Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A proximal augmented Lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with equality and inequality constraints

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian method is shown to reach an approximate KKT point in finitely many iterations for nonconvex problems with equality and inequality constraints, given a feasible starting point and mild growth conditio

desk verdict Useful extension of ALM/P-ALM theory with adaptive penalty rules, but the main theorem depends on an unstated descent condition on subproblem solves that the algorithm as written does not guarantee. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02894 v1 pith:7AIXD3IN submitted 2025-09-02 math.OC stat.ML

Adeyemi D. Adeoye , Puya Latafat , Alberto Bemporad This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCstat.ML MSC 65K0593-0849M3790C0690C53
keywords augmentedLagrangianmethodproximalnonconvexoptimizationequalityandinequalityconstraintsadaptivepenaltyparametersepsilon-KKTinitialfeasiblepointinexact
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

P-BALM is an inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian method designed for nonconvex optimization problems that may include nonlinear equality and inequality constraints plus a convex regularizer. The paper's central claim is that, under standard smoothness and lower-boundedness assumptions, having an initial feasible point lets the method provably return an epsilon-KKT point in finitely many iterations. What makes this useful is that the penalty parameters can grow polynomially—quickly early, slowly later—which mitigates the ill-conditioning associated with traditional linear penalty increases, while the proximal term is adaptively tuned. The same convergence guarantees carry over to the classical non-proximal augmented Lagrangian method as a special case, extending earlier analyses that were limited to equality constraints or required multipliers to vanish.

What carries the argument

The central object is the proximal augmented Lagrangian function L_{rho,nu,gamma}(x,lambda,mu;v) = f1(x) + <lambda,h(x)> + (rho/2)||h(x)||^2 + (1/(2 nu))||max{0, nu g(x)+mu}||^2 - (1/(2 nu))||mu||^2 + (1/(2 gamma))||x-v||^2, with the convex term f2 kept separate. Algorithm 1 updates the penalty parameters rho_k and nu_k by increasing them only when the constraint-violation or complementarity surrogate fails to improve by factor beta, using a growth function phi satisfying Assumption II, e.g., phi(k)=(k+1)^alpha with alpha>1. The proximal parameter gamma_k is set to max{delta||x0-x_k||^2, gamma_hat phi(k)}, giving stronger regularization early and a gradual transition toward plain ALM. Lemma

What would settle it

Run P-BALM exactly as stated but with an inner solver that stops at an approximately stationary point of subproblem (3.2) without checking whether its objective value exceeds the warm start. On a nonconvex problem where such a point has higher value than x_hat_k, record whether inequality (4.1) holds at that iteration; a single violation, or a consequent failure of the multiplier bound (4.2), would show the stated assumptions are insufficient as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 3.1 states that for P-BALM, under Assumptions I and II, three conclusions hold: (i) the scaled primal step (1/gamma_k)||x_{k+1}-x_k||^2 converges to zero; (ii) along an infinite subsequence, the scaled multiplier differences tend to zero; and (iii) an epsilon-KKT point of the original problem is obtained after finitely many iterations for any epsilon > tau. The proof hinges on a simple but central control property: Lemma 4.1 shows that the proximal augmented Lagrangian at each new iterate is bounded above by f(x0) + (1/(2 gamma_k))||x0-x_k||^2, provided the iterates start from a feasible point. This bound feeds a multiplier-control inequality, which forces the primal residual to vani

