Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Gradient Descent on Point Clouds and Applications in Learned Operator Correction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Point-cloud gradient descent converges to manifold minimisers

desk verdict A genuinely useful convergence framework for gradient descent over point-cloud manifolds, with a circular asymptotic claim in Remark 2.15 and an application section that runs ahead of the theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06267 v1 pith:QWHMRTPO submitted 2026-08-06 math.NA cs.NA

Andreas Hauptmann , Yury Korolev , Matthew Thorpe This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65K1065M3268T0749M15
keywords gradientdescentonmanifoldspointcloudstangentspaceestimationlocalPCAlearnedoperatorcorrectioninverseproblemsphotoacoustictomographyconvergenceanalysis
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

Gradient descent usually needs a known ambient space; this paper treats the case where the objective is defined on a manifold that is known only through a scattered point cloud. The proposed scheme takes a tangential step along a locally estimated tangent space and then a normal step that pulls the iterate back toward the manifold. The central result is that if the ideal projected flow is locally exponentially stable at a minimiser, and if the learned tangent and normal estimates satisfy consistency bounds, the iterates converge to a neighbourhood of that minimiser whose size vanishes with the step size and the estimation errors. The motivating application is learned operator correction in inverse problems, where gradients computed from a corrected model are trustworthy only near the training data; staying near the point cloud stabilises reconstruction, as demonstrated for photoacoustic tomography.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-step projected update: a tangential step using the averaged local-PCA projection $\hat\Pi_k=\sum_i w_i^k\Pi_{x_i,n,\varepsilon}$ onto tangent planes estimated at nearby samples, followed by a normal step using the estimated normal vector $\hat n(\tilde\xi_{k+1};\xi_k)$, which moves the iterate back toward the point-cloud manifold. Its role is to keep all iterates inside a tubular neighbourhood where the learned gradient field is reliable. Convergence is carried by the local exponential stability inequality $\langle \xi-\xi^*,F(\xi)\rangle\le-\mu\|\xi-\xi^*\|^2$ for the exact flow, together with the consistency Lemmas 2.9 and 2.10 that bound the tangent and normal estimation errors $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in terms of the PCA bandwidth, the point-cloud density, and the distance to the manifold.

What would settle it

On a known manifold with a dense point cloud and known minimiser $x^*$, run the algorithm while sending $\tau$, the PCA radius $\varepsilon$, and the tangent estimation error $\alpha$ to zero and measure $\limsup_k\|\xi_k-x^*\|$; if this limit does not approach zero, either condition (2.32) or the consistency bounds (2.33)-(2.34) fail for that instance. Alternatively, compute the empirical $\beta$ and $\gamma$ along the PAT trajectory and check whether they shrink with denser sampling and smaller steps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 2.14: for a local minimiser $x^*\in M$ that is a locally exponentially stable equilibrium of the exact projected flow $\dot\xi = -\Pi_{T_\xi M}\nabla E(\xi)+\lambda n(\xi)$, the fully discrete scheme obtained from learned tangent projections and learned normal vectors satisfies $\limsup_{k\to\infty}\|\xi_k-x^*\|\le (2/\mu)(M\beta+\lambda\gamma+\lambda L_n M\tau)$, provided the consistency bounds $\|\hat\Pi_k-\Pi_{T_{\xi_k}M}\|_{\mathrm{op}}\le\beta$ and $\|\hat n(\tilde\xi_{k+1};\xi_k)-n(\tilde\xi_{k+1})\|\le\gamma$ hold along the iteration. In words, the learned gradient descent converges to a neighbourhood of the local minimiser, and that neighbourhood shrinks to nothing as the step size $\tau$, the tangent estimation error $\beta$, and the normal estimation error $\gamma$ all tend to zero. The same mechanism resolves a practical difficulty in learned operator correction: because the iterates never leave the data manifold, the corrected normal operator is only ever evaluated where it was trained, so the scheme converges without retraining along the trajectory.

