Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 66 references

A Data Efficient and Feasible Level Set Method for Stochastic Convex Optimization with Expectation Constraints

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stochastic level-set method keeps expectation-constrained convex optimization feasible before convergence, reaching a relative $\epsilon$-optimal feasible solution in $O(\theta^2/(\beta\epsilon^2))$ gradient iterations up to logarithmic…

desk verdict Genuine contribution to stochastic feasible level-set methods, but Theorem 1's probability guarantee is off by a factor of two due to a union-bound error that is easy to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03077 v2 pith:45OI6V6A submitted 2019-08-07 math.OC cs.LGstat.ML

Qihang Lin , Selvaprabu Nadarajah , Negar Soheili , Tianbao Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.LGstat.ML MSC 90C1590C2590C47
keywords stochasticconvexoptimizationexpectationconstraintsfeasiblelevel-setmethodmirrordescentonlinevalidationdatacomplexityroot-findinghigh-probabilityfeasibility
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

Stochastic convex optimization problems with expectation constraints (SOECs) arise whenever the objective and constraints are averages over large datasets, and existing stochastic first-order methods only guarantee near-feasibility at convergence, so early termination can produce infeasible solutions. This paper proposes a stochastic feasible level-set method (SFLS) that solves the problem by finding the root of a level-set function, using a stochastic oracle that computes upper and lower bounds on that function without evaluating expectations exactly. The central claim is that SFLS keeps a high-probability feasible solution at every root-finding iteration and finds a relative $\epsilon$-optimal feasible solution in $O(\theta^2/(\beta\epsilon^2))$ gradient iterations up to logarithmic factors, where $\beta$ is a condition measure of the problem. If correct, this means feasibility can be guaranteed before convergence, at a data cost that does not grow with the dataset size, which matters for applications where constraint violations void the solution. The paper supports the claim with theory and experiments on approximate linear programs, Neyman-Pearson classification, and fairness-constrained learning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the level-set function $H(r):=\min_{x\in X}\max\{f_0(x)-r,f_1(x)-r_1,\dots,f_m(x)-r_m\}$, whose root is the optimal value $f^*$; keeping the level parameter above $f^*$ guarantees that the minimizing point is feasible. SFLS solves $H(r)=0$ by root-finding, and each oracle call is executed by OVSMD, which solves the equivalent saddle-point reformulation $H(r)=\min_{x\in X}\max_{y\in Y}\sum_{i=0}^m y_i(f_i(x)-r_i)$ via stochastic mirror descent. The online-validation step replaces exact expectations by weighted sums of stochastic function values and subgradients, which still upper- and lower-bound $H(r)$ with high probability; this is what converts an idealized but unimplementable oracle into a tractable one without sample-average bias. The complexity statements are governed by the condition measure $\beta=-H(r^{(0)})/(r^{(0)}-f^*)$, the slope of the level-set function at the root.

What would settle it

Run OVSMD on a small SOEC where the noise distribution is heavy-tailed (for example, Student's $t$ with two degrees of freedom) using the theoretical inner-iteration limit $T(\delta,\epsilon_A)$, and check whether $P(r,\bar x^{(t)})-H(r)\le\epsilon_A$ holds at a frequency close to $1-\delta$; a significant shortfall would falsify the oracle guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that a tractable stochastic oracle can be built for the nonsmooth level-set function by reformulating it as a saddle-point problem and applying mirror descent together with online validation. The oracle returns a stochastic upper bound $\hat u^{(t)}_*$ and a primal solution $\bar x^{(t)}$ such that, with probability at least $1-\delta$, $P(r,\bar x^{(t)})-H(r)\le \epsilon_A$ and $|\hat u^{(t)}_*-H(r)|\le \epsilon_A$ after finitely many gradient iterations. Feeding this oracle into a root-finding scheme yields a feasible solution at each outer iteration, and the total complexity to reach a relative $\epsilon$-optimal feasible solution is $O((\theta^2/(\beta\epsilon^2))\ln(\theta^2/(\beta\epsilon))\ln^2(1/\delta)\ln^2(1/\epsilon))$ gradient iterations under the stated assumptions. This is a fully stochastic feasible level-set method for SOECs with generic expectation constraints, avoiding the bias and high data complexity of sample-average approximations inside the oracle.

