Retractions by Alternating Projections
Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 08:30 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Alternating projections between two clean-intersecting manifolds define a retraction on their common points.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
Under the assumption that two C^{2,1} embedded submanifolds M1, M2 subset R^n intersect cleanly, the associated alternating mapping admits a well-defined local limiting map ψ on the intersection manifold M = M1 ∩ M2, and that ψ is a retraction on M. If, in addition, M1 and M2 are C^{3,1}, then ψ is a second-order retraction. The standard NewtonSLRA scheme can be understood as inducing a second-order retraction on M.
What carries the argument
The local limiting map ψ of the alternating projection operator, which sends nearby points to the intersection and obeys the first-order retraction conditions (identity on M and differential equal to the identity at points of M).
If this is right
- This supplies retraction-based optimization methods for any problem whose constraint set is the intersection of two smooth manifolds.
- The framework covers both exact and inexact alternating-projection-type iterations in a unified way.
- NewtonSLRA on low-rank matrix problems is revealed to be a second-order retraction method on the intersection manifold.
- Local convergence analyses for manifold optimization can now be applied directly to alternating-projection iterates on intersections.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The construction may extend to inexact or noisy projections that still converge to the same limiting retraction.
- Similar limiting maps could be derived for alternating projections among three or more manifolds whose total intersection is clean.
- The retraction property opens the door to using standard Riemannian trust-region or line-search methods on intersection constraints without deriving new formulas.
Load-bearing premise
The two submanifolds must cross each other in a way that their tangent spaces together fill the whole space at every common point.
What would settle it
Take two concrete C^{2,1} surfaces in R^3 that intersect cleanly, run many steps of alternating projection from a nearby test point, and check whether the limit lies exactly on the intersection while the map's derivative at intersection points equals the identity.
Figures
read the original abstract
Alternating projections and their variants are classical tools for computing points in intersections of sets. Existing analyses for smooth manifolds mainly focus on local convergence rates under transversality or related regularity conditions. In this work, we develop a unified framework for a broad class of (possibly inexact) alternating-projection-type methods on intersections of smooth manifolds. Specifically, under the assumption that two $C^{2,1}$ embedded submanifolds $\mathcal{M}_1, \mathcal{M}_2 \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ intersect cleanly, we show that the associated alternating mapping admits a well-defined local limiting map $\psi$ on the intersection manifold $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_1\cap \mathcal{M}_2$, and that $\psi$ is a retraction on $\mathcal{M}$. If, in addition, $\mathcal{M}_1$ and $\mathcal{M}_2$ are $C^{3,1}$, then $\psi$ is a second-order retraction. Furthermore, the standard NewtonSLRA scheme, which exhibits quadratic local behavior under transversality, can be understood as inducing a second-order retraction on \(\M\). This framework thus provides new retraction-based optimization tools for problems constrained to the intersection manifold.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper develops a unified framework showing that, for two C^{2,1} embedded submanifolds M1, M2 subset R^n that intersect cleanly, the alternating-projection mapping admits a well-defined local limiting map ψ on the intersection manifold M = M1 ∩ M2, and that ψ is a retraction on M. Under the additional assumption that M1 and M2 are C^{3,1}, ψ is a second-order retraction. The work further interprets the NewtonSLRA scheme as inducing a second-order retraction on M, thereby supplying new retraction-based tools for optimization on intersection manifolds.
Significance. If the local convergence and retraction properties hold under the stated hypotheses, the manuscript supplies a concrete bridge between classical alternating-projection methods and the retraction formalism used in manifold optimization. The clean-intersection hypothesis together with the explicit regularity classes (C^{2,1} and C^{3,1}) yields a precise setting in which the limiting map ψ can be shown to satisfy the first- and second-order retraction axioms, and the NewtonSLRA example demonstrates immediate applicability. This perspective may allow existing manifold-optimization algorithms to be applied directly to intersection-constrained problems without additional transversality assumptions.
minor comments (3)
- [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'the associated alternating mapping' is introduced without a one-sentence definition or reference to the standard iteration; a parenthetical clarification would improve readability for readers outside the immediate area.
- [Main results] The transition from the C^{2,1} case (first-order retraction) to the C^{3,1} case (second-order retraction) is stated clearly, but the precise Taylor-expansion argument that upgrades the order could be highlighted with an explicit equation reference in the main theorem statement.