Load-bearing premise

The convergence rests on the assumption that the ideal projected flow is locally exponentially stable at the minimiser and that the learned tangent projection and normal vector obey the deterministic consistency bounds (2.33)-(2.34), which are assumed rather than verified in the photoacoustic application.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the consistency bounds hold with $\tau,\beta,\gamma\to 0$, the iterates converge to the local minimiser without any geodesic convexity or curvature information about the manifold.
  • In the photoacoustic example, optimising over the point-cloud manifold with the corrected normal operator achieves reconstructions comparable to the accurate model, while unconstrained optimisation with the same corrected operator fails.
  • A single correction of the normal operator $\tilde A^*\tilde A$ suffices, avoiding the separate forward and adjoint corrections needed in earlier learned-correction schemes, because the projection keeps iterates where the correction is valid.
  • The manifold projection replaces the explicit regulariser: the authors omit $R$ when optimising on the manifold, and the projection itself acts as the regulariser, with total variation still giving the best quantitative result for the accurate model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the theory only needs bounds $\beta$ and $\gamma$, so local PCA could be swapped for any other tangent and normal estimator with the same consistency guarantees without changing the convergence statement.
  • Beyond the paper: the observed divergence of the corrected scheme near the minimiser suggests a practical design principle, early stopping when the gradient norm regrows, which the theorem's neighbourhood bound rationalises as the size of the residual ball $2\delta_\tau/\mu$.
  • Beyond the paper: a testable extension is adaptive sampling, refining the point cloud near the minimiser instead of globally, which the experiments suggest is necessary because fine global sampling is the main bottleneck.
  • Beyond the paper: if the data do not lie on a smooth manifold with positive reach, condition (2.32) may fail; running the algorithm on a noisy or non-smooth data set would show whether the practical convergence persists outside the theorem's assumptions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a projected gradient descent scheme for minimizing an energy over an unknown manifold represented by a point cloud. Section 2 develops continuum and discrete formulations for known manifolds, then extends to unknown manifolds using local PCA tangent estimates and an estimated normal correction. The main theoretical results are Theorem 2.13, a fixed-time convergence result for the learned discrete scheme to the exact projected flow under consistency estimates, and Theorem 2.14, a perturbative bound on convergence to a neighbourhood of a locally exponentially stable minimizer of size O(Mβ+λγ+λL_nMτ). Section 3 contains a synthetic surface experiment, and Section 4 applies the scheme to learned operator correction in photoacoustic tomography with a U-Net correction of the normal operator.