Load-bearing premise

The proof needs each subproblem solve to return a point whose proximal-Lagrangian value is no larger than the warm start it began from; the algorithm only requires that the point be approximately stationary, and for a nonconvex subproblem such a point can have a higher value. If that happens, the key upper bound on the augmented Lagrangian and the convergence argument built on it no longer follow from the stated assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With phi(k)=(k+1)^alpha for alpha>1, practitioners can grow penalty parameters aggressively in early iterations and only sublinearly later, reducing ill-conditioning while still guaranteeing finite epsilon-KKT termination.
  • The proximal parameter gamma_k is not fixed: it adapts to the distance from the initial feasible point, so early iterates receive strong regularization and later iterates behave like standard ALM iterates.
  • The classical non-proximal augmented Lagrangian method (BALM) inherits the same convergence conclusions, covering nonlinear equality and inequality constraints plus a nonsmooth convex term.
  • A feasible starting point, which the theory requires, can be produced by the phase-I construction in Appendix A, making the method applicable even when no natural feasible point exists.
  • The practical stopping criterion, max{||h(x_k)||_inf, ||E_k||_inf} <= 10^-5, is directly aligned with the theoretical epsilon-KKT condition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The finite-time epsilon-KKT statement is a termination guarantee, not an iteration-complexity rate; a natural follow-up, which the paper notes as future work, is to bound how many iterations are needed as a function of epsilon, tau, and the constants in Lemma 4.1.
  • The proof implicitly relies on each subproblem solve not increasing the proximal Lagrangian value relative to its warm start; since Algorithm 1 only asks for an approximately stationary point, a solver that returns a higher-value stationary point may break Lemma 4.1's bound. A testable safeguard is to monitor that value each iteration and restart from x0 if it rises.
  • Because delta in the gamma_k update can be set very small (e.g., 10^-6 in the basis pursuit experiment), the proximal term can be made nearly inactive on well-behaved problems, suggesting a practical continuum between P-BALM and BALM that could be tuned per problem.
  • Block-diagonal penalty matrices are noted as an immediate extension; a matrix-valued proximal parameter with its own update rule is left open and is a plausible direction for better conditioning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes P-BALM, an inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with equality and inequality constraints and a possibly nonsmooth convex term f2. Under an initial-feasibility assumption and a growth condition on the parameter sequences, the authors claim that (1/γ_k)||x_{k+1}-x_k||² converges to zero, that scaled multiplier differences vanish along an infinite subsequence, and that an ε-KKT point is obtained in finitely many iterations for any ε>τ. The key step is an upper bound on the augmented Lagrangian along the iterates (Lemma 4.1). The classical ALM is recovered as the limiting case without the proximal term, with analogous guarantees (Corollary 5.2). Numerical experiments on convex QPs and a nonconvex basis-pursuit reformulation compare P-BALM, BALM, and standard ALM.

Significance. If the main theorem is established, the paper is a useful contribution: it gives a unified and relatively simple convergence analysis for an inexact proximal ALM with nonlinear equality and inequality constraints, proposes practical adaptive penalty and proximal-parameter updates that grow sublinearly in the long run, and derives the classical ALM as a by-product. The proof structure is modular (Lemma 4.1 → Theorem 4.2 → Lemma 4.4 → Theorem 4.5 → Theorem 3.1), and the numerical section is supported by reproducible code. The main weakness is an unstated monotonicity requirement on the subproblem solver in Step 2, without which Lemma 4.1 and therefore the main theorem do not follow. This is a correctness issue rather than a stylistic one, but it appears repairable by adding an explicit descent condition or by reworking Lemma 4.1.

