pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15690 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🧮 math.OC

Optimization Workshop Notes for Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints Algorithms: Penalty Interior-Point, Implicit-Programming, and Piecewise SQP

Jiguang Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords mathematical programming with equilibrium constraintspenalty interior-point algorithmpiecewise SQPimplicit programmingvariational inequalitycomplementarity problemsconvergence analysisoptimization algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Workshop notes on equilibrium-constrained optimization algorithms stress that convergence theorems depend on assumptions distinguishing solid methods from promising ideas.

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

The paper presents workshop notes that discuss four approaches to solving mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints: the penalty interior-point algorithm, its variant that explicitly controls complementarity decay, an implicit-programming descent method, and piecewise SQP. These methods are needed because the equilibrium constraints in the feasible set destroy the smoothness or convexity that standard nonlinear programming methods assume. For each algorithm, the notes describe the underlying model, the subproblem used to find a search direction, the mechanism to ensure global progress, and what the convergence result actually guarantees. The emphasis throughout is on understanding precisely what each assumption contributes and on not mistaking an attractive algorithmic strategy for a theorem that has been fully proved.

Core claim

These notes claim that the penalty interior-point algorithm and its variant handle the complementarity by penalizing violations and controlling decay rates, the implicit-programming method uses the implicit function theorem to treat the equilibrium as defining a function, and piecewise SQP selects local smooth pieces of the equilibrium to apply standard SQP steps, with each having associated subproblems and convergence under assumptions like monotonicity or linear independence constraint qualifications.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the formulation of specialized subproblems for computing search directions that incorporate the lower-level equilibrium conditions, along with analysis showing under which assumptions these lead to provable convergence to stationary points.

If this is right

  • Applying the penalty interior-point algorithm requires updating the penalty parameter so that complementarity residuals decrease appropriately for the convergence theorem to apply.
  • The implicit-programming approach reduces the equilibrium-constrained problem to a standard optimization problem only when the lower-level solution is unique and differentiable.
  • Piecewise SQP can achieve superlinear convergence locally once the correct smooth piece is identified at the solution.
  • Globalization in these methods often relies on merit functions that balance objective decrease with feasibility of the equilibrium constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These detailed explanations of assumptions could help practitioners avoid implementing algorithms in regimes where they are not guaranteed to work.
  • Similar emphasis on distinguishing algorithmic ideas from theorems might improve the presentation of methods for other classes of non-smooth or hierarchical optimization problems.
  • Future work could involve testing these algorithms numerically using the subproblem formulations described to verify the practical impact of the assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithms, their subproblems, globalization mechanisms, and stated convergence results are faithfully reproduced from the prior literature in these notes.

What would settle it

Finding an equilibrium-constrained example where one of the described algorithms fails to converge as predicted by the theorem under the listed assumptions would show that the notes misrepresent the convergence conditions.

read the original abstract

In this workshop, we discuss several algorithms for mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints (MPECs). The unifying theme is that MPECs are optimization problems whose feasible set contains a lower-level equilibrium system, often written through complementarity or variational-inequality conditions. This destroys the smooth manifold or convex structure that standard nonlinear programming methods rely on. We focus on four algorithmic viewpoints: (i) the classical penalty interior-point algorithm (PIPA); (ii) a monotone-linear complementarity problem (LCP) variant of PIPA that explicitly controls complementarity decay; (iii) an implicit-programming descent method for variational inequality (VI)-constrained MPECs; (iv) piecewise SQP (PSQP), which applies SQP on locally selected smooth pieces. For each method we explain the model, the search direction subproblem, the globalization mechanism, and the meaning of the convergence result. Particular emphasis is placed on what the assumptions are really doing and on the distinction between an attractive algorithmic idea and a fully valid convergence theorem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript consists of workshop notes summarizing four algorithmic frameworks for mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints (MPECs): the classical penalty interior-point algorithm (PIPA), a monotone LCP variant of PIPA, an implicit-programming descent method for VI-constrained MPECs, and piecewise SQP (PSQP). For each approach the notes describe the model, search-direction subproblem, globalization strategy, and the precise role of assumptions in the associated convergence results, with explicit attention to the distinction between an attractive algorithmic idea and a fully valid theorem.