Significance. If Theorem 2.14 is read as a conditional perturbation statement, it is a useful, clean result: it quantifies how tangent and normal estimation errors propagate into the final iterate, and the PCA consistency analysis in Lemmas 2.7–2.10 provides explicit rates. The paper is also transparent about the local exponential stability condition (2.32) being an assumption. However, the claimed vanishing of the asymptotic error as τ, ε, α tend to zero is not justified by the supplied arguments, and the PAT application does not verify the structural conditions needed to apply the theorem. The significance is therefore conditional, and the manuscript needs revision before its central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Remark 2.15] The statement that the asymptotic error in (2.39) vanishes provided τ→0, ε→0, α→0, r→0 is circular, because r=d(ξ_k,M) is exactly the quantity the bound is supposed to control. Substituting the bounds β ≲ α+ε+r and γ ≲ (r+τM+ε)(r+τM+ε+α) into (2.39) and writing ρ = limsup d(ξ_k,M) yields an inequality of the form ρ ≤ (2/μ)[M(α+ε+ρ)+λC(ρ+τM+ε)(ρ+τM+ε+α)+λL_nMτ], which need not force ρ→0 and typically has a nonzero root. Taking uniform bounds over B(ξ*,R) instead gives β,γ ~ R, which also does not vanish. A bootstrapping argument might close the gap, but it is not supplied. This is a load-bearing gap for the abstract claim that the scheme converges as the time step and sampling errors vanish.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (4.3)] The update in (4.3) is described as gradient descent for a corrected model, but no energy is displayed whose gradient equals NΘ(eA*eAx_k)−A*y+α∂R(x_k). The network NΘ is learned by regression and is not guaranteed to be the gradient of any potential, so the update field need not be conservative. Consequently the hypotheses of Theorem 2.14—an energy E with a Lipschitz gradient and a locally exponentially stable gradient flow—are not verified in the application. The manuscript should either impose and justify a conservative-structure assumption on NΘ, or explicitly present the operator-correction experiments as a heuristic demonstration outside the scope of the convergence theorems.
  3. [§4.4–4.5] The assumptions behind the point-cloud theory are not checked for the PAT application. The data set consists of random indicator discs in a 64×64 pixel grid; this set is not a smooth manifold with positive reach, so Theorem 2.6 and Lemmas 2.9–2.10 do not apply as stated. Moreover, no evidence is provided that the U-Net corrected normal operator satisfies the consistency bounds (2.33)–(2.34) or that the exact projected flow satisfies the local exponential stability condition (2.32). The numerical comparisons in Figures 7–9 and Table 1 are informative, but they do not fill this gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Proposition 2.4] The statement contains a typo: "d(eξ0,M) =≤ r0/(1+τλ)" should presumably read "d(eξ0,M) ≤ r0/(1+τλ)".
  2. [§4.2] The notation ∂R(x_k) is used in (4.3), and then R is omitted when optimizing over the manifold; the relation between the regularizer and the normal projection could be stated more explicitly.
  3. [§2.1] The phrase "The first possible construction for a minimising sequence ξ(t) would be to consider the gradient flow" is grammatically awkward and should be reworded.
  4. [References] Reference [13] contains a typo ("opological" for "Topological"); several other references have formatting errors, for example "V ol. 2. 3" in [11].
  5. [§4.5.2, Table 1] The distinction between "Corrected (early stopping)" and "Corrected (converged)" deserves a sentence explaining how early stopping is determined, since Figure 7 shows the corrected curve diverging near the minimizer.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Remark 2.15's vanishing-error claim assumes the very distance it is meant to bound.

  1. self definitional [Remark 2.15, end of Section 2.3 (after Theorem 2.14)]
    "From Lemma 2.9, we obtain, for iterates satisfying d(ξ_k,M)≤r, β≲α+ε+r. Similarly, Lemma 2.10 yields γ≲(r+τM+ε)(r+τM+ε+α). Therefore the asymptotic error in (2.39) vanishes provided τ→0, ε→0, α→0, r→0."

    In (2.39) the target quantity is ρ := limsup_k ∥ξ_k−ξ*∥, and (2.40) bounds limsup d(ξ_k,M) by (2/μ)(Mβ+λγ+λL_n M τ). Lemma 2.9 and Lemma 2.10 control β and γ only through the current distance d(ξ_k,M); substituting their bounds into (2.39) gives ρ ≤ (2/μ)[M(α+ε+ρ) + λC(ρ+τM+ε)(ρ+τM+ε+α) + λL_n M τ]. This inequality does not imply ρ→0 as τ,ε,α→0 for generic constants; it can have a nonzero root. The condition 'r→0' listed in Remark 2.15 is exactly the assertion that the limsup of d(ξ_k,M) already vanishes, i.e. the conclusion to be proved. No bootstrapping or uniform-in-basin bound is supplied that would allow r to be eliminated from the right-hand side, so the claimed asymptotic vanishing is assumed rather than derived.

full rationale

Theorem 2.14 is a self-contained perturbation estimate: assuming the consistency bounds (2.33)–(2.34), it correctly derives (2.39). Lemmas 2.9 and 2.10 are also legitimate consistency bounds for points whose distance to the manifold is small. The circularity is confined to Remark 2.15, where the constants β and γ are replaced by bounds depending on d(ξ_k,M), and then r=d(ξ_k,M) is sent to zero as if it were an independent parameter. Since r is precisely the quantity that (2.39)/(2.40) is designed to bound, the step 'the asymptotic error vanishes provided r→0' is a self-referential assumption. The central theorem's conditional content remains independent, and no fitted constants or self-citations are load-bearing; however, the paper's advertised conclusion that the fully discrete learned scheme converges to a vanishing neighbourhood of the local minimiser relies on this unclosed step. The score of 6 reflects one partial circular reduction in the central claim, not wholesale circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical results rest on standard manifold and sampling assumptions. The main additional burden is the unverified consistency of learned estimators in the application, plus the assumption that the corrected normal operator behaves like a fixed Lipschitz energy gradient.