major comments (2)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Step 2; Lemma 4.1 (Eq. (4.1))] The proof of (4.1) implicitly assumes that the subproblem solver returns a point whose augmented Lagrangian value is no larger than the value at the warm start x̂_k. Step 2 only requires the ε-stationarity condition (3.3). For a nonconvex subproblem, an ε-stationary point can have a strictly larger value than the starting point; approximate stationarity does not control function value. Step 1 ensures L(x̂_k)+f2(x̂_k) ≤ f(x0)+1/(2γ_k)||x0-x_k||², but nothing in Steps 1–2 ensures L(x_{k+1})+f2(x_{k+1}) ≤ L(x̂_k)+f2(x̂_k). Thus Lemma 4.1 is not a consequence of the stated algorithm. Since (4.1) is used in Theorem 4.2(i)–(ii), Lemma 4.4, Theorem 4.5, and Theorem 3.1, the central ε-KKT termination claim is currently unsupported. A repair would be to add an explicit condition in Step 2, e.g., L(x_{k+1})+f2(x_{k+1}) ≤ L(x̂_k)+f2(x̂_k), or an equivalent bounded-increase condition. The same issue
  2. [Theorem 4.5, Case 3, second alternative] In the paragraph beginning 'Alternatively, if T(k)=k+1', the inequality '||E_{k+1}||∞ ≥ β||E_k||∞' for k+1∉Kν has the wrong direction. From definition (4.7), k+1∉Kν means ||E_{k+1}||∞ ≤ β||E_k||∞. Consequently, the sentence 'showing that lim_{Kν∋k→∞} ||E_k||²=0' is not justified. The claim can be repaired: Lemma 4.4(i) already gives ||E_{k+1}||→0 along Kν, and shifting the subsequence by one yields the required index set. Nevertheless, the proof as written contains a load-bearing error in a central argument and needs correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 3.1] The final sentence says the iterates 'converge to an ε-KKT point after a finite number of iterations.' The proof actually establishes an infinite subsequence of ε-KKT iterates, not convergence of the whole sequence. Please rephrase to match the argument; the same wording appears in Corollary 5.2.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.4) vs Algorithm 1 Step 7] The notation for γ is inconsistent: (3.4) defines γ_k = max{δ||x0-x_k||², γ0 φ(k)}, while Algorithm 1 Step 7 defines γ_{k+1} = max{δ||x0-x_{k+1}||², γ̂ φ(k+1)}. Please harmonize the indexing and constants (γ0 vs γ̂).
  3. [Algorithm 1, Require line] The requirement 'λ0∈R^p_+' is unusual for equality-constraint multipliers, which are not restricted in sign. If nonnegativity is not needed, use λ0∈R^p; if it is intentional, please justify.
  4. [Figures 2–5] The captions do not describe line styles, colors, or markers. Please add a legend or otherwise make the curves identifiable without relying on the text alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence proof derives Theorem 3.1 from stated assumptions; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation of Theorem 3.1 proceeds through Lemmas 4.1–4.6 in Section 4. These lemmas are proved in the paper from Assumptions I–II and the explicit algorithm definition; the proof does not assume the ε-KKT conclusion or fit parameters to the target result. The adaptive updates for ρ_k, ν_k, γ_k are algorithm design choices, not fitted constants later renamed as predictions. Numerical validation uses external benchmarks (Maros-Mészáros QPs and the basis pursuit problem), not quantities fitted from the theorem being tested. Citation [5] includes co-author Latafat, but it is used for context and motivation ('largely inspired by', 'resolved in [5] for equality constraints'); no part of Theorem 3.1 is deduced from [5], and the P-ALM analysis is self-contained. Lemma 4.6 is imported from external reference [34] and is an auxiliary characterization, not the main claim. Hence no circular step is present. One non-circular correctness concern should be flagged: Lemma 4.1's bound (4.1) is asserted as a consequence of Step 1, but Step 2 (eq. 3.2–3.3) only requires an approximate stationarity condition. Without an explicit descent condition on the subproblem value, an ε-stationary point of a nonconvex subproblem need not have value no larger than the warm start, so the bound (4.1) is not justified as written (and similarly (5.4) for BALM). This is an omitted proof / hidden assumption in the derivation chain, but it is not a self-referential reduction or a fitted-input-called-prediction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central theorem rests on the stated problem assumptions (smoothness, convexity of f2, lower boundedness, existence of a feasible point), Assumption II on the growth function, and on an unstated monotonicity property of the subproblem solver. No free parameters are fitted: the algorithm hyperparameters (beta, xi1, xi2, delta, tau, rho_hat, nu_hat, gamma_hat, phi) are arbitrary within stated ranges and do not affect the guarantees.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption f1, h, g are continuously differentiable (Assumption I.a1)
    Used throughout for gradient computations in the KKT characterization and in the subproblem stationarity condition (3.3).
  • domain assumption f2 is proper closed convex with easy-to-evaluate proximal mapping (Assumption I.a2)
    The prox of f2 appears in the epsilon-KKT residual and in subproblem solves; needed for the natural residual formulation in Definition 2.1.
  • domain assumption There exists an initial feasible point x0 in dom f2 with h(x0)=0 and g(x0)<=0 (Assumption I.a3)
    Algorithm 1's Require line; underpins Lemma 4.1's upper bound on the augmented Lagrangian and therefore the entire multiplier control argument.
  • domain assumption The objective f is lower bounded, inf f = f* > -infinity (Assumption I.a4)
    Ensures subproblems are well-defined and provides the finite constant f* used in the constants c1 and A_k.
  • domain assumption The growth function phi satisfies limsup phi(k+1)/phi(k) < M and k/phi(k) -> 0 (Assumption II)
    Needed to drive the residual bounds A_k/phi(k) and A_k phi(k+1)/phi(k)^2 to zero in Lemma 4.4 and Theorem 4.5; the suggested phi(k)=(k+1)^alpha with alpha>1 satisfies this.
  • ad hoc to paper Subproblem solves return a point with augmented Lagrangian value no larger than the warm start value (implicit)
    Not stated in Algorithm 1 Step 2, but Lemma 4.1 requires L(x_{k+1})+f2(x_{k+1}) <= L(x_hat_k)+f2(x_hat_k). An epsilon-stationary point of a nonconvex subproblem can have higher value; this monotonicity is load-bearing for the theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A proximal augmented Lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with equality and inequality constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AIXD3IN

