Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Subgradient Regularization: A Descent-Oriented Subgradient Method for Nonsmooth Optimization

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Subgradient regularization adds a squared-norm penalty to the inner maximization of a nonsmooth marginal function, producing stable descent directions that provably reach stationary points; for composite problems it recovers the…

desk verdict Solid framework paper with repairable gaps in the linear-rate proof; deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07143 v1 pith:72XUAMTE submitted 2025-05-11 math.OC

Hanyang Li , Ying Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49J5290C3065K05
keywords nonsmoothoptimizationsubgradientregularizationdescent-orientedsubdifferentialprox-linearmethodmarginalfunctionslinearconvergenceClarkebundlemethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out a unifying principle for nonsmooth descent: a set-valued map G(x,ε) is a usable oracle if, as the smoothing scale ε shrinks, it sees only Clarke subgradients at the limit (G1) and collapses to the minimal-norm subgradient at each point (G2). On top of that principle, the paper introduces subgradient regularization, which perturbs the inner maximization of a marginal function by subtracting (ε/2) times the squared norm of the candidate gradient, and shows this produces such a map for finite maxima and minima of smooth functions and for composites h(c(x)). The resulting SRDescent algorithm makes a monotone descent step using only objective values and gradients at the current point, provably converges subsequentially to stationary points, and, in the composite case, is exactly the prox-linear update. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework also reveals gradient-sampling and bundle-type methods as two instances of the same abstract recipe, and the composite specialization inherits local linear convergence under standard regularity conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the descent-oriented subdifferential G: R^n×(0,∞)⇒R^n, a closed-valued, locally bounded set-valued map whose joint limit as (ε,x) shrinks toward a point stays inside the Clarke subdifferential (G1) and whose limiting directions equal the minimal-norm subgradient as ε↓0 (G2). The engine that builds such a map for marginal functions is the subgradient-regularized problem Y_ε(x)=argmax_{y∈Y}[φ(x,y)−(ε/2)‖∇_x φ(x,y)‖²], with G(x,ε) collecting ∇_x φ(x,y) for y∈Y_ε(x). Lemma 2 shows this G verifies (G1) and the outer-semicontinuity part of (G2) generally, and verifies the full (G2) when the active-gradient set S(x) is convex, which Lemma 3 obtains when ∇_x φ is affine in the inner variable y, covering finite max/min functions and, via Fenchel duality, composites h(c(x)). Proposition 7 then identifies x−εG(x,ε) with the prox-linear update, giving Algorithm 2 a dual interpretation as a regularized dual selection.

What would settle it

Compute G from (15) for the marginal function f(x)=max_{θ∈[0,2π]}(x₁ cos θ+x₂ sin θ), whose active-gradient set at x=0 is the unit circle and therefore nonconvex, and check whether lim sup_{x→0, ε↓0} G(x,ε) equals the minimal-norm subgradient at each point. Lemma 2(d) only guarantees property (G2) when the active-gradient set is convex; if any non-minimal vector survives in that outer limit, the claim that subgradient regularization defines a descent-oriented subdifferential for a broad class of marginal functions would be false for this class, while if none appears, the convexity hypothesis is sufficient but not necessary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the failure of steepest descent in nonsmooth optimization, where an arbitrary negative subgradient can point uphill, is cured by a small regularization of the subgradient selection. For a marginal function f(x)=max_{y∈Y} φ(x,y), the paper replaces the inner maximization with the regularized problem max_{y∈Y}[φ(x,y)−(ε/2)‖∇_x φ(x,y)‖²] and uses the gradients of φ at the regularized maximizers as search directions. The set G(x,ε) of such directions satisfies the two defining properties of a descent-oriented subdifferential: its outer limit as (x,ε) approaches a point stays inside the Clarke subdifferential, and its limit as ε↓0 is the minimal-norm subgradient. This yields a deterministic descent method with a backtracking line search and subsequential convergence to stationary points for locally Lipschitz functions bounded below. For the composite f(x)=h(c(x)), the construction is shown to coincide with the prox-linear step, and an adaptive version that keeps the effective stepsize bounded away from zero converges locally linearly whenever ∂f is metrically subregular at the stationary points in the level set and Assumption 1 holds.