free parameters (5)
  • tau_t (tangential step size) = 0.1-1.0 in experiments
    Chosen by parameter search on the test sample in Section 4.5.2; in theory assumed small.
  • tau_n (normal step size) = 0.02-0.05 in experiments
    Chosen by parameter search; enters through eta = tau_n * lambda in (2.7).
  • lambda (normal penalty) = not explicitly reported
    In theory treated as a sufficiently large constant (Prop 2.2); in the practical algorithm combined with tau_n, not separately reported.
  • epsilon (local PCA radius) = not reported in experiments
    Defines the local neighborhood for covariance estimation in (2.4); in Algorithm 2 replaced by k nearest neighbours without a precise mapping.
  • k (number of nearest neighbours) = not reported
    Used in Algorithms 1 and 2; numerical results do not state the value used.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption M is a compact d-dimensional C^2 Riemannian manifold with positive reach embedded in R^D
    Stated at start of Section 2; needed for well-defined projection P_M and normal vector properties.
  • domain assumption Sampling measure mu has a C^2 density bounded above and below
    Theorem 2.6 and Lemmas 2.7-2.8; needed for PCA consistency rates.
  • domain assumption Tangents can be extended to a tubular neighborhood and are Lipschitz: ||t_j(x)-t_j(P_M x)|| <= L||x-P_M x||
    Assumed before Prop 2.2 and used throughout; not proven for general manifolds.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact projected flow is locally exponentially stable at the minimizer (condition (2.32))
    Assumed in Theorem 2.14; not derived from E or M.
  • ad hoc to paper Consistency estimates (2.23)/(2.33) and (2.24)/(2.34) hold with small beta, gamma
    Theorems 2.13 and 2.14 are conditional on these bounds; Remark 2.15 indicates how they follow from sampling, but the numerical application does not verify them.
  • domain assumption In the PAT application, training discs form a manifold and N_theta approximates A*A on it
    The numerical section assumes this; pixelized discs are not a smooth manifold, and the network accuracy is only shown qualitatively in Fig. 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gradient Descent on Point Clouds and Applications in Learned Operator Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWHMRTPO

@misc{pith2026260806267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gradient Descent on Point Clouds and Applications in Learned Operator Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWHMRTPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06267}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the problem of minimising an energy over an unknown manifold that is given implicitly by a point cloud. For a known manifold one can define a gradient descent scheme analogously to the classical construction in Euclidean spaces. However, when the manifold is not known one has to simultaneously estimate the manifold whilst minimising the energy. We define a gradient descent scheme which remains in a neighbourhood of the manifold and, under suitable stability and sampling assumptions, converges to a neighbourhood of a local minimiser whose size vanishes as the time step and sampling errors vanish. As an example we show the application of the methodology to learning operator corrections in inverse problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optimisation on a two-dimensional manifold in 3D: Euclidean gradient descent vs point-cloud gradient descent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The effect of the number of samples. The point-cloud gradient descent with exact gradients seems robust with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Convergence speed of Euclidean vs point-cloud gradient descent for different numbers of samples. Point-cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of forward operator A and corresponding approximate model Ae. The sensor is indicated with a red line (left/right image), in the measurements (middle) the red line corresponds to initial time t = 0. On the right are the normal operator A∗A and the approxim…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Classic minimisation solving the total variation regularised problem fails when correction is only trained on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration and comparison of correction data on the data manifold and for samples along optimisation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convergence plots under optimal parameter choice for each method. (Left) Relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reconstructions obtained when performing minimisation over the data manifold with the accurate, approximate, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relative errors obtained for varying sampling density of the data manifold for the three cases of: Accurate, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Absil, R