@misc{pith2026250902894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A proximal augmented Lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with equality and inequality constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AIXD3IN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02894}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian method (P-ALM) for nonconvex structured optimization problems. The proposed method features an easily implementable rule not only for updating the penalty parameters, but also for adaptively tuning the proximal term. It allows the penalty parameter to grow rapidly in the early stages to speed up progress, while ameliorating the issue of ill-conditioning in later iterations, a well-known drawback of the traditional approach of linearly increasing the penalty parameters. A key element in our analysis lies in the observation that the augmented Lagrangian can be controlled effectively along the iterates, provided an initial feasible point is available. Our analysis, while simple, provides a new theoretical perspective about P-ALM and, as a by-product, results in similar convergence properties for its non-proximal variant, the classical augmented Lagrangian method (ALM). Numerical experiments, including convex and nonconvex problem instances, demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of two defining properties of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of ALM, P-BALM and BALM on two MM problems with condition numbers κ(Q) for different values of α and ξ. 6.1. Convex QPs We illustrate the proposed algorithms on convex quadratic programming (QP) problems from the Maros-Mészáros (MM) collection [62] in the form (1.1) with f1(x) = 1 2 x ⊤Qx + q ⊤x + c, where Q ∈ ’n×n is positive semidefinite, q ∈ ’n, c ∈ ’; f2(x) = δΩ(x), where Ω = {x ∈ ’n : xl ≤ x ≤ xu}; a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrative performance of P-BALM, BALM and ALM on selected MM problems with different condition numbers κ(Q), setting α = 12 and ξ = 10. ALM-4 ALM-10 P-BALM-4 P-BALM-12 BALM-4 BALM-12 1.00 grad evals ×103 10−6 10−4 10−2 100 |f 1(x k)− f ? 1 | |f 1(x 0)− f ? 1 | 1.00 grad evals ×103 10−5 10−3 10−1 101 103 total infeas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of ALM, P-BALM and BALM on the basis pursuit problem (6.2) with p = 400, n = 1024. 6.2. Basis pursuit (nonconvex formulation) We consider the basis pursuit problem which involves finding the sparsest solution to an undetermined linear system of equations. Th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrative performance of P-BALM, BALM and ALM on basis pursuit problems of different dimensions, setting α = 4 and ξ = 4. The primal variable size is 2n, the number of constraints is p. Informed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional comparison of ALM, P-BALM and BALM on two MM problems with condition numbers κ(Q) for different values of α and ξ. ALM-2 ALM-4 ALM-7 ALM-10 P-BALM-4 P-BALM-6 P-BALM-9 P-BALM-12 BALM-4 BALM-6 BALM-9 BALM-12 1.00 grad evals ×103 10−6 10−4 10−2 100 |f 1(x k)− f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional comparison of ALM, P-BALM and BALM on the basis pursuit problem (6.2) with p = 400, n = 1024. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optimal Nonergodic Primal-Dual Complexity of Efficient Inexact Parameter-Free Augmented Lagrangian Methods

    math.OC 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Three inexact augmented Lagrangian methods achieve optimal O(1/epsilon) primal-dual complexity for verifiable KKT points in convex linearly constrained optimization, two of them parameter-free.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality.Automatica, 36(6):789–814, 2000