Significance. If the summaries faithfully reproduce the assumptions and convergence statements from the cited literature, the notes offer a useful pedagogical resource that clarifies the technical conditions required for convergence in MPEC algorithms. The emphasis on the meaning of assumptions and the separation of heuristic appeal from rigorous guarantees is a constructive contribution for readers seeking to understand the limitations of these methods.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract lists the four viewpoints but does not explicitly note that the material is expository and contains no new theorems or derivations; adding one sentence to this effect would help set reader expectations.
  2. [LCP variant of PIPA] In the description of the LCP variant of PIPA, the notation for the complementarity decay control parameter should be cross-checked against the original reference to ensure consistency in the statement of the subproblem.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for recommending acceptance. The provided summary accurately describes the scope and emphasis of the workshop notes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in explanatory workshop notes

full rationale

The document is a set of workshop notes that summarize and explain four existing algorithmic frameworks (PIPA, LCP variant, implicit-programming descent, PSQP) drawn from prior literature. It articulates models, subproblems, globalization, and the role of assumptions in convergence results without introducing new theorems, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to self-defined inputs or self-citations; the content is purely expository and distinguishes heuristic appeal from theorem validity. This is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is explanatory material on existing algorithms; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced by the notes themselves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5480 in / 957 out tokens · 27277 ms · 2026-05-10T08:55:22.492343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. First-Order Optimality Conditions for Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A geometric characterization of the tangent cone to feasible points in MPECs yields stationarity concepts and constraint qualifications that avoid the strong nondegeneracy and smoothness assumptions required by classi...

  2. Introduction to Exact Penalization for Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Exact penalization for MPECs is enabled under broader conditions by fractional-order penalties derived from Lojasiewicz error bounds on KKT residual mappings.

  3. Introduction to Mathematical Programming with Equilibrium Constraints (MPECs) and Bilevel Optimization

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted

    An MPEC is an optimization problem whose feasible set is partly defined by another optimization, variational inequality, complementarity system, or equilibrium model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S. Leyffer. The penalty interior-point method fails to converge.Optimization Methods and Software, 20(4-5):559–568, 2005. doi: 10.1080/10556780500140078

    work page doi:10.1080/10556780500140078 2005

  2. [2]

    Facchinei, V

    F. Facchinei, V. Kungurtsev, L. Lampariello, and G. Scutari. Ghost penalties in nonconvex constrained optimization: Diminishing stepsizes and iteration complexity.Mathematics of Operations Research, 46(2):595–627, 2021. doi: 10.1287/moor.2020.1079

    work page doi:10.1287/moor.2020.1079 2021

  3. [3]

    Kuhn and R

    D. Kuhn and R. Löwen. Piecewise affine bijections of Rn, and the equation Sx+-Tx-=y.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 96:109–129, 1987. doi: 10.1016/0024-3795(87)90339-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0024-3795(87)90339-9 1987

  4. [4]

    Cottle, J.S

    R.W. Cottle, J.S. Pang, and R.E. Stone.The Linear Complementarity Problem. Academic Press, Boston, 1st edition, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Kojima, N

    M. Kojima, N. Megiddo, T. Noma, and A. Yoshise. A unified approach to interior point algorithms for linear complementarity problems: A summary.Operations Research Letters, 10 (5):247–254, 1991. doi: 10.1016/0167-6377(91)90010-M

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-6377(91)90010-m 1991

  6. [6]

    Z. Liu, L. S. Wang, J. Yu, J. Zhang, E. Martel, and S. Li. Bidirectional endothelial feedback drives turing-vascular patterning and drug-resistance niches: a hybrid PDE-agent-based study. Bioengineering, 12(10):1097, 2025. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering12101097. 22

    work page doi:10.3390/bioengineering12101097 2025

  7. [7]

    Larson, M

    J. Larson, M. Menickelly, and B. Zhou. Manifold sampling for optimizing nonsmooth nonconvex compositions.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 31(4):2638–2664, 2021. doi: 10.1137/20M1378089

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1378089 2021

  8. [8]