    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre.Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds. Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    Posterior contraction rates for the Bayesian approach to linear ill-posed inverse problems

    S. Agapiou, S. Larsson, and A. M. Stuart. “Posterior contraction rates for the Bayesian approach to linear ill-posed inverse problems”. In:Stochastic Processes and their Applications123.10 (2013), pp. 3828– 3860

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Approximation errors and model reduction with an application in optical diffusion tomography

    S. R. Arridge et al. “Approximation errors and model reduction with an application in optical diffusion tomography”. In:Inverse Problems22.1 (2006), p. 175

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Inverse Problems with Learned Forward Operators

    S. Arridge, A. Hauptmann, and Y . Korolev. “Inverse Problems with Learned Forward Operators”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12528(2023). 1https://leidendeclaration.ai/ 38

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Data driven regularization by projection

    A. Aspri, Y . Korolev, and O. Scherzer. “Data driven regularization by projection”. In:Inverse Problems 36.12 (2020), p. 125009

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Biomedical photoacoustic imaging

    P. Beard. “Biomedical photoacoustic imaging”. In:Interface Focus1.4 (2011), pp. 602–631

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Modern Regularization Methods for Inverse Problems

    M. Benning and M. Burger. “Modern Regularization Methods for Inverse Problems”. In:Acta Numerica 27 (2018), pp. 1–111

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Consistency and rates of convergence of nonlinear Tikhonov regularization with random noise

    N. Bissantz, T. Hohage, and A. Munk. “Consistency and rates of convergence of nonlinear Tikhonov regularization with random noise”. In:Inverse Problems20.6 (2004), pp. 1773–1789

    work page 2004

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Manifold reconstruction using tangential Delaunay complexes

    J.-D. Boissonnat and A. Ghosh. “Manifold reconstruction using tangential Delaunay complexes”. In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual symposium on Computational geometry. 2010, pp. 324–333

    2010

  2. [10]

    Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds

    S. Bonnabel. “Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds”. In:IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control58.9 (2013), pp. 2217–2229

    2013

  3. [11]

    Brezis and H

    H. Brezis and H. Brézis.Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations. V ol. 2. 3. Springer, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Asymptotic equivalence of nonparametric regression and white noise

    L. D. Brown and M. G. Low. “Asymptotic equivalence of nonparametric regression and white noise”. In: The Annals of Statistics24.6 (1996), pp. 2384–2398

    1996

  5. [13]

    Discrete varifolds and surface approximation

    B. Buet, G. P. Leonardi, and S. Masnou. “Discrete varifolds and surface approximation”. In:opological Optimization and Optimal Transport: In the Applied Sciences, pp. 159–170

  6. [14]

    Discrete varifolds: a unified framework for discrete approxima- tions of surfaces and mean curvature

    B. Buet, G. P. Leonardi, and S. Masnou. “Discrete varifolds: a unified framework for discrete approxima- tions of surfaces and mean curvature”. In:Scale Space and Variational Methods in Computer Vision: 5th International Conference, SSVM 2015, Lège-Cap Ferret, France, May 31-J...

    2015

  7. [15]

    A varifold approach to surface approximation

    B. Buet, G. P. Leonardi, and S. Masnou. “A varifold approach to surface approximation”. In:Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis226.2 (2017), pp. 639–694

    2017

  8. [16]

    Variational regularisation for inverse prob- lems with imperfect forward operators and general noise models

    L. Bungert, M. Burger, Y . Korolev, and C.-B. Schönlieb. “Variational regularisation for inverse prob- lems with imperfect forward operators and general noise models”. In:Inverse Problems36.12 (2020), p. 125014

    2020

  9. [17]

    Burago, Y

    D. Burago, Y . Burago, and S. Ivanov.A course in metric geometry. V ol. 33. American Mathematical Society Providence, 2001

    2001

  10. [18]