    David Q Mayne, James B Rawlings, Christopher V Rao, and Pierre OM Scokaert. Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality.Automatica, 36(6):789–814, 2000. 16

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Model predictive control based on linear programming — the explicit solution

    Alberto Bemporad, Francesco Borrelli, Manfred Morari, et al. Model predictive control based on linear programming — the explicit solution. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(12):1974–1985, 2002

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems.Automatica, 38(1):3–20, 2002

    Alberto Bemporad, Manfred Morari, Vivek Dua, and Efstratios N Pistikopoulos. The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems.Automatica, 38(1):3–20, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Input convex neural networks

    Brandon Amos, Lei Xu, and J Zico Kolter. Input convex neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 146–155. PMLR, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Neural network training as an optimal control problem—An augmented Lagrangian approach

    Brecht Evens, Puya Latafat, Andreas Themelis, Johan Suykens, and Panagiotis Patrinos. Neural network training as an optimal control problem—An augmented Lagrangian approach. In2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 5136–5143, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Recurrent neural network training with convex loss and regularization func- tions by extended Kalman filtering.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68(9):5661–5668, 2022

    Alberto Bemporad. Recurrent neural network training with convex loss and regularization func- tions by extended Kalman filtering.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68(9):5661–5668, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Training recurrent neural networks by sequential least squares and the alternating direction method of multipliers.Automatica, 156:111183, 2023

    Alberto Bemporad. Training recurrent neural networks by sequential least squares and the alternating direction method of multipliers.Automatica, 156:111183, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Adeoye and Alberto Bemporad

    Adeyemi D. Adeoye and Alberto Bemporad. An inexact sequential quadratic programming method for learning and control of recurrent neural networks.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 36(2):2762–2776, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    An L-BFGS-B approach for linear and nonlinear system identification under ℓ1 and group-lasso regularization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Alberto Bemporad. An L-BFGS-B approach for linear and nonlinear system identification under ℓ1 and group-lasso regularization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4

    Christopher M Bishop and Nasser M Nasrabadi. Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Springer, 2009

    Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome H Friedman, and Jerome H Friedman.The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction, volume 2. Springer, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Global portfolio optimization.Financial Analysts Journal, 48(5):28–43, 1992

    Fischer Black and Robert Litterman. Global portfolio optimization.Financial Analysts Journal, 48(5):28–43, 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    Optimization methods in finance

    GerardCornuejols,JavierPeña,andRehaTütüncü. Optimization methods in finance. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Cambridge university press, 2004

    Stephen P Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe.Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    The Design of Approximation Algorithms

    DavidP.WilliamsonandDavidB.Shmoys. The Design of Approximation Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    Proximal point imitation learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24309–24326, 2022

    Luca Viano, Angeliki Kamoutsi, Gergely Neu, Igor Krawczuk, and Volkan Cevher. Proximal point imitation learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24309–24326, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Online learning in episodic Markovian decision processes by relative entropy policy search.Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    Alexander Zimin and Gergely Neu. Online learning in episodic Markovian decision processes by relative entropy policy search.Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Multiplier and gradient methods

    Magnus R Hestenes. Multiplier and gradient methods. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 4(5):303–320, 1969

    1969

  11. [19]

    A method for nonlinear constraints in minimization problems.Optimization, pages 283–298, 1969

    Michael JD Powell. A method for nonlinear constraints in minimization problems.Optimization, pages 283–298, 1969

    1969

  12. [20]

    Augmented Lagrangians and applications of the proximal point algorithm in convex programming.Mathematics of Operations Research, 1(2):97–116, 1976