Load-bearing premise

For the regularization to be a full descent-oriented subdifferential the proof needs the set of active gradients S(x) to be convex, and the paper obtains this only when the inner function's x-gradient is affine in the auxiliary variable, which covers finite maxima, finite minima, and composites h(c(x)) but excludes general marginal functions; for the linear-rate corollary it additionally assumes metric subregularity of ∂f at every stationary point in the level set and a positive separation between stationary points with different values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every algorithm built on any descent-oriented subdifferential inherits Theorem 1: subsequential convergence to stationary points for any locally Lipschitz function bounded below.
  • Subgradient regularization yields an implementable oracle: for finite maxima and minima of smooth functions, eigenvalue functions, distributionally robust objectives, and composites h(c(x)), the needed inner problem is a convex, often quadratic, program solvable using data at the current point.
  • For h(c(x)), the regularized direction equals the prox-linear step, so the method inherits the existing error-bound analysis of prox-linear methods; under metric subregularity of ∂f and Assumption 1, Algorithm 2 converges locally linearly in both function values and iterates.
  • Because the direction avoids neighborhood sampling and bundled history, the method needs only one-point first-order information, which in experiments lets it keep descending where gradient sampling stalls on failed line searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the convexity of the active-gradient set required by Lemma 2(d) may be sufficient rather than necessary; testing G in (15) on a marginal function whose active-gradient set is a nonconvex arc, such as f(x)=max_θ(x₁ cos θ+x₂ sin θ), would show whether the technique extends beyond the paper's proof.
  • Inference: reading the prox-linear update as a squared-norm-penalized subgradient selection suggests a general tuning rule in which ε balances the dual penalty against model error, potentially giving adaptive rates beyond the paper's ratio test.
  • Inference: the same construction should extend to the strongly concave inner-problem case of Section 4.2 when a multiplier oracle is unavailable; a variant based on strong second-order sufficient conditions may be practical.
  • Inference: the experiments on the finite-min-of-quadratics, which is not subdifferentially regular at cusps, hint that the framework may tolerate some nonregularity; studying convergence under relaxed regularity is a natural next step.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a unified framework for nonsmooth descent methods based on "descent-oriented subdifferentials," set-valued maps G(x,ε) satisfying the two conditions (G1) and (G2) in Definition 1. It shows that Goldstein-type and bundle-type constructions fit this framework, and it proves a general subsequential convergence result (Algorithm 1, Theorem 1). The main algorithmic contribution is subgradient regularization for marginal functions, defined through the regularized inner problem (P_ε), and the resulting direction is shown to be a descent-oriented subdifferential in several structured cases (Lemmas 2-4). For composite problems f(x)=h(c(x)), Proposition 7 proves that the regularized direction coincides with the prox-linear step, giving a new dual interpretation. An adaptive variant (Algorithm 2) is shown to be subsequentially convergent (Theorem 2) and, under metric subregularity and Assumption 1, locally linearly convergent (Corollary 2). Numerical experiments on finite max/min of quadratics, Nesterov's nonsmooth Chebyshev-Rosenbrock function, and a parametric marginal problem illustrate the practical behavior of the methods against gradient sampling, bundle, BFGS, and LiPsMin baselines.