Load-bearing premise

The whole high-probability guarantee rests on Assumption 2, which requires the stochastic subgradients and function values to have exponential tail bounds (light tails); if the data distribution is heavy-tailed, the oracle may fail to be a valid stochastic oracle and the feasible-path guarantee does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, stochastic first-order methods need not sacrifice feasibility: SFLS can be terminated after any outer iteration and still return a solution that is feasible with probability at least $1-\delta$.
  • The gradient-iteration bound is comparable to the best stochastic subgradient methods that only guarantee feasibility at convergence, so feasibility comes at the price of a condition-measure dependence rather than a worse dependence on $\epsilon$.
  • Because each stochastic gradient uses only a small sample batch, the number of data passes needed to reach a small optimality gap is independent of the dataset size, unlike deterministic feasible level-set methods built on sample-average approximations.
  • In the tested applications, the practical consequence is that SFLS produces implementable, feasible classifiers or value-function bounds with small optimality gaps before conservative theoretical stopping rules would trigger, while a stochastic subgradient benchmark can return superoptimal but infeasible solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same online-validation oracle could be plugged into other root-finding or cutting-plane frameworks for stochastic convex optimization, not just level-set methods, whenever a feasible iterate is required at every call.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the fixed step-size scaling with an adaptive estimate of subgradient magnitude is a testable extension that might soften the condition-measure $\beta$ dependence on ill-conditioned instances.
  • Editorial inference: the heavy-tailed caveat suggests a concrete stress test, namely data with infinite variance, where the high-probability feasibility guarantee would likely degrade and would need truncation or robust gradient estimators.
  • Implementation caveat visible in the paper itself: Section 5.2 proposes choosing the inner-iteration limit $T$ by tuning rather than by the theoretical formula, so the numerical experiments should be read as validating practical behavior rather than as a direct confirmation of the high-probability oracle bound.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SFLS, a stochastic feasible level-set method for stochastic convex optimization problems with expectation constraints (SOECs). The SOEC is reformulated as a root-finding problem for the level-set function H(r), and the authors propose a new stochastic oracle, OVSMD, which combines stochastic mirror descent with online validation to compute tractable high-probability upper and lower estimates of H(r). The main theoretical results state that SFLS maintains a high-probability feasible solution at every root-finding iteration and returns a relative epsilon-optimal feasible solution within a prescribed number of oracle calls and gradient iterations. The paper also provides implementation guidelines and numerical experiments on approximate linear programming, Neyman-Pearson classification, and fairness-constrained learning, comparing SFLS with a stochastic subgradient method (YNW) and a deterministic feasible level-set method (DFLS).

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a meaningful contribution: it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first fully stochastic level-set method for SOECs that maintains a feasible solution path before convergence, and it offers low data complexity relative to deterministic feasible level-set methods. The theoretical framework is built on published mirror-descent and level-set results rather than ad hoc assumptions, and the electronic companion contains detailed proofs of the key inequalities in Lemmas EC.1 and EC.5. The explicit light-tail assumptions in Assumption 2 are restrictive but clearly stated; they do not make the argument circular. The numerical study on three diverse applications supports the practical claims, especially the advantage of SFLS over YNW in maintaining feasibility and over DFLS in data efficiency. The main concerns are localized proof and statement errors, not the overall algorithmic idea.