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar. Augmented Lagrangians and applications of the proximal point algorithm in convex programming.Mathematics of Operations Research, 1(2):97–116, 1976. 17

    1976

  13. [21]

    Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 14(5):877–898, 1976

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar. Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 14(5):877–898, 1976

    1976

  14. [22]

    Rate of convergence analysis of decomposition methods based on the proximal method of multipliers for convex minimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 24(1):269–297, 2014

    Ron Shefi and Marc Teboulle. Rate of convergence analysis of decomposition methods based on the proximal method of multipliers for convex minimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 24(1):269–297, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    An adaptive augmented Lagrangian method for large-scale constrained optimization.Mathematical Programming, 152(1):201–245, 2015

    Frank E Curtis, Hao Jiang, and Daniel P Robinson. An adaptive augmented Lagrangian method for large-scale constrained optimization.Mathematical Programming, 152(1):201–245, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    On the numerical solution of heat conduction problems in two and three space variables.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 82(2):421– 439, 1956

    Jim Douglas and Henry H Rachford. On the numerical solution of heat conduction problems in two and three space variables.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 82(2):421– 439, 1956

    1956

  17. [25]

    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1989

    Roland Glowinski and Patrick Le Tallec.Augmented Lagrangian and operator-splitting methods in nonlinear mechanics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1989

    1989

  18. [26]

    Applications of a splitting algorithm to decomposition in convex programming and variational inequalities.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 29(1):119–138, 1991

    Paul Tseng. Applications of a splitting algorithm to decomposition in convex programming and variational inequalities.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 29(1):119–138, 1991

    1991

  19. [27]

    On the Douglas-Rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators

    Jonathan Eckstein and Dimitri P Bertsekas. On the Douglas-Rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators. Mathematical Programming, 55:293–318, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Aproximal-baseddecompositionmethodforconvexminimization problems

    GongChenandMarcTeboulle. Aproximal-baseddecompositionmethodforconvexminimization problems. Mathematical Programming, 64(1):81–101, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging.Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 40:120–145, 2011

    Antonin Chambolle and Thomas Pock. A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging.Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 40:120–145, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Bertsekas

    D. Bertsekas. Constrained Optimization and Lagrange Multiplier Methods. Athena scientific optimization and computation series. Athena Scientific, USA, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

    Monotone operators associated with saddle-functions and minimax prob- lems

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar. Monotone operators associated with saddle-functions and minimax prob- lems. Nonlinear Functional Analysis: Proceedings, 18:241, 1970

    1970

  24. [32]

    A practical relative error criterion for augmented La- grangians

    Jonathan Eckstein and Paulo JS Silva. A practical relative error criterion for augmented La- grangians. Mathematical Programming, 141(1):319–348, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Augmented Lagrangians with constrained subproblems and convergence to second-order stationary points.Computational Optimization and Applications, 69(1):51–75, 2018

    Ernesto G Birgin, Gabriel Haeser, and Alberto Ramos. Augmented Lagrangians with constrained subproblems and convergence to second-order stationary points.Computational Optimization and Applications, 69(1):51–75, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Complexity and performance of an augmented Lagrangian algorithm

    Ernesto G Birgin and José Mario Martínez. Complexity and performance of an augmented Lagrangian algorithm. Optimization Methods and Software, 35(5):885–920, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    On the complexity of an augmented Lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 41(2):1546–1568, 2021

    Geovani Nunes Grapiglia and Ya-xiang Yuan. On the complexity of an augmented Lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 41(2):1546–1568, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    E. G. Birgin and J. M. Martínez. Practical Augmented Lagrangian Methods for Constrained Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Combined primal-dual and penalty methods for constrained minimization

    Dimitri P Bertsekas. Combined primal-dual and penalty methods for constrained minimization. SIAM Journal on Control, 13(3):521–544, 1975

    1975

  30. [38]

    Multiplier methods: A survey.Automatica, 12(2):133–145, 1976

    Dimitri P Bertsekas. Multiplier methods: A survey.Automatica, 12(2):133–145, 1976

    1976

  31. [39]