Significance. If the technical gaps identified below are repaired, this is a solid and useful contribution. The abstract framework (G1)-(G2) cleanly captures the common mechanism behind Goldstein and bundle methods and is likely to be reused by other authors. The subgradient-regularization construction is simple, depends on no fitted parameters, and its reduction to the prox-linear update is an exact mathematical equivalence rather than a heuristic analogy. The paper also provides a public code repository and reproducible pseudocode for both algorithms. The subsequential convergence arguments are largely self-contained, and the empirical comparison on challenging nonsmooth problems is informative. The main reservations concern the local-linear-convergence proof, where two local but load-bearing slips in Corollary 1 and Proposition 8 need correction before the rate result can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B.2, proof of Proposition 8, equations (47)-(48)] The proof asserts that, after combining the metric-subregularity error bound (48) with Lemma 8 and dividing by ||g_{k,i_k}||^{1/2}, the resulting upper bound on tilde-epsilon_k ||tilde-g_k|| / ||g_{k,i_k}||^{1/2} tends to 0 along N'. This is not what the estimates give. Lemma 8 together with (48) only yields an upper bound of the form D * sqrt((3L*beta*epsilon_{k,i_k}+2)*kappa_{bar x} + 2*epsilon_{k,i_k}), whose limit is D*sqrt(2*kappa_{bar x}), which is generally nonzero. The contradiction with the divergence of the right-hand side of (47) still works, because the left-hand side remains bounded while the right-hand side diverges, so the claim of Proposition 8 is salvageable; however, the written proof contains an incorrect limit and must be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.1, Corollary 1, and Section 5.2.2, Proposition 8] Corollary 1 states that f(bar-x - epsilon*g) <= f(bar-x) - epsilon*||g||^2 for every epsilon in (0, 1/(2L*beta)]. This is stronger than Lemma 6 supports: setting y=bar-x in (27) gives f(bar-x - epsilon*g) <= f(bar-x) - epsilon*(1 - L*beta*epsilon/2)*||g||^2. Consequently, the statement in the proof of Proposition 8 that "given alpha in (0,1), any epsilon in (0, 1/(2L*beta)] with stepsize eta=epsilon ensures the descent condition" is not justified. For eta=epsilon to be accepted one needs alpha <= 1 - L*beta*epsilon/2; at epsilon=1/(2L*beta) this restricts alpha to at most 3/4. The proof can be repaired by replacing the lower bound 1/(4L*beta) with (1-alpha)/(L*beta), so the local linear convergence result can survive, but the theorem as stated is too permissive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Example 4] In the definition of Y_epsilon(x), the term "h^*(x)" should presumably be "h^*(y)"; as written it is a typo that makes the objective dimensionally inconsistent.
  2. [Section 4.1, Lemma 3(a)] The singleton property of G(x,epsilon) is stated without proof and only attributed to [45, 34]. Since this property is used in the analysis of the composite case, the paper should either include a short self-contained argument or state explicitly which result in those references is being invoked.
  3. [Appendix A.2, proof of Lemma 4] The proof of Lemma 4 is only a sketch. In particular, estimates (35)-(36) are asserted without derivation, and the verification that G(.,epsilon) is closed-valued and locally bounded in the two cases is not spelled out. A fuller proof, or at least a precise pointer to the parallel argument in Lemma 2, would help the reader verify the extension to varying feasible sets.
  4. [Appendix B.1, proof of Lemma 5] The letter epsilon is used both for the regularization parameter and for the radius of the neighborhood around bar-x, which is confusing. Renaming one of the two quantities would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is axiomatic, the prox-linear reduction is proven rather than assumed, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its conclusions from its inputs by construction. Definition 1 states (G1)-(G2) as axioms of a 'descent-oriented subdifferential'; the convergence theorems for Algorithms 1 and 2 are then proved from those axioms together with external regularity conditions, not from fitted data. The subgradient-regularized map G in (15)/(18) is verified against the definition in Lemma 2 using only optimality of (Pε), and its stationarity-detection property in Lemma 3(b) is a proved consequence of the KKT conditions. Proposition 7's equivalence between subgradient regularization and the prox-linear step is established by an explicit minimax/conjugate argument, so the 'recovery' of the prox-linear method is a mathematical derivation, not an assumption smuggled in. The local linear convergence result (Corollary 2) depends on metric subregularity and Assumption 1, both stated as external hypotheses, and the constants in Lemma 5 are bounds, not parameters fitted to the convergence claim. The only self-citation is [12], used in Section 6.4 to classify a test problem as piecewise linear-quadratic; it is not load-bearing for any theoretical claim and does not raise the circularity score. Two technical weaknesses exist but are not circular: Lemma 3(a) omits a proof with a citation to [45,34], and the proof of Proposition 8 (Appendix B.2) contains a false '→0' assertion (the displayed bound tends to D sqrt(2κ), a finite constant); the contradiction still works because the right-hand side of (47) diverges, so the written proof has a repairable gap. These are correctness issues, and the derivation chain itself is self-contained.