- [Framework for inexact methods] The discussion of inexact projections is mentioned in the abstract but receives limited space in the provided text; a short paragraph summarizing how the error terms are controlled in the limit would strengthen the claim of robustness.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the careful summary of our work and for the positive assessment of its significance in bridging alternating projections with retraction-based manifold optimization. We appreciate the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity; derivation self-contained under clean-intersection hypothesis
full rationale
The central result establishes existence of a local limiting map ψ from the alternating projection operator that satisfies the retraction axioms on M = M1 ∩ M2 when M1, M2 are C^{2,1} and intersect cleanly. This follows directly from standard local analysis of projections (differentiability of the projection operators near the intersection, fixed-point properties, and Taylor expansion of the composite map) once the tangent-space identity T_x M = T_x M1 ∩ T_x M2 is granted by the clean-intersection assumption. The upgrade to second-order retraction under C^{3,1} regularity is likewise a direct consequence of one extra derivative in the expansion. No step reduces by definition to its own output, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation whose content is unverified outside the present work. The derivation therefore remains independent of the target claim.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Two C^{2,1} embedded submanifolds intersect cleanly
invented entities (1)
-
local limiting map ψ
no independent evidence
Lean theorems connected to this paper
-
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.leanreality_from_one_distinction unclear?
unclearRelation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.
under the assumption that two C^{2,1} embedded submanifolds M1, M2 ⊂ R^n intersect cleanly, we show that the associated alternating mapping admits a well-defined local limiting map ψ on the intersection manifold M = M1 ∩ M2, and that ψ is a retraction on M
What do these tags mean?
- matches
- The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
- supports
- The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
- extends
- The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
- uses
- The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
- contradicts
- The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
- unclear
- Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
¨Uber einige abbildungsaufgaben.Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen 11, pages 65–83, 1869
HA Schwarz. ¨Uber einige abbildungsaufgaben.Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen 11, pages 65–83, 1869
-
[2]
John von Neumann.Functional Operators. II. The Geometry of Orthogonal Spaces. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 22. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1950
work page 1950
-
[3]
The method of successive projections for finding a common point of convex sets
Lev M Bregman. The method of successive projections for finding a common point of convex sets. InSoviet Math. Dokl., volume 6, pages 688–692, 1965
work page 1965
-
[4]
LG Gubin, Boris T Polyak, and EV Raik. The method of projections for finding the common point of convex sets.USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7(6):1–24, 1967
work page 1967
-
[5]
Heinz H Bauschke and Jonathan M Borwein. On the convergence of von neumann’s alternating projection algorithm for two sets.Set-Valued Analysis, 1(2):185–212, 1993
work page 1993
-
[6]
On projection algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems.SIAM review, 38(3):367–426, 1996
Heinz H Bauschke and Jonathan M Borwein. On projection algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems.SIAM review, 38(3):367–426, 1996
work page 1996
-
[7]
Adrian S Lewis, D Russell Luke, and J´ erˆ ome Malick. Local linear convergence for alternating and averaged nonconvex projections.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 9(4):485– 513, 2009
work page 2009
-
[8]
Alternating projections on manifolds.Mathematics of Operations Research, 33(1):216–234, 2008
Adrian S Lewis and J´ erˆ ome Malick. Alternating projections on manifolds.Mathematics of Operations Research, 33(1):216–234, 2008
work page 2008
-
[9]
Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, Alexander D Ioffe, and Adrian S Lewis. Transversality and alternating projections for nonconvex sets.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 15(6):1637–1651, 2015
work page 2015
-
[10]
Alternating projections on nontangential manifolds
Fredrik Andersson and Marcus Carlsson. Alternating projections on nontangential manifolds. Constructive approximation, 38(3):489–525, 2013
work page 2013
-
[11]
Heinz H Bauschke, D Russell Luke, Hung M Phan, and Xianfu Wang. Restricted normal cones and the method of alternating projections: applications.Set-Valued and Variational Analysis, 21(3):475–501, 2013