    Iteration-complexity of first-order augmented La- grangian methods for convex programming.Mathematical Programming, 155(1):511–547, 2016

    Guanghui Lan and Renato DC Monteiro. Iteration-complexity of first-order augmented La- grangian methods for convex programming.Mathematical Programming, 155(1):511–547, 2016. 18

    2016

  32. [40]

    Adaptive inexact fast augmented La- grangian methods for constrained convex optimization

    Andrei Patrascu, Ion Necoara, and Quoc Tran-Dinh. Adaptive inexact fast augmented La- grangian methods for constrained convex optimization. Optimization Letters, 11(3):609–626, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Complexity of first-order inexact La- grangian and penalty methods for conic convex programming.Optimization Methods and Soft- ware, 34(2):305–335, 2019

    Ion Necoara, Andrei Patrascu, and Francois Glineur. Complexity of first-order inexact La- grangian and penalty methods for conic convex programming.Optimization Methods and Soft- ware, 34(2):305–335, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Fei Li and Zheng Qu. An inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian framework with arbitrary linearly convergent inner solver for composite convex optimization.Mathematical Programming Computation, 13:583–644, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Iteration complexity of inexact augmented Lagrangian methods for constrained convex programming.Mathematical Programming, 185(1):199–244, 2021

    Yangyang Xu. Iteration complexity of inexact augmented Lagrangian methods for constrained convex programming.Mathematical Programming, 185(1):199–244, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Iteration-complexity of first-order augmented Lagrangian methods for convex conic programming.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(2):1159–1190, 2023

    Zhaosong Lu and Zirui Zhou. Iteration-complexity of first-order augmented Lagrangian methods for convex conic programming.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(2):1159–1190, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    An inexactaugmentedLagrangianframeworkfornonconvexoptimizationwithnonlinearconstraints

    Mehmet Fatih Sahin, Armin eftekhari, Ahmet Alacaoglu, Fabian Latorre, and Volkan Cevher. An inexactaugmentedLagrangianframeworkfornonconvexoptimizationwithnonlinearconstraints. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advan...

    2019

  38. [46]

    Rate-improved inexact augmented lagrangian method for constrained nonconvex optimization

    Zichong Li, Pin-Yu Chen, Sijia Liu, Songtao Lu, and Yangyang Xu. Rate-improved inexact augmented lagrangian method for constrained nonconvex optimization. In Arindam Banerjee and Kenji Fukumizu, editors, Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligen...

  39. [47]

    The inexact power augmented Lagrangian method for constrained nonconvex optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20153, 2024

    Alexander Bodard, Konstantinos Oikonomidis, Emanuel Laude, and Panagiotis Patrinos. The inexact power augmented Lagrangian method for constrained nonconvex optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20153, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Lower Complexity Bounds of First-Order Methods for Affinely Constrained Composite Nonconvex Problems.Mathematics of Operations Research, 2025

    Wei Liu, Qihang Lin, and Yangyang Xu. Lower Complexity Bounds of First-Order Methods for Affinely Constrained Composite Nonconvex Problems.Mathematics of Operations Research, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    A globally convergent augmented La- grangian algorithm for optimization with general constraints and simple bounds.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 28(2):545–572, 1991

    Andrew R Conn, Nicholas IM Gould, and Philippe Toint. A globally convergent augmented La- grangian algorithm for optimization with general constraints and simple bounds.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 28(2):545–572, 1991

    1991

  42. [50]

    Convergence properties of an augmented Lagrangian algorithm for optimization with a combination of general equality and linear constraints

    Andrew R Conn, Nick Gould, Annick Sartenaer, and Ph L Toint. Convergence properties of an augmented Lagrangian algorithm for optimization with a combination of general equality and linear constraints. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 6(3):674–703, 1996

    1996

  43. [51]

    On augmented Lagrangian methods with general lower-level constraints.SIAM Journal on Opti- mization, 18(4):1286–1309, 2008

    Roberto Andreani, Ernesto G Birgin, José Mario Martínez, and María Laura Schuverdt. On augmented Lagrangian methods with general lower-level constraints.SIAM Journal on Opti- mization, 18(4):1286–1309, 2008