    A graph discretization of the Laplace–Beltrami operator

    D. Burago, S. Ivanov, and Y . Kurylev. “A graph discretization of the Laplace–Beltrami operator”. In: Journal of Spectral Theory4.4 (2015), pp. 675–714

    2015

  11. [19]

    Dynamic updating of numerical model discrepancy using sequential sampling

    D. Calvetti, O. Ernst, and E. Somersalo. “Dynamic updating of numerical model discrepancy using sequential sampling”. In:Inverse Problems30.11 (2014), p. 114019

    2014

  12. [20]

    Smooth manifold reconstruction from noisy and non-uniform approximation with guarantees

    F. Chazal and A. Lieutier. “Smooth manifold reconstruction from noisy and non-uniform approximation with guarantees”. In:Computational Geometry40.2 (2008), pp. 156–170

    2008

  13. [21]

    Manifold reconstruction from point samples

    S.-W. Cheng, T. K. Dey, and E. A. Ramos. “Manifold reconstruction from point samples”. In:SODA. V ol. 5. 2005, pp. 1018–1027

    2005

  14. [22]

    Fast calculation of pulsed photoacoustic fields in fluids using k-space methods

    B. T. Cox and P. C. Beard. “Fast calculation of pulsed photoacoustic fields in fluids using k-space methods”. In:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America117.6 (2005), pp. 3616–3627

    2005

  15. [23]

    T. K. Dey.Curve and surface reconstruction: algorithms with mathematical analysis. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Provable surface reconstruction from noisy samples

    T. K. Dey and S. Goswami. “Provable surface reconstruction from noisy samples”. In:Proceedings of the twentieth annual symposium on Computational Geometry. 2004, pp. 330–339

    2004

  17. [25]

    Iso-Riemannian Optimization on Learned Data Manifolds

    W. Diepeveen and M. Weber. “Iso-Riemannian Optimization on Learned Data Manifolds”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21033(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fixing nonconvergence of algebraic iterative reconstruction with an unmatched backprojector

    Y . Dong, P. C. Hansen, M. E. Hochstenbach, and N. A. Brogaard Riis. “Fixing nonconvergence of algebraic iterative reconstruction with an unmatched backprojector”. In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing41.3 (2019), A1822–A1839. 39

    2019

  19. [27]

    Curvature measures

    H. Federer. “Curvature measures”. In:Transactions of the American Mathematical Society93.3 (1959), pp. 418–491

    1959

  20. [28]

    Minimax manifold estimation

    C. R. Genovese, M. Perone Pacifico, I. Verdinelli, L. Wasserman, et al. “Minimax manifold estimation”. In:Journal of machine learning research13 (2012), pp. 1263–1291

    2012

  21. [29]

    Adaptive estimation of linear functionals in Hilbert scales from indirect white noise observations

    A. Goldenshluger and S. V . Pereverzev. “Adaptive estimation of linear functionals in Hilbert scales from indirect white noise observations”. In:Probability Theory and Related Fields118.2 (2000), pp. 169–186

    2000

  22. [30]

    Approximate k-space models and deep learning for fast photoacoustic reconstruc- tion

    A. Hauptmann et al. “Approximate k-space models and deep learning for fast photoacoustic reconstruc- tion”. In:Machine Learning for Medical Image Reconstruction: First International Workshop, MLMIR 2018, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 16, 2018,...

    2018

  23. [31]

    Projected gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds with applications to online power system optimization

    A. Hauswirth, S. Bolognani, G. Hug, and F. Dörfler. “Projected gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds with applications to online power system optimization”. In:2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton). 2016, pp. 225–232

    2016

  24. [32]

    Convergence Rates for Learning Linear Operators from Noisy Data

    M. V . de Hoop, N. B. Kovachki, N. H. Nelsen, and A. M. Stuart. “Convergence Rates for Learning Linear Operators from Noisy Data”. In:SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification11.2 (2023), pp. 480–513

    2023

  25. [33]

    Kaipio and E

    J. Kaipio and E. Somersalo.Statistical and Computational Inverse Problems. Springer, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Statistical inverse problems: discretization, model reduction and inverse crimes