major comments (2)
  1. [Algorithm 1 and proof of Theorem 1 (e-companion, after inequality (EC.5))] Algorithm 1, line 3, sets the per-iteration failure probability to δ(k)=δ/2^k, but the proof of Theorem 1 relies on the claim that ∑_{k=0}^∞ δ(k)=δ. In fact, ∑_{k=0}^∞ δ/2^k = 2δ, so the union bound as written establishes the feasible-path and terminal-solution guarantees only with probability at least 1−2δ, not 1−δ as stated in Theorem 1, Corollary 2, and the abstract. This is a load-bearing error in the central high-probability guarantee, but it is localized and easily fixed: set δ(k)=δ/2^{k+1}, which is exactly the normalization already used for δ(h) in Algorithm 4. With that change, the sum is δ and the stated 1−δ guarantee follows from the same argument.
  2. [Theorem 3] The OVSMD-call complexity in Theorem 3 is stated as O((θ^2/β) ln(θ^2/((1−θ)βǫ))). Since θ>1, 1−θ is negative and the logarithm's argument is negative, so the expression is undefined as written. The proof combines the OVSMD-call bounds from Lemma EC.7 and Corollary 1, but the combined logarithmic term must have a positive argument; presumably it should involve (θ−1), as in Lemma EC.7's O(ln(θ/((θ−1)β))). This needs to be corrected before the theorem can be used.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Equation (13)] Equation (13) defines the stochastic lower-bound estimate \hat l(t)_* using G_y(x(s), y(s), ξ(s))^T(x−x(s)); this should be G_x, consistently with the definition of the lower bound l(t)_* and the text following Algorithm 3.
  2. [Section 5.2] The implementation guidelines tune T, θ, and the step-size constant c rather than computing the theoretical thresholds T(δ, ε_A) and δ, and Corollary 2 is invoked to justify this practice. The paper is transparent about this, but the numerical experiments should explicitly note that they are not a direct empirical verification of the quantitative bounds in Theorems 1–3, since those bounds require the theoretical parameter settings.
  3. [Proof of Corollary 2] The proof of Corollary 2 again defines δ(k)=δ/2^k and inherits the same union-bound normalization problem as Theorem 1; after the fix in Algorithm 1 is applied, the proof of Corollary 2 should use the corrected definition consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SFLS's stochastic-oracle analysis is derived from external SMD and online-validation results; the proof's union-bound normalization error is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The stochastic oracle (Definition 1) is an explicit requirement, and SFLS's feasibility and complexity guarantees (Theorem 1, Lemma 2, Lemma EC.1) are proven from the definition of the level-set function H(r), Assumption 1, and the oracle properties; they do not presume the conclusion. OVSMD's validity (Theorem 2) is established by combining stochastic mirror descent bounds from Nemirovski et al. (2009) with the online validation concentration inequality of Lan et al. (2012), both external sources, and the light-tailed Assumption 2. Self-citations to Lin et al. (2018a, 2018b, 2019) provide the deterministic level-set framework and application context, but the new stochastic oracle and its complexity analysis are proven rather than imported. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: numerical experiments tune hyperparameters, but Corollary 2 gives a parameter-free complexity bound for the implemented scheme, and the experimental claims are empirical demonstrations, not derived predictions from fitted values. The skeptic's union-bound observation is a genuine but localized proof error: the proof of Theorem 1 states 'using the fact that ∑_{k=0}^∞ δ(k)=δ' when in fact ∑_{k=0}^∞ δ/2^k = 2δ, so the stated 1−δ feasibility guarantee would require δ(k)=δ/2^{k+1} as used in Algorithm 4. This affects the probability normalization in the theorem as written, but it is a correctness issue, not a circular derivation, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method imports standard convex-analysis tools and two known oracle frameworks; it introduces a new combination and a new stochastic oracle, but no new physical or mathematical entities. The only hand-chosen quantities are algorithm hyperparameters tuned in the experiments.

free parameters (3)
  • theta = tuned over {1.1, 2, 5}
    Step-length parameter in the level-set update r(k+1) = r(k) + U(r(k))/(2 theta); theory allows any theta > 1, experimental performance depends on the choice.
  • T (inner iteration limit for OVSMD) = tuned over {50, 100, 200, 300}
    The theory requires T >= T(delta, epsilon_A) for oracle validity; the experiments choose T by trial rather than computing the threshold.
  • c (step-size constant) = tuned over {0.05, 0.1, 1, 2, 5}
    Step-size gamma_t = 1/(c sqrt(t+1)) replaces the unknown constant M from Assumption 2; c is chosen by trial in experiments.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Strict feasibility: there exists x~ in X with max_i{f_i(x~)-r_i}<0 and f0(x~)>f*
    Assumption 1. Provides r(0)=f0(x~)>f* needed to start the root-finding scheme; without it the feasible path argument collapses.
  • domain assumption Light-tailed subgradients and function values (exponential moment bounds, Eqs. (6)-(8))
    Assumption 2. Used in Lemma EC.4 and Lemma EC.3 to obtain high-probability bounds on the OVSMD oracle; central to Theorem 2.
  • standard math Properties of the level-set function H(r): non-increasing, convex, H(f*)=0, sign of H(r) relative to f*
    Lemma 1, based on Nesterov (2004) and Lin et al. (2018b). This is the foundation of the level-set root-finding reformulation.
  • standard math Stochastic mirror descent error bounds (Nemirovski et al., 2009) and online validation inequalities (Lan et al., 2012)
    Used to analyze SMD in Section 3 and OVSMD in Section 4; these are published results treated as black boxes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Data Efficient and Feasible Level Set Method for Stochastic Convex Optimization with Expectation Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45OI6V6A