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

The central algorithm depends on standard smoothness, convexity, and regularity assumptions from nonsmooth optimization. The only new mathematical object is the descent-oriented subdifferential, which is a definition rather than a postulated entity with independent physical evidence. Algorithm hyperparameters are listed as free parameters for transparency, but they do not affect the theoretical claims.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial regularization epsilon_0,0 = 5
    Chosen for experiments; convergence theory only requires positive values.
  • Regularization reduction factor theta_epsilon = 0.9
    Experimental choice; theory requires theta_epsilon in (0,1).
  • Stationarity target reduction factor theta_nu = 0.5
    Experimental choice; theory requires theta_nu in (0,1).
  • Armijo parameter alpha = 1e-4
    Experimental choice; theory requires alpha in (0,1).
  • Non-summable sequence a_t = 1/t
    Any non-summable positive sequence tending to 0 works; 1/t is chosen.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Clarke subdifferential calculus (Danskin's theorem, outer semicontinuity of subdifferentials of locally Lipschitz functions).
    Used in Lemma 2 and for properties (G1) and (G2).
  • standard math Minimax theorem for convex-concave saddle problems on compact sets.
    Used in Proposition 7 to interchange min and max in the prox-linear derivation.
  • domain assumption For marginal functions, Y is convex and compact; φ(·,·) and ∇xφ(·,·) are jointly continuous; φ(x,·) is concave.
    Ensures f is locally Lipschitz and Danskin's theorem applies.
  • domain assumption For composite functions, h is L-Lipschitz with finite infimum, c is C1 with β-Lipschitz gradient.
    Required for the two-sided model inequality and the prox-linear equivalence.
  • domain assumption Affine dependence of ∇xφ in y, i.e., S(x) is convex.
    Needed for the SRDescent subdifferential G to satisfy (G2) and be descent-oriented (Lemma 2(d), Lemma 3).
  • domain assumption Metric subregularity of ∂f at every stationary point in the level set, and Assumption 1 (separated isocost surfaces).
    Required for the local linear convergence result in Corollary 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subgradient Regularization: A Descent-Oriented Subgradient Method for Nonsmooth Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72XUAMTE

@misc{pith2026250507143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subgradient Regularization: A Descent-Oriented Subgradient Method for Nonsmooth Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72XUAMTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07143}
}
read the original abstract

In nonsmooth optimization, a negative subgradient is not necessarily a descent direction, making the design of convergent descent methods based on zeroth-order and first-order information a challenging task. The well-studied bundle methods and gradient sampling algorithms construct descent directions by aggregating subgradients at nearby points in seemingly different ways, and are often complicated or lack deterministic guarantees. In this work, we identify a unifying principle behind these approaches, and develop a general framework of descent methods under the abstract principle that provably converge to stationary points. Within this framework, we introduce a simple yet effective technique, called subgradient regularization, to generate stable descent directions for a broad class of nonsmooth marginal functions, including finite maxima or minima of smooth functions. When applied to the composition of a convex function with a smooth map, the method naturally recovers the prox-linear method and, as a byproduct, provides a new dual interpretation of this classical algorithm. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods on several challenging classes of nonsmooth optimization problems, including the minimization of Nesterov's nonsmooth Chebyshev-Rosenbrock function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contour plots and descent directions of Nesterov’s nonsmooth Chebyshev-Rosenbrock function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of SRDescent, gradient sampling [8], and a bundle method specially designed for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance on the max of convex quadratics functions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Run time and oracle calls on the finite min of convex quadratic functions over 100 randomly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance on the finite min of convex quadratic functions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance on the finite min of convex quadratic functions for a fixed numbers of pieces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Run time and oracle calls of SRDescent on marginal functions with varying feasible sets for a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Optimal Parameter-Free First-Order Methods for Convex Optimization with Unknown Growth and Smoothness