    Q. Hu, B. Wang, and M. Xu. Convergence properties of gradient-based methods for minimax problems with nonlinear constraints.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 209(1): 13, 2026. doi: 10.1007/s10957-026-02964-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-026-02964-w 2026

  9. [9]

    M. J. Todd and Y. Ye. A centered projective algorithm for linear programming.Mathematics of Operations Research, 15(3):508–529, 1990. URLhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3689994

    work page arXiv 1990

  10. [10]

    Wright and D

    S. Wright and D. Ralph. A superlinear infeasible-interior-point algorithm for monotone complementarity problems.Mathematics of Operations Research, 21(4):815–838, 1996. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/3690189

    work page arXiv 1996

  11. [11]

    Y. Zhang. On the convergence of a class of infeasible interior-point methods for the horizontal linear complementarity problem.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 4(1):208–227, 1994. doi: 10.1137/0804012

    work page doi:10.1137/0804012 1994

  12. [12]

    and Rheinboldt W.G.Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables

    Ortega J.M. and Rheinboldt W.G.Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables. Academic Press, New York, 1970. URL https://www.scirp.org/reference/ referencespapers?referenceid=1205027

    work page 1970

  13. [13]

    J. V. Burke. A sequential quadratic programming method for potentially infeasible mathematical programs.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 139(2):319–351, 1989. doi: 10.1016/0022-247X(89)90111-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-247x(89)90111-x 1989

  14. [14]

    Aghasi and S

    A. Aghasi and S. Ghadimi. Fully zeroth-order bilevel programming via gaussian smoothing.Jour- nal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 205(2):31, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10957-025-02647-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-025-02647-y 2025

  15. [15]

    J. V. Burke. A robust trust region method for constrained nonlinear programming problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 2(2):325–347, 1992. doi: 10.1137/0802016

    work page doi:10.1137/0802016 1992

  16. [16]

    L. S. Wang and J. Yu. Analysis framework for stochastic predator–prey model with demographic noise.Results in Applied Mathematics, 27:100621, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.rinam.2025.100621

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rinam.2025.100621 2025

  17. [17]

    Lampariello

    L. Lampariello. On detecting degenerate stationarity.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 206(3):69, 2025. ISSN 0022-3239, 1573-2878. doi: 10.1007/s10957-025-02747-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-025-02747-9 2025

  18. [18]

    M. A. Londe, C. E. Andrade, and L. S. Pessoa. A multi-stage approach for Root Sequence Index allocation.European Journal of Operational Research, 327(1):95–114, 2025. doi: 10.1016/ j.ejor.2025.05.015

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    X. Hu, N. Xiao, X. Liu, and K.-C. Toh. An improved unconstrained approach for bilevel optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(4):2801–2829, 2023. doi: 10.1137/22M1513034

    work page doi:10.1137/22m1513034 2023

  20. [20]

    D. Boob, Q. Deng, and G. Lan. Level constrained first order methods for function constrained op- timization.Mathematical Programming, 209(1-2):1–61, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10107-024-02057-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-024-02057-4 2025

  21. [21]

    Yao and X

    W. Yao and X. Yang. Relative Lipschitz-like property of parametric systems via pro- jectional coderivatives.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(3):2021–2040, 2023. doi: 10.1137/22M151296X. 23

    work page doi:10.1137/22m151296x 2021

  22. [22]

    Dussault, M

    J.-P. Dussault, M. Frappier, and J. C. Gilbert. Polyhedral newton-min algorithms for complementarity problems.Mathematical Programming, 215(1-2):269–324, 2026. doi: 10.1007/s10107-025-02219-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-025-02219-y 2026

  23. [23]

    Caselli, M

    G. Caselli, M. Iori, and I. Ljubic. Bilevel optimization with sustainability perspective: A survey on applications.European Journal of Operational Research, 332(2):357–375, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2025.08.051

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2025.08.051 2026

  24. [24]

    J. V. Burke and S-P. Han. A robust sequential quadratic programming method.Mathematical Programming, 43(1-3):277–303, 1989. doi: 10.1007/BF01582294

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01582294 1989

  25. [25]

