5. [Definition 10] The second inequality in the definition of kappa-expansiveness uses the translated set S+d; it would help to state explicitly that d is finite and that S+d is closed and convex, and that kappa is uniform over the admissible sets S.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the core results are self-contained mathematical identities, though the abstract overstates coverage from the characterizable subpath P′(V) to the full robust path P(V).

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained mathematical equivalences rather than fitted predictions. Definition 9 defines P′(V) as the set of minimizers of ⟨a0,x⟩ + ω g(∥x∥_{V°}), and Theorem 1's Bregman-projection formula is an exact rewriting of that defining optimality condition via the standard Bregman proximal/projection equivalence (Claim 2 and Definition 6), not a parameter fitted to external data. Theorem 2 bounds the gap between two such projection formulas with different initial dual points and follows from the explicitly assumed κ-expansiveness condition; no fitted values enter. Theorem 4 chains Corollary 1 and Proposition 1 to Lemma 7, whose radius formula r_k = ω_k ∇g(∥x_k∥_{V°}) is a first-order stationarity identity rather than an independent prediction. The only co-authored citation (Wei et al. 2025) supports background on gauge regularization and is redundant with independent references (Freund 1987; Friedlander et al. 2014), so it is not load-bearing. The paper's own Figure 1 caption concedes that P′(V) is only a subset of P(V) (Definition 1), and no argument establishes surjectivity onto all robust solutions for every radius; this is a coverage or external-validity gap in the abstract's phrasing, but it is not circularity because no derived claim reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main theoretical claims rest on Assumptions 1 and 2, on the kappa-expansiveness of Bregman projections, and on the definitional replacement of P(V) by P'(V). No constants are fitted to data; the function g and the step sizes are hand-chosen design parameters. The invented object P'(V) has no external falsifiable handle.

free parameters (2)
  • g, the Legendre post-composition function in Assumption 2
    Theorems 1 through 4 and Algorithm 1 all depend on a chosen Legendre g with g(0)=0 and grad_g(0)=0. Changing g changes P'(V) and the distance-generating function of the PPM, so the recovered robust path is relative to a hand-selected function, not fitted to data.
  • Step-size sequence {lambda_k}
    The proximal path iterates and the radius mapping r_k = omega_k grad_g(||x_k||_{V°}) depend on the chosen step sizes. The paper provides the closed form but no automated selection rule.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: V is compact, smooth and strictly convex with 0 in int(V).
    Used throughout to ensure V° has nonempty interior, ||x||_{V°} is differentiable away from 0, and to prove the Legendre property of phi in Claim 1, Section 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2: phi = g composed with ||x||_{V°}, with g Legendre, g(0)=0, grad_g(0)=0.
    This defines the entire characterizable robust path P'(V) and the distance-generating function. It is a technical device, not a property of the original robust problem (RC).
  • ad hoc to paper kappa-expansiveness of the Bregman projection for phi and phi* (Definition 10).
    Theorems 2 and 3 require the projection to satisfy two contraction inequalities with a finite kappa. The paper does not prove this for all phi satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2; it only gives a smooth and strongly convex sufficient condition in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Proximal path monotonicity on faces, Definition 11, for exactness in Proposition 1 and Theorem 4.
    Exact recovery of the central path by proximal iterates requires that once a face of the polyhedron is entered it is never left. This is an additional structural condition on the feasible region.
  • standard math Standard convex analysis results: Legendre duality, gauge/polar duality, and Bregman projection variational characterizations.
    The paper relies on Rockafellar 1970 and Bauschke et al. 1997 for Lemmas 1 through 5 and for the dual-space mappings in the proofs of Theorems 1 through 3.
invented entities (1)
  • Characterizable robust path P'(V)
    purpose: A unique, projection-friendly path defined as regularized solutions argmin <a0,x> + omega g(||x||_{V°}), used in place of the original robust path P(V).
    P'(V) is a definitional construct. Lemma 7 only shows P'(V) subset of P(V), so it may be a strict subset of the robust solutions defined in Definition 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Paths: Geometry and Computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KI67C3DF