    math.OC 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5 of 10

    Affine W-certificate bundle-level methods (BLW/A-BLW) attain optimal parameter-free rates under unknown Hölder smoothness and growth for convex first-order optimization.

  2. Accelerated Prox-Level Methods for Unknown Piecewise-Smooth Optimization I: Convex Optimization

    math.OC 2026-01 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new accelerated bundle-level algorithm claims optimal first-order complexity for unknown piecewise-smooth convex optimization, but the key bound that empirical smoothness is O(L) is asserted, not proved.

  3. A Proximal Descent Method for Minimizing Weakly Convex Optimization

    math.OC 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A bundle-based proximal descent method achieves O(1/delta^4) for Moreau stationarity on weakly convex functions and adapts to O(1/delta^2) under smoothness and linear convergence under quadratic growth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Gradients of convex functions

    Edgar Asplund and RT Rockafellar. Gradients of convex functions. Transactions of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 139:443–467, 1969

    work page 1969

  2. [2]

    A unified analysis of descent sequences in weakly convex optimization, including convergence rates for bundle methods

    Felipe Atenas, Claudia Sagastiz´ abal, Paulo JS Silva, and Mikhail Solodov. A unified analysis of descent sequences in weakly convex optimization, including convergence rates for bundle methods. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 33(1):89–115, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    J Fr´ ed´ eric Bonnans and Alexander Shapiro.Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Descent methods for composite nondifferentiable optimization problems

    James V Burke. Descent methods for composite nondifferentiable optimization problems. Mathematical Programming, 33(3):260–279, 1985

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Gradient sampling methods for nonsmooth optimization

    James V Burke, Frank E Curtis, Adrian S Lewis, Michael L Overton, and Lucas EA Sim˜ oes. Gradient sampling methods for nonsmooth optimization. Numerical Nonsmooth Optimization: State of the Art Algorithms , pages 201–225, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A Gauss-Newton method for convex composite opti- mization

    James V Burke and Michael C Ferris. A Gauss-Newton method for convex composite opti- mization. Mathematical Programming, 71(2):179–194, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Approximating subdifferentials by random sampling of gradients

    James V Burke, Adrian S Lewis, and Michael L Overton. Approximating subdifferentials by random sampling of gradients. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27(3):567–584, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    A robust gradient sampling algorithm for nonsmooth, nonconvex optimization

    James V Burke, Adrian S Lewis, and Michael L Overton. A robust gradient sampling algorithm for nonsmooth, nonconvex optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 15(3):751–779, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Smoothing methods for nonsmooth, nonconvex minimization

    Xiaojun Chen. Smoothing methods for nonsmooth, nonconvex minimization. Mathematical programming, 134:71–99, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Generalized gradients and applications

    Frank H Clarke. Generalized gradients and applications. Transactions of the American Math- ematical Society, 205:247–262, 1975

    1975

  3. [11]

    Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis

    Frank H Clarke. Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis . SIAM, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    Modern Nonconvex Nondifferentiable Optimization

    Ying Cui and Jong-Shi Pang. Modern Nonconvex Nondifferentiable Optimization . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    A gradient sampling method with complexity guarantees for Lipschitz functions in high and low dimensions

    Damek Davis, Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, Yin Tat Lee, Swati Padmanabhan, and Guanghao Ye. A gradient sampling method with complexity guarantees for Lipschitz functions in high and low dimensions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:6692–6703, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    A local nearly linearly convergent first-order method for nons- mooth functions with quadratic growth