    J. Kaipio and E. Somersalo. “Statistical inverse problems: discretization, model reduction and inverse crimes”. In:Journal of computational and applied mathematics198.2 (2007), pp. 493–504

    2007

  27. [35]

    Bayesian calibration of computer models

    M. C. Kennedy and A. O’Hagan. “Bayesian calibration of computer models”. In:Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)63.3 (2001), pp. 425–464

    2001

  28. [36]

    Temporal backward projection of optoacoustic pressure transients using Fourier transform methods

    K. P. Köstli, M. Frenz, H. Bebie, and H. P. Weber. “Temporal backward projection of optoacoustic pressure transients using Fourier transform methods”. In:Physics in Medicine & Biology46.7 (2001), p. 1863

    2001

  29. [37]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Z. Li et al. “Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations”. In:International Conference on Learning Representations(2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Multiscale geometric methods for data sets I: Multiscale SVD, noise and curvature

    A. V . Little, M. Maggioni, and L. Rosasco. “Multiscale geometric methods for data sets I: Multiscale SVD, noise and curvature”. In:Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis43.3 (2017), pp. 504–567

    2017

  31. [39]

    On Learned Operator Correction in Inverse Problems

    S. Lunz, A. Hauptmann, T. Tarvainen, C.-B. Schönlieb, and S. Arridge. “On Learned Operator Correction in Inverse Problems”. In:SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences14.1 (2021), pp. 92–127

    2021

  32. [40]

    A topological view of unsupervised learning from noisy data

    P. Niyogi, S. Smale, and S. Weinberger. “A topological view of unsupervised learning from noisy data”. In:SIAM Journal on Computing40.3 (2008), pp. 646–663

    2008

  33. [41]

    Computed Tomography Reconstruction with Uncertain View Angles by Iteratively Updated Model Discrepancy

    N. A. Riis, Y . Dong, and P. C. Hansen. “Computed Tomography Reconstruction with Uncertain View Angles by Iteratively Updated Model Discrepancy”. In:Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 63.2 (2021), pp. 133–143

    2021

  34. [42]

    A gradient-descent method for curve fitting on Riemannian manifolds

    C. Samir, P.-A. Absil, A. Srivastava, and E. Klassen. “A gradient-descent method for curve fitting on Riemannian manifolds”. In:Foundations of Computational Mathematics(2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Optimization techniques on Riemannian manifolds

    S. T. Smith. “Optimization techniques on Riemannian manifolds”. In:preprint arXiv:1407.5965(2014)

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. N. Tikhonov, A. V . Goncharsky, V . V . Stepanov, and A. G. Yagola.Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill-Posed Problems. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995

    1995

  37. [45]

    k-Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields

    B. E. Treeby and B. T. Cox. “k-Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields”. In:Journal of biomedical optics15.2 (2010), p. 021314

    2010

  38. [46]

    Modeling nonlinear ultrasound propagation in heterogeneous media with power law absorption using ak-space pseudospectral method

    B. E. Treeby, J. Jaros, A. P. Rendell, and B. Cox. “Modeling nonlinear ultrasound propagation in heterogeneous media with power law absorption using ak-space pseudospectral method”. In:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America131.6 (2012), pp. 4324–4336

    2012

  39. [47]

    Tangent space estimation for smooth embeddings of riemannian manifolds®

    H. Tyagi, E. Vural, and P. Frossard. “Tangent space estimation for smooth embeddings of riemannian manifolds®”. In:Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA2.1 (2013), pp. 69–114. 40

    2013

  40. [48]

    Wahba.Spline models for observational data

    G. Wahba.Spline models for observational data. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 1990

    1990

  41. [49]

    A useful variant of the Davis–Kahan theorem for statisticians

    Y . Yu, T. Wang, and R. J. Samworth. “A useful variant of the Davis–Kahan theorem for statisticians”. In: Biometrika102.2 (2015), pp. 315–323. 41

    2015

Pith tools

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