    T. Wang, R. D. C. Monteiro, and J.-S. Pang. An interior point potential reduction method for constrained equations.Mathematical Programming, 74(2):159–195, 1996. doi: 10.1007/ BF02592210

    work page 1996

  26. [26]

    El Hajj, S

    H. El Hajj, S. Elhedhli, and F. Gzara. Efficient resource sharing for strategic disas- ter preparedness.European Journal of Operational Research, 329(3):836–847, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2025.08.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2025.08.025 2026

  27. [27]

    Pang, S.-P

    J.-S. Pang, S.-P. Han, and N. Rangaraj. Minimization of locally lipschitzian functions.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 1(1):57–82, 1991. doi: 10.1137/0801006

    work page doi:10.1137/0801006 1991

  28. [28]

    First-order penalty methods for bilevel optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 34(2):1937–1969, 2024

    Z. Lu and S. Mei. First-order penalty methods for bilevel optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 34(2):1937–1969, 2024. doi: 10.1137/23M1566753

    work page doi:10.1137/23m1566753 1937

  29. [29]

    L. Chen, D. Sun, and W. Zhang. Two typical implementable semismooth* Newton methods for generalized equations are G-semismooth newton methods.Mathematics of Operations Research, page moor.2024.0617, 2025. doi: 10.1287/moor.2024.0617

    work page doi:10.1287/moor.2024.0617 2024

  30. [30]

    A. S. Lewis and C. Wylie. Active-set Newton methods and partial smoothness.Mathematics of Operations Research, 46(2):712–725, 2021. doi: 10.1287/moor.2020.1075

    work page doi:10.1287/moor.2020.1075 2021

  31. [31]

    L. S. Wang and J. Yu. Algebraic–spectral thresholds and discrete–continuous stability transfer in Leslie–Gower systems.Electronic Research Archive, 34(1):251–290, 2026. doi: 10.3934/era. 2026013

    work page doi:10.3934/era 2026

  32. [32]

    Lagos, J

    T. Lagos, J. Choi, B. Segundo, J. Gan, L. Ntaimo, and O. A. Prokopyev. Bilevel optimization approach for fuel treatment planning.European Journal of Operational Research, 320(1): 205–218, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2024.07.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.07.014 2025

  33. [33]

    S. Cui, U. V. Shanbhag, and F. Yousefian. Complexity guarantees for an implicit smoothing- enabled method for stochastic MPECs.Mathematical Programming, 198(2):1153–1225, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10107-022-01893-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-022-01893-6 2023

  34. [34]

    Casas and M

    E. Casas and M. Mateos. Convergence analysis of the semismooth newton method for sparse control problems governed by semilinear elliptic equations.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 62(6):3076–3090, 2024. doi: 10.1137/23M1585945

    work page doi:10.1137/23m1585945 2024

  35. [35]

    Outrata and J

    J. Outrata and J. Zowe. A numerical approach to optimization problems with variational inequality constraints.Mathematical Programming, 68(1-3):105–130, 1995. doi: 10.1007/ BF01585759. 24

    work page 1995

  36. [36]

    G. P. McCormick.Nonlinear programming: Theory, algorithms, and applications. Wiley, New York, 1983. ISBN 978-0-471-09309-1

    work page 1983

  37. [37]

    J. F. Bonnans. Local analysis of Newton-type methods for variational inequalities and nonlinear programming.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 29(2):161–186, 1994. doi: 10.1007/ BF01204181

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    J.-S. Pang. Convergence of splitting and Newton methods for complementarity problems: An application of some sensitivity results.Mathematical Programming, 58(1-3):149–160, 1993. doi: 10.1007/BF01581264

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01581264 1993

  39. [39]

    Liang, L

    Y. Liang, L. S. Wang, J. Yu, and Z. Liu. Global well-posedness and stability of nonlocal damage-structured lineage model with feedback and dedifferentiation.Mathematics, 13(22): 3583, 2025. doi: 10.3390/math13223583

    work page doi:10.3390/math13223583 2025

  40. [40]

    Malitsky

    Y. Malitsky. Projected reflected gradient methods for monotone variational inequalities.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25(1):502–520, 2015. doi: 10.1137/14097238X

    work page doi:10.1137/14097238x 2015

  41. [41]