@misc{pith2026190803077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Data Efficient and Feasible Level Set Method for Stochastic Convex Optimization with Expectation Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45OI6V6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03077}
}
read the original abstract

Stochastic convex optimization problems with expectation constraints (SOECs) are encountered in statistics and machine learning, business, and engineering. In data-rich environments, the SOEC objective and constraints contain expectations defined with respect to large datasets. Therefore, efficient algorithms for solving such SOECs need to limit the fraction of data points that they use, which we refer to as algorithmic data complexity. Recent stochastic first order methods exhibit low data complexity when handling SOECs but guarantee near-feasibility and near-optimality only at convergence. These methods may thus return highly infeasible solutions when heuristically terminated, as is often the case, due to theoretical convergence criteria being highly conservative. This issue limits the use of first order methods in several applications where the SOEC constraints encode implementation requirements. We design a stochastic feasible level set method (SFLS) for SOECs that has low data complexity and emphasizes feasibility before convergence. Specifically, our level-set method solves a root-finding problem by calling a novel first order oracle that computes a stochastic upper bound on the level-set function by extending mirror descent and online validation techniques. We establish that SFLS maintains a high-probability feasible solution at each root-finding iteration and exhibits favorable iteration complexity compared to state-of-the-art deterministic feasible level set and stochastic subgradient methods. Numerical experiments on three diverse applications validate the low data complexity of SFLS relative to the former approach and highlight how SFLS finds feasible solutions with small optimality gaps significantly faster than the latter method.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * 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.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...

  3. [3]

    European Journal of Operational Research 216(1):1--16

    Abdelaziz FB (2012) Solution approaches for the multiobjective stochastic programming. European Journal of Operational Research 216(1):1--16

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    European Journal of Operational Research 177(3):1811--1823

    Abdelaziz FB, Aouni B, El Fayedh R (2007) Multi-objective stochastic programming for portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research 177(3):1811--1823

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Operations Research 56(3):712--727

    Adelman D, Mersereau A (2008) Relaxations of weakly coupled stochastic dynamic programs. Operations Research 56(3):712--727

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Management Science 59(3):592--612

    Adelman D, Mersereau AJ (2013) Dynamic capacity allocation to customers who remember past service. Management Science 59(3):592--612

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '17

    Allen-Zhu Z (2017) Katyusha: The first direct acceleration of stochastic gradient methods. Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '17

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Mathematical Programming 174(1-2):359--390

    Aravkin AY, Burke JV, Drusvyatskiy D, Friedlander MP, Roy S (2019) Level-set methods for convex optimization. Mathematical Programming 174(1-2):359--390

    work page 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    International Journal of Production Economics 116(1):129--138

    Azaron A, Brown K, Tarim S, Modarres M (2008) A multi-objective stochastic programming approach for supply chain design considering risk. International Journal of Production Economics 116(1):129--138

    2008

  2. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 773--781

    Bach FR, Moulines E (2013) Non-strongly-convex smooth stochastic approximation with convergence rate o(1/n). Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 773--781

    2013

  3. [11]

    International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, 16--30 (Springer)

    Barba-Gonzal \'e z C, Garc \' a-Nieto J, Nebro AJ, Aldana-Montes JF (2017) Multi-objective big data optimization with jmetal and spark. International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, 16--30 (Springer)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bertsekas DP (1999) Nonlinear Programming (Belmont, Massashusetts: Athena Scientific), 3rd edition

    1999

  5. [13]

    Technical report, ://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/ cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/multiclass.html

    Chang C, Lin C (2019) LIBSVM data: Classification (multi-class). Technical report, ://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/ cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/multiclass.html

    2019

  6. [14]

    et al., eds.; 2006)[book reviews]

    Chapelle O, Scholkopf B, Zien A (2009) Semi-supervised learning (chapelle, o. et al., eds.; 2006)[book reviews]. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 20(3):542--542

    2009

  7. [15]

    Operations research 58(2):470--485

    Chen W, Sim M, Sun J, Teo CP (2010) From CVaR to uncertainty set: Implications in joint chance-constrained optimization. Operations research 58(2):470--485

    2010

  8. [16]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 404--412

    Chen X, Lin Q, Pe \ n a J (2012) Optimal regularized dual averaging methods for stochastic optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 404--412

    2012

  9. [17]

    Conference on Learning Theory, 729--771

    Cotter A, Gupta M, Pfeifer J (2016) A light touch for heavily constrained SGD . Conference on Learning Theory, 729--771

    2016

  10. [18]