@misc{pith2026250820039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Paths: Geometry and Computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KI67C3DF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20039}
}
read the original abstract

Applying robust optimization often requires selecting an appropriate uncertainty set both in shape and size, a choice that directly affects the trade-off between average-case and worst-case performances. In practice, this calibration is usually done via trial-and-error: solving the robust optimization problem many times with different uncertainty set shapes and sizes, and examining their performance trade-off. This process is computationally expensive and ad hoc. In this work, we take a principled approach to study this issue for robust optimization problems with linear objective functions, convex feasible regions, and convex uncertainty sets. We introduce and study what we define as the robust path: a set of robust solutions obtained by varying the uncertainty set's parameters. Our central geometric insight is that a robust path can be characterized as a Bregman projection of a curve (whose geometry is defined by the uncertainty set) onto the feasible region. This leads to a surprising discovery that the robust path can be approximated via the trajectories of standard optimization algorithms, such as the proximal point method, of the deterministic counterpart problem. We give a sharp approximation error bound and show it depends on the geometry of the feasible region and the uncertainty set. We also illustrate two special cases where the approximation error is zero: the feasible region is polyhedrally monotone (e.g., a simplex feasible region under an ellipsoidal uncertainty set), or the feasible region and the uncertainty set follow a dual relationship. We demonstrate the practical impact of this approach in two settings: portfolio optimization and adversarial deep learning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 17

    Bach F, Thibaux R, Jordan M (2004) Computing regularization paths for learning multiple kernels. Advances in neural information processing systems 17

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    International Conference on Learning Representations

    Barrett D, Dherin B (2021) Implicit gradient regularization. International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Journal of Approximation Theory 121(1):1--12

    Bauschke HH (2003) Duality for Bregman projections onto translated cones and affine subspaces. Journal of Approximation Theory 121(1):1--12

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    (1997) Legendre functions and the method of random B regman projections

    Bauschke HH, Borwein JM, et al. (1997) Legendre functions and the method of random B regman projections. Journal of convex analysis 4(1):27--67

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Management Science 59(2):341--357

    Ben-Tal A, den Hertog D, De Waegenaere A, Melenberg B, Rennen G (2013) Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science 59(2):341--357

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 31(4):2893--2920

    Bertsimas D, Den Hertog D, Pauphilet J (2021) Probabilistic guarantees in robust optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization 31(4):2893--2920

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Operations Research 52:35--53

    Bertsimas D, Sim M (2004) The price of robustness. Operations Research 52:35--53

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    2019 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 3740--3751

    Blanchet J, Kang Y, Murthy K, Zhang F (2019) Data-driven optimal transport cost selection for distributionally robust optimization. 2019 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), 3740--3751

    work page 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    The Journal of Portfolio Management 50(8):117--160

    Boyd S, Johansson K, Kahn R, Schiele P, Schmelzer T (2024) Markowitz portfolio construction at seventy. The Journal of Portfolio Management 50(8):117--160

    2024

  2. [10]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 27(2):817--841

    Chan TC, Mar PA (2017) Stability and continuity in robust optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization 27(2):817--841

    2017

  3. [11]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 35(1):92--115

    Chuong TD, Thanh Tinh C (2025) Stability properties for parametric linear programs under data ambiguities. SIAM Journal on Optimization 35(1):92--115

    2025

  4. [12]

    Mathematical Programming 38:47--67

    Freund RM (1987) Dual gauge programs, with applications to quadratic programming and the minimum-norm problem. Mathematical Programming 38:47--67

    1987

  5. [13]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 24(4):1999--2022

    Friedlander MP, Mac\^ e do I, Pong TK (2014) Gauge optimization and duality. SIAM Journal on Optimization 24(4):1999--2022

    2014

  6. [14]

    Journal of statistical software 33(1):1

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

    2010

  7. [15]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 48(2):603--655

    Gao R, Kleywegt A (2023) Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with wasserstein distance. Mathematics of Operations Research 48(2):603--655

    2023

  8. [16]

    Journal of Computational Geometry 3(1):168--195

    G \"a rtner B, Jaggi M, Maria C (2012) An exponential lower bound on the complexity of regularization paths. Journal of Computational Geometry 3(1):168--195