    OnuniquenessofKuhn-Tuckermultipliersinnonlinearprogramming.Mathematical Programming, 32(2):242–246, 1985

    J.Kyparisis. OnuniquenessofKuhn-Tuckermultipliersinnonlinearprogramming.Mathematical Programming, 32(2):242–246, 1985. doi: 10.1007/BF01586095

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01586095 1985

  42. [42]

    S. M. Robinson. Perturbed Kuhn-Tucker points and rates of convergence for a class of nonlinear-programming algorithms.Mathematical Programming, 7(1):1–16, 1974. doi: 10.1007/ BF01585500

    work page 1974

  43. [43]

    L. S. Wang. Lecture note for bounded controls in continuous-time and control of several variables.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05882, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Curtis Eaves

    B. Curtis Eaves. Where Solving for Stationary Points by LCPs is Mixing Newton Iterates. InHomotopy Methods and Global Convergence, pages 63–77. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1983. ISBN 978-1-4613-3574-0 978-1-4613-3572-6. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3572-6_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3572-6_5 1983

  45. [45]

    L. S. Wang, J. Yu, S. Li, and Z. Liu. Analysis and mean-field limit of a hybrid PDE-ABM modeling angiogenesis-regulated resistance evolution.Mathematics, 13(17):2898, 2025. doi: 10.3390/math13172898

    work page doi:10.3390/math13172898 2025

  46. [46]

    Han and J.-S

    S. Han and J.-S. Pang. Continuous selections of solutions to parametric variational inequalities. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 34(1):870–892, 2024. doi: 10.1137/22M1514982

    work page doi:10.1137/22m1514982 2024

  47. [47]

    Pang and S

    J.-S. Pang and S. A. Gabriel. NE/SQP: A robust algorithm for the nonlinear complementarity problem.Mathematical Programming, 60(1-3):295–337, 1993. doi: 10.1007/BF01580617

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01580617 1993

  48. [48]

    J. F. Bonnans. Local study of newton type algorithms for constrained problems. InOptimization, volume 1405, pages 13–24. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1989. ISBN 978-3-540-51970-6. doi: 10.1007/BFb0083583. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0083583 1989

  49. [49]

    Rolling prediction model of closing price based on eemd data noise reduction and hgs-delm

    Yuansheng Gao, Lei Li, and Jiguang Yu. Rolling prediction model of closing price based on eemd data noise reduction and hgs-delm. In2022 International Conference on Data Analytics, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICDACAI), pages 255–260. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Multi-strategy hybrid improved intelligent algorithm for solving uav-mtsp.Information Technology and Control, 54(2):413–438, 2025

    Zixin Wang, Danqing Wang, and Jiguang Yu. Multi-strategy hybrid improved intelligent algorithm for solving uav-mtsp.Information Technology and Control, 54(2):413–438, 2025. 25

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Christof, J

    C. Christof, J. C. De Los Reyes, and C. Meyer. A nonsmooth trust-region method for locally lipschitz functions with application to optimization problems constrained by variational inequalities.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(3):2163–2196, 2020. doi: 10.1137/18M1164925

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1164925 2020

  52. [52]

    S. P. Han. A globally convergent method for nonlinear programming.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 22(3):297–309, 1977. doi: 10.1007/BF00932858

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00932858 1977

  53. [53]

    Y. Lou, S. Sun, and J. Nocedal. Design guidelines for noise-tolerant optimization with applications in robust design.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 47(3):A1335–A1357,

    work page

  54. [54]

    doi: 10.1137/24M1632279

    work page doi:10.1137/24m1632279

  55. [55]

    J. V. Burke, F. E. Curtis, H. Wang, and J. Wang. Inexact sequential quadratic optimization with penalty parameter updates within the QP solver.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(3): 1822–1849, 2020. doi: 10.1137/18M1176488

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1176488 2020

  56. [56]

    L. S. Wang, J. Yu, and Z. Liu. A damage-structured PDE model of stem cell hierarchies: The dual role of dedifferentiation in tissue homeostasis and aging.PLOS One, 21(2):e0335163, 2026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335163