    Machine learning 47(2-3):201--233

    Crammer K, Singer Y (2002) On the learnability and design of output codes for multiclass problems. Machine learning 47(2-3):201--233

    2002

  11. [19]

    Danskin JM (2012) The theory of max-min and its application to weapons allocation problems, volume 5 (Springer Science & Business Media)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Operations Research 51(6):850--865

    de Farias DP, Van Roy B (2003) The linear programming approach to approximate dynamic programming. Operations Research 51(6):850--865

    2003

  13. [21]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 29(3):462--478

    de Farias DP, Van Roy B (2004) On constraint sampling for the linear programming approach to approximate dynamic programming. Mathematics of Operations Research 29(3):462--478

    2004

  14. [22]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 10

    Duchi J, Singer Y (2009) Efficient online and batch learning using forward backward splitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research 10

    2009

  15. [23]

    European Journal of Operational Research 191(3):888--911

    F \'a bi \'a n CI (2008) Handling cvar objectives and constraints in two-stage stochastic models. European Journal of Operational Research 191(3):888--911

    2008

  16. [24]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2919--2927

    Fard MM, Canini K, Cotter A, Pfeifer J, Gupta M (2016) Fast and flexible monotonic functions with ensembles of lattices. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2919--2927

    2016

  17. [25]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 22(4):1469--1492

    Ghadimi S, Lan G (2012) Optimal stochastic approximation algorithms for strongly convex stochastic composite optimization, i: A generic algorithmic framework. SIAM Journal on Optimization 22(4):1469--1492

    2012

  18. [26]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 23(4):2061–2089

    Ghadimi S, Lan G (2013) Optimal stochastic approximation algorithms for strongly convex stochastic composite optimization, ii: Shrinking procedures and optimal algorithms. SIAM Journal on Optimization 23(4):2061–2089

    2013

  19. [27]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2415--2423

    Goh G, Cotter A, Gupta M, Friedlander MP (2016) Satisfying real-world goals with dataset constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2415--2423

    2016

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07269

    Goldfarb D, Iyengar G, Zhou C (2017) Linear convergence of stochastic frank wolfe variants. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07269

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Proceedings of Annual Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), 421--436

    Hazan E, Kale S (2011) Beyond the regret minimization barrier: an optimal algorithm for stochastic strongly-convex optimization. Proceedings of Annual Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), 421--436

    2011

  22. [30]

    Mathematical Programming 133(1-2):365--397

    Lan G (2012) An optimal method for stochastic composite optimization. Mathematical Programming 133(1-2):365--397

    2012

  23. [31]

    Mathematical programming 134(2):425--458

    Lan G, Nemirovski A, Shapiro A (2012) Validation analysis of mirror descent stochastic approximation method. Mathematical programming 134(2):425--458

    2012

  24. [32]

    Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida

    Lan G, Zhou Y (2015) An optimal randomized incremental gradient method. Technical report, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Florida

    2015

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.03887

    Lan G, Zhou Z (2016) Algorithms for stochastic optimization with expectation constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.03887

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mathematical programming 69(1):111--147

    Lemar \'e chal C, Nemirovskii A, Nesterov Y (1995) New variants of bundle methods. Mathematical programming 69(1):111--147

    1995

  27. [35]

    Technical report, ://www.lendingclub.com/info/download-data.action

    Lending Club (2019) Lendingclub statistics. Technical report, ://www.lendingclub.com/info/download-data.action

    2019

  28. [36]

    INFORMS Journal on Computing 26(3):616--628

    Lim E (2014) On convergence rates of convex regression in multiple dimensions. INFORMS Journal on Computing 26(3):616--628

    2014

  29. [37]

    Optimization Methods and Software 29(6):1281--1301

    Lin Q, Chen X, Pe \ n a J (2014) A smoothing stochastic gradient method for composite optimization. Optimization Methods and Software 29(6):1281--1301

    2014

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80, 3112--3121

    Lin Q, Ma R, Yang T (2018 a ) Level-set methods for finite-sum constrained convex optimization. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80, 3112--3121

    2018

  31. [39]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 28(4):3290--3311

    Lin Q, Nadarajah S, Soheili N (2018 b ) A level-set method for convex optimization with a feasible solution path. SIAM Journal on Optimization 28(4):3290--3311

    2018

  32. [40]

    Management Science (Forthcoming)

    Lin Q, Nadarajah S, Soheili N (2019) Revisiting approximate linear programming: Constraint-violation learning with applications to inventory control and energy storage. Management Science (Forthcoming)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 1115--1123