    Damek Davis and Liwei Jiang. A local nearly linearly convergent first-order method for nons- mooth functions with quadratic growth. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , 2024. 33

    2024

  7. [15]

    Proximal bundle methods for nonsmooth DC programming

    Welington de Oliveira. Proximal bundle methods for nonsmooth DC programming. Journal of Global Optimization , 75:523–563, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Optimal convergence rates for the proximal bundle method

    Mateo D´ ıaz and Benjamin Grimmer. Optimal convergence rates for the proximal bundle method. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 33(2):424–454, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Error bounds, quadratic growth, and linear con- vergence of proximal methods

    Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy and Adrian S Lewis. Error bounds, quadratic growth, and linear con- vergence of proximal methods. Mathematics of Operations Research, 43(3):919–948, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Convex Analysis and Variational Problems

    Ivar Ekeland and Roger Temam. Convex Analysis and Variational Problems . SIAM, 1999

    1999

  11. [19]

    An algorithm for nonsmooth opti- mization by successive piecewise linearization

    Sabrina Fiege, Andrea Walther, and Andreas Griewank. An algorithm for nonsmooth opti- mization by successive piecewise linearization. Mathematical Programming, 177:343–370, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    A model algorithm for composite nondifferentiable optimization problems

    Roger Fletcher. A model algorithm for composite nondifferentiable optimization problems. Mathematical Programming Studies, 17:67–76, 1982

    1982

  13. [21]

    Differential properties of the marginal function in mathematical programming

    Jacques Gauvin and Fran¸ cois Dubeau. Differential properties of the marginal function in mathematical programming. Optimality and Stability in Mathematical Programming , pages 101–119, 1982

    1982

  14. [22]

    Optimization of Lipschitz continuous functions

    Allen A Goldstein. Optimization of Lipschitz continuous functions. Mathematical Program- ming, 13:14–22, 1977

    1977

  15. [23]

    On Nesterov’s nonsmooth Chebyshev– Rosenbrock functions

    Mert G¨ urb¨ uzbalaban and Michael L Overton. On Nesterov’s nonsmooth Chebyshev– Rosenbrock functions. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications , 75(3):1282–1289, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    A redistributed proximal bundle method for nonconvex optimization

    Warren Hare and Claudia Sagastiz´ abal. A redistributed proximal bundle method for nonconvex optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 20(5):2442–2473, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    On the local convergence analysis of the gradient sampling method for finite max-functions

    Elias Salom˜ ao Helou, Sandra A Santos, and Lucas EA Sim˜ oes. On the local convergence analysis of the gradient sampling method for finite max-functions. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 175:137–157, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Convex Analysis and Minimization Algorithms I and II , volume 305 and 306

    Jean-Baptiste Hiriart-Urruty and Claude Lemar´ echal. Convex Analysis and Minimization Algorithms I and II , volume 305 and 306. Springer science & business media, 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    Convergence of the gradient sampling algorithm for nonsmooth nonconvex optimization

    Krzysztof C Kiwiel. Convergence of the gradient sampling algorithm for nonsmooth nonconvex optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 18(2):379–388, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Lipschitz minimization and the Goldstein modulus

    Siyu Kong and Adrian S Lewis. Lipschitz minimization and the Goldstein modulus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12655, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    An extension of Davidon methods to nondifferentiable problems

    Claude Lemar´ echal. An extension of Davidon methods to nondifferentiable problems. In Nondifferentiable Optimization, pages 95–109. Springer, 1975

    1975

  22. [30]

    Nonsmooth algorithms to solve semidefinite pro- grams

    Claude Lemar´ echal and Fran¸ cois Oustry. Nonsmooth algorithms to solve semidefinite pro- grams. In Advances in linear matrix inequality methods in control , pages 57–77. SIAM, 2000. 34