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335163 2026

  57. [57]

    A survey on bilevel optimization under uncertainty

    Y.Beck, I.Ljubic, andM.Schmidt. Asurveyonbileveloptimizationunderuncertainty.European Journal of Operational Research, 311(2):401–426, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2023.01.008 2023

  58. [58]

    P.-F. Dai. A fixed point iterative method for tensor complementarity problems.Journal of Scientific Computing, 84(3):49, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10915-020-01299-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-020-01299-6 2020

  59. [59]

    M. S. Gowda and J.-S. Pang. Stability analysis of variational inequalities and nonlinear complementarity problems, via the mixed linear complementarity problem and degree theory. Mathematics of Operations Research, 19(4):831–879, 1994. doi: 10.1287/moor.19.4.831

    work page doi:10.1287/moor.19.4.831 1994

  60. [60]

    S. Shin, M. Anitescu, and V. M. Zavala. Exponential decay of sensitivity in graph-structured nonlinear programs.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 32(2):1156–1183, 2022. doi: 10.1137/ 21M1391079

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    Obara, T

    M. Obara, T. Okuno, and A. Takeda. Sequential quadratic optimization for nonlinear opti- mization problems on riemannian manifolds.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 32(2):822–853,

    work page

  62. [62]

    doi: 10.1137/20M1370173

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1370173

  63. [63]

    J. Yu, L. S. Wang, Z. Liu, and J. Liu. Pattern suppression and recovery under one-way versus two-way chemotactic coupling in hybrid partial differential equation–ordinary differential equation models.Transport Phenomena, 2026. ISSN 3052-878X. doi: 10.1515/tp-2026-0023

    work page doi:10.1515/tp-2026-0023 2026

  64. [64]

    Jiang and D

    H. Jiang and D. Ralph. Extension of quasi-newton methods to mathematical programs with complementarity constraints.Computational Optimization and Applications, 25(1-3):123–150,

    work page

  65. [65]

    doi: 10.1023/A:1022945316191

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1022945316191

  66. [66]

    S. Dempe. A necessary and a sufficient optimality condition for bilevel programming problems. Optimization, 25(4):341–354, 1992. doi: 10.1080/02331939208843831

    work page doi:10.1080/02331939208843831 1992

  67. [67]

    Hansen, B

    P. Hansen, B. Jaumard, and G. Savard. New branch-and-bound rules for linear bilevel programming.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 13(5):1194–1217, 1992. doi: 10.1137/0913069. 26

    work page doi:10.1137/0913069 1992

  68. [68]

    Wang and C

    J. Wang and C. G. Petra. A sequential quadratic programming algorithm for nonsmooth problems with upper-C2 objective.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(3):2379–2405, 2023. doi: 10.1137/22M1490995

    work page doi:10.1137/22m1490995 2023

  69. [69]

    Rawat and V

    A. Rawat and V. Singh. Augmented Lagrangian neural network for solving mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 209 (1):15, 2026. doi: 10.1007/s10957-026-02963-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-026-02963-x 2026

  70. [70]

    B. S. Mordukhovich and M. E. Sarabi. Generalized newton algorithms for tilt-stable minimizers in nonsmooth optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 31(2):1184–1214, 2021. doi: 10.1137/20M1329937

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1329937 2021

  71. [71]

    Mohammadi, B

    A. Mohammadi, B. S. Mordukhovich, and M. E. Sarabi. Variational analysis of composite models with applications to continuous optimization.Mathematics of Operations Research, 47 (1):397–426, 2022. doi: 10.1287/moor.2020.1074

    work page doi:10.1287/moor.2020.1074 2022

  72. [72]

    Duy Khanh, B

    P. Duy Khanh, B. Mordukhovich, and V. T. Phat. A generalized newton method for subgradient systems.Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(4):1811–1845, 2023. doi: 10.1287/moor.2022. 1320

    work page doi:10.1287/moor.2022 2023

  73. [73]

    A. F. Izmailov and M. V. Solodov. Perturbed augmented lagrangian method framework with applications to proximal and smoothed variants.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 193(1-3):491–522, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s10957-021-01914-y. 27

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-021-01914-y 2022