work page 2013
-
[12]
Heinz H Bauschke, D Russell Luke, Hung M Phan, and Xianfu Wang. Restricted normal cones and the method of alternating projections: theory.Set-Valued and Variational Analysis, 21(3):431–473, 2013
work page 2013
-
[13]
Dominikus Noll and Aude Rondepierre. On local convergence of the method of alternating projections.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 16:425–455, 2016
work page 2016
-
[14]
Alexander Y Kruger and Nguyen H Thao. Regularity of collections of sets and convergence of inexact alternating projections.Journal of Convex Analysis, 23(3):823–847, 2016
work page 2016
-
[15]
Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy and Adrian S Lewis. Local linear convergence for inexact alternating projections on nonconvex sets.Vietnam Journal of Mathematics, 47:669–681, 2019
work page 2019
-
[16]
´Eric Schost and Pierre-Jean Spaenlehauer. A quadratically convergent algorithm for structured low-rank approximation.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 16(2):457–492, 2016. 48
work page 2016
-
[17]
Relaxed newtonslra for approximate gcd
Kosaku Nagasaka. Relaxed newtonslra for approximate gcd. InInternational Workshop on Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing, pages 272–292. Springer, 2021
work page 2021
-
[18]
Nachuan Xiao, Shiwei Wang, Tianyun Tang, and Kim-Chuan Toh. A quadratically convergent alternating projection method for nonconvex sets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22916, 2025
-
[19]
P.-A. Absil and J´ erˆ ome Malick. Projection-like retractions on matrix manifolds.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 22(1):135–158, 2012
work page 2012
-
[20]
Optimization techniques on riemannian manifolds.Fields Institute Commu- nications, 3, 1994
Steven T Smith. Optimization techniques on riemannian manifolds.Fields Institute Commu- nications, 3, 1994
work page 1994
- [21]
-
[22]
Absil, Christopher G Baker, and Kyle A Gallivan
P.-A. Absil, Christopher G Baker, and Kyle A Gallivan. Trust-region methods on riemannian manifolds.Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 7:303–330, 2007
work page 2007
-
[23]
Cambridge University Press, 2023
Nicolas Boumal.An introduction to optimization on smooth manifolds. Cambridge University Press, 2023
work page 2023
-
[24]
Qinsi Wang and Wei Hong Yang. An adaptive regularized proximal newton-type methods for composite optimization over the stiefel manifold.Computational Optimization and Applica- tions, 89(2):419–457, 2024
work page 2024
-
[25]
Di Hou, Tianyun Tang, and Kim-Chuan Toh. A low-rank augmented lagrangian method for doubly nonnegative relaxations of mixed-binary quadratic programs.Operations Research, 2025
work page 2025
-
[26]
John M Lee.Introduction to smooth manifolds. New York: Springer, 2012
work page 2012
-
[27]
Variational analysis of determinantal varieties.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22613, 2025
Yan Yang, Bin Gao, and Ya-xiang Yuan. Variational analysis of determinantal varieties.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22613, 2025
-
[28]
Local differentiability of distance functions
Ren´ e Poliquin, R Rockafellar, and Lionel Thibault. Local differentiability of distance functions. Transactions of the American mathematical Society, 352(11):5231–5249, 2000
work page 2000
-
[29]
R.T. Rockafellar and R. J-B Wets.Variational analysis, volume 317. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009
work page 2009
-
[30]
Frank Deutsch and F Deutsch.Best approximation in inner product spaces, volume 7. Springer, 2001
work page 2001
-
[31]
Nicolas Boumal, Pierre-Antoine Absil, and Coralia Cartis. Global rates of convergence for nonconvex optimization on manifolds.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 39(1):1–33, 2019
work page 2019
-
[32]
Shixiang Chen, Shiqian Ma, Anthony Man-Cho So, and Tong Zhang. Proximal gradient method for nonsmooth optimization over the Stiefel manifold.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(1):210–239, 2020
work page 2020
-
[33]
Damek Davis, Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, and Zhan Shi. Stochastic optimization over proximally smooth sets.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 35(1):157–179, 2025. 49
work page 2025
-
[34]
Qaplib–a quadratic assign- ment problem library.Avialable at http://www
Peter Hahn, Miguel Anjos, RE Burkard, SE Karisch, and F Rendl. Qaplib–a quadratic assign- ment problem library.Avialable at http://www. seas. upenn. edu/qaplib, 2006
work page 2006
-
[35]
P.-A. Absil and I. V Oseledets. Low-rank retractions: a survey and new results.Computational Optimization and Applications, 62(1):5–29, 2015. Appendix A Technical lemma Lemma A.1.Let{t k}k≥0 and{a k}k≥0 be two nonnegative sequences satisfying tk+1 ≤(1 +ε k)t k +α k ak +p k, k≥0,(A.1) ak+1 ≤c a k +β k tk +b k, k≥0,(A.2) wherec∈[0,1)andε k, αk, βk, pk, bk ≥...
work page 2015
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.