    2012

  9. [17]

    Journal of Global Optimization 85(3):709--741

    Gebken B, Bieker K, Peitz S (2023) On the structure of regularization paths for piecewise differentiable regularization terms . Journal of Global Optimization 85(3):709--741

    2023

  10. [18]

    arXiv:2408.07871

    González-Sanz A, Nutz M, Valdevenito AR (2025) Monotonicity in quadratically regularized linear programs. arXiv:2408.07871

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 5(Oct):1391--1415

    Hastie T, Rosset S, Tibshirani R, Zhu J (2004) The entire regularization path for the support vector machine. Journal of Machine Learning Research 5(Oct):1391--1415

    2004

  12. [20]

    Hiriart-Urruty JB, Lemar \'e chal C (2001) Fundamentals of convex analysis (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Management Science 60:130--147

    Iancu DA, Trichakis N (2014) Pareto efficiency in robust optimization. Management Science 60:130--147

    2014

  14. [22]

    Conference on Learning Theory, 2109--2136 (PMLR)

    Ji Z, Dud \' k M, Schapire RE, Telgarsky M (2020) Gradient descent follows the regularization path for general losses. Conference on Learning Theory, 2109--2136 (PMLR)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Operations Research 71(1):61--82

    Long DZ, Sim M, Zhou M (2023) Robust satisficing. Operations Research 71(1):61--82

    2023

  16. [24]

    International Conference on Learning Representations

    Madry A, Makelov A, Schmidt L, Tsipras D, Vladu A (2018) Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  17. [25]

    Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning

    Mairal J, Yu B (2012) Complexity analysis of the lasso regularization path. Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning

    2012

  18. [26]

    Markowitz HM (2008) Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investments (Yale University Press)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Mathematical Programming 171(1):115--166

    Mohajerin Esfahani P, Kuhn D (2018) Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Mathematical Programming 171(1):115--166

    2018

  20. [28]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 1497--1507 (PMLR)

    Mokhtari A, Ozdaglar A, Pattathil S (2020) A unified analysis of extra-gradient and optimistic gradient methods for saddle point problems: Proximal point approach. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 1497--1507 (PMLR)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Operations Research 57(5):1129--1141

    Natarajan K, Pachamanova D, Sim M (2009) Constructing risk measures from uncertainty sets. Operations Research 57(5):1129--1141

    2009

  22. [30]

    (2014) Proximal algorithms

    Parikh N, Boyd S, et al. (2014) Proximal algorithms. Foundations and Trends in Optimization 1(3):127--239

    2014

  23. [31]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 69(4):659--677

    Park MY, Hastie T (2007) L1-regularization path algorithm for generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 69(4):659--677

    2007

  24. [32]

    Rockafellar RT (1970) Convex Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

    1970

  25. [33]

    Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications (Cambridge University Press), 2nd edition

    Schneider R (2013) Convex Bodies: The Brunn–Minkowski Theory. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications (Cambridge University Press), 2nd edition

    2013

  26. [34]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 28

    Shafieezadeh Abadeh S, Mohajerin Esfahani PM, Kuhn D (2015) Distributionally robust logistic regression. Advances in neural information processing systems 28

    2015

  27. [35]

    Available at SSRN 3981205

    Sim M, Zhao L, Zhou M (2021) A new perspective on supervised learning via robust satisficing. Available at SSRN 3981205

    2021

  28. [36]

    Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    Suggala AS, Prasad A, Ravikumar P (2018) Connecting optimization and regularization paths. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2018

  29. [37]

    arXiv:2501.14989v2

    Wei N, Yu X, Zhang P (2025) Redefining coherent risk measures: From gauge optimization to regularization. arXiv:2501.14989v2

    2025

  30. [38]

    International Conference on Learning Representations

    Wong E, Rice L, Kolter JZ (2020) Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  31. [39]

    Journal of machine learning research 10(7)

    Xu H, Caramanis C, Mannor S (2009) Robustness and regularization of support vector machines. Journal of machine learning research 10(7)

    2009

  32. [40]

    , " * 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...

  33. [41]

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