    Mahdavi M, Yang T, Jin R (2013) Stochastic convex optimization with multiple objectives. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 1115--1123

    2013

  34. [42]

    The Journal of Finance 7(1):77--91

    Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance 7(1):77--91

    1952

  35. [43]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26(6):369--395

    Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26(6):369--395

    2004

  36. [44]

    Management Science 61(12):3054--3076

    Nadarajah S, Margot F, Secomandi N (2015) Relaxations of approximate linear programs for the real option management of commodity storage. Management Science 61(12):3054--3076

    2015

  37. [45]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 19(4):1574--1609

    Nemirovski A, Juditsky A, Lan G, Shapiro A (2009) Robust stochastic approximation approach to stochastic programming. SIAM Journal on Optimization 19(4):1574--1609

    2009

  38. [46]

    Nesterov Y (2004) Introductory lectures on convex optimization: a basic course, volume 87 of Applied optimization (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers)

    2004

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00822

    Oliveira RI, Thompson P (2017) Sample average approximation with heavier tails i: non-asymptotic bounds with weak assumptions and stochastic constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00822

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Puterman ML (1994) Markov D ecision P rocesses: D iscrete S tochastic D ynamic P rogramming (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA)

    1994

  41. [49]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 12(Oct):2831--2855

    Rigollet P, Tong X (2011) Neyman-pearson classification, convexity and stochastic constraints. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12(Oct):2831--2855

    2011

  42. [50]

    Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22:400--407

    Robbins H, Monro S (1951) A stochastic approximation method. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22:400--407

    1951

  43. [51]

    Journal of risk 2:21--42

    Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of risk 2:21--42

    2000

  44. [52]

    CoRR abs/1309.2388

    Schmidt MW, Roux NL, Bach FR (2013) Minimizing finite sums with the stochastic average gradient. CoRR abs/1309.2388

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 110(2):568--582

    Schweitzer PJ, Seidmann A (1985) Generalized polynomial approximations in M arkovian decision processes. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 110(2):568--582

    1985

  46. [54]

    (2011) Nonparametric least squares estimation of a multivariate convex regression function

    Seijo E, Sen B, et al. (2011) Nonparametric least squares estimation of a multivariate convex regression function. The Annals of Statistics 39(3):1633--1657

    2011

  47. [55]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 79(2):423--448

    Sen B, Meyer M (2017) Testing against a linear regression model using ideas from shape-restricted estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 79(2):423--448

    2017

  48. [56]

    Shalev-Shwartz S, Singer Y, Srebro N, Cotter A (2017) Pegasos: primal estimated sub-gradient solver for svm. Math. Programming 1:3--30

    2017

  49. [57]

    Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 1350--1355 (Springer)

    Shapiro A (2013) Sample average approximation. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 1350--1355 (Springer)

    2013

  50. [58]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 22(2):728--737

    Soheili N, Pena J (2012) A smooth perceptron algorithm. SIAM Journal on Optimization 22(2):728--737

    2012

  51. [59]

    The Journal of Machine Learning Research 14(1):3011--3040

    Tong X (2013) A plug-in approach to neyman-pearson classification. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 14(1):3011--3040

    2013

  52. [60]

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 8(2):64--81

    Tong X, Feng Y, Zhao A (2016) A survey on neyman-pearson classification and suggestions for future research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 8(2):64--81

    2016

  53. [61]

    Technical report, Citeseer

    Weston J, Watkins C (1998) Multi-class support vector machines. Technical report, Citeseer

    1998

  54. [62]

    Operations Research 62(6):1358--1376

    Wiesemann W, Kuhn D, Sim M (2014) Distributionally robust convex optimization. Operations Research 62(6):1358--1376

    2014

  55. [63]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 11(Oct):2543--2596

    Xiao L (2010) Dual averaging methods for regularized stochastic learning and online optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11(Oct):2543--2596

    2010

  56. [64]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 24(4):2057--2075

    Xiao L, Zhang T (2014) A proximal stochastic gradient method with progressive variance reduction. SIAM Journal on Optimization 24(4):2057--2075

    2014

  57. [65]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 1428--1438

    Yu H, Neely M, Wei X (2017) Online convex optimization with stochastic constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 1428--1438

    2017

  58. [66]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.03106

    Zhao A, Feng Y, Wang L, Tong X (2015) Neyman-pearson classification under high-dimensional settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.03106

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.