    2000

  23. [31]

    Large-scale methods for distri- butionally robust optimization

    Daniel Levy, Yair Carmon, John C Duchi, and Aaron Sidford. Large-scale methods for distri- butionally robust optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:8847– 8860, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Nonsmooth optimization via quasi-Newton methods

    Adrian S Lewis and Michael L Overton. Nonsmooth optimization via quasi-Newton methods. Mathematical Programming, 141:135–163, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    A proximal method for composite minimization

    Adrian S Lewis and Stephen J Wright. A proximal method for composite minimization. Mathematical Programming, 158:501–546, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    On the linear convergence of descent methods for convex essentially smooth minimization

    Zhi-Quan Luo and Paul Tseng. On the linear convergence of descent methods for convex essentially smooth minimization. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 30(2):408–425, 1992

    1992

  27. [35]

    Error bounds and convergence analysis of feasible descent methods: a general approach

    Zhi-Quan Luo and Paul Tseng. Error bounds and convergence analysis of feasible descent methods: a general approach. Annals of Operations Research, 46(1):157–178, 1993

    1993

  28. [36]

    A modification and an extension of Lemar´ echal’s algorithm for nonsmooth minimization

    Robert Mifflin. A modification and an extension of Lemar´ echal’s algorithm for nonsmooth minimization. In Nondifferential and Variational Techniques in Optimization , pages 77–90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1982

    1982

  29. [37]

    OnVU -theory for functions with primal-dual gradient structure

    Robert Mifflin and Claudia Sagastiz´ abal. OnVU -theory for functions with primal-dual gradient structure. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 11(2):547–571, 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    A VU -algorithm for convex minimization

    Robert Mifflin and Claudia Sagastiz´ abal. A VU -algorithm for convex minimization. Mathe- matical programming, 104:583–608, 2005

    2005

  31. [39]

    Subgradients of marginal functions in parametric mathematical programming

    Boris S Mordukhovich, Nguyen Mau Nam, and Nguyen Dong Yen. Subgradients of marginal functions in parametric mathematical programming. Mathematical Programming, 116(1):369– 396, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Smooth minimization of non-smooth functions

    Yu Nesterov. Smooth minimization of non-smooth functions. Mathematical programming, 103:127–152, 2005

    2005

  33. [41]

    Linear convergence of epsilon-subgradient descent methods for a class of convex functions

    Stephen M Robinson. Linear convergence of epsilon-subgradient descent methods for a class of convex functions. Mathematical Programming, 86:41–50, 1999

    1999

  34. [42]

    Convex Analysis, volume 18

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar. Convex Analysis, volume 18. Princeton University Press, 1970

    1970

  35. [43]

    Variational Analysis, volume 317

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger JB Wets. Variational Analysis, volume 317. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    On the finite-time complexity and practical computation of approximate stationarity concepts of Lipschitz functions

    Lai Tian, Kaiwen Zhou, and Anthony Man-Cho So. On the finite-time complexity and practical computation of approximate stationarity concepts of Lipschitz functions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 21360–21379. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Descent methods for convex essentially smooth minimization

    P Tseng. Descent methods for convex essentially smooth minimization. Journal of optimization theory and applications, 71(3):425–463, 1991

    1991

  38. [46]

    A method of conjugate subgradients for minimizing nondifferentiable functions

    Philip Wolfe. A method of conjugate subgradients for minimizing nondifferentiable functions. In Nondifferentiable Optimization, pages 145–173. Springer, 1975. 35

    1975

  39. [47]

    Complexity of finding stationary points of nonconvex nonsmooth functions

    Jingzhao Zhang, Hongzhou Lin, Stefanie Jegelka, Suvrit Sra, and Ali Jadbabaie. Complexity of finding stationary points of nonconvex nonsmooth functions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11173–11182. PMLR, 2020. A Omitted Proofs in Section 4 A.1 Proof of L...

    2020

Pith tools

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