    2008

  44. [52]

    A proximal alternating direction method of multiplier for linearly constrained nonconvex minimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(3):2272–2302, 2020

    Jiawei Zhang and Zhi-Quan Luo. A proximal alternating direction method of multiplier for linearly constrained nonconvex minimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 30(3):2272–2302, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    A global dual error bound and its application to the analysis of linearly constrained nonconvex optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 32(3):2319–2346, 2022

    Jiawei Zhang and Zhi-Quan Luo. A global dual error bound and its application to the analysis of linearly constrained nonconvex optimization.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 32(3):2319–2346, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Complexity of proximal augmented Lagrangian for nonconvex optimization with nonlinear equality constraints.Journal of Scientific Computing, 86:1–30, 2021

    Yue Xie and Stephen J Wright. Complexity of proximal augmented Lagrangian for nonconvex optimization with nonlinear equality constraints.Journal of Scientific Computing, 86:1–30, 2021. 19

    2021

  47. [55]

    Prox-PDA: The proximal primal-dual algorithm for fast distributed nonconvex optimization and learning over networks

    Mingyi Hong, Davood Hajinezhad, and Ming-Min Zhao. Prox-PDA: The proximal primal-dual algorithm for fast distributed nonconvex optimization and learning over networks. In Doina Precup and Yee Whye Teh, editors,Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learnin...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Structured nonconvex and nonsmooth optimization: algorithms and iteration complexity analysis

    Bo Jiang, Tianyi Lin, Shiqian Ma, and Shuzhong Zhang. Structured nonconvex and nonsmooth optimization: algorithms and iteration complexity analysis. Computational Optimization and Applications, 72(1):115–157, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Perturbed proximal primal-dual algorithm for nonconvex nonsmooth optimization

    Davood Hajinezhad and Mingyi Hong. Perturbed proximal primal-dual algorithm for nonconvex nonsmooth optimization. Mathematical Programming, 176(1):207–245, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Theproximalalternatingdirectionmethodofmultipliers in the nonconvex setting: convergence analysis and rates.Mathematics of Operations Research, 45(2):682–712, 2020

    RaduIoanBoţandDang-KhoaNguyen. Theproximalalternatingdirectionmethodofmultipliers in the nonconvex setting: convergence analysis and rates.Mathematics of Operations Research, 45(2):682–712, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    An adaptive superfast inexact proximal augmented Lagrangianmethodforsmoothnonconvexcompositeoptimizationproblems

    Arnesh Sujanani and Renato DC Monteiro. An adaptive superfast inexact proximal augmented Lagrangianmethodforsmoothnonconvexcompositeoptimizationproblems. Journal of Scientific Computing, 97(2):34, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Iteration complexity of an inner accelerated inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian method based on the classical Lagrangian function

    Weiwei Kong, Jefferson G Melo, and Renato DC Monteiro. Iteration complexity of an inner accelerated inexact proximal augmented Lagrangian method based on the classical Lagrangian function. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(1):181–210, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    QPALM: A proximal augmented La- grangian method for nonconvex quadratic programs.Mathematical Programming Computation, 14(3):497–541, 2022

    Ben Hermans, Andreas Themelis, and Panagiotis Patrinos. QPALM: A proximal augmented La- grangian method for nonconvex quadratic programs.Mathematical Programming Computation, 14(3):497–541, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    A repository of convex quadratic programming problems

    Istvan Maros and Csaba Mészáros. A repository of convex quadratic programming problems. Optimization methods and software, 11(1-4):671–681, 1999

    1999

  55. [63]

    Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit

    Scott Shaobing Chen, David L Donoho, and Michael A Saunders. Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM review, 43(1):129–159, 2001

    2001

  56. [64]

    Conn, Nicholas I

    Andrew R. Conn, Nicholas I. M. Gould, and Philippe L. Toint.Trust Region Methods. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2000

    2000

  57. [65]

    A simple and efficient algorithm for nonlinear model predictive control

    Lorenzo Stella, Andreas Themelis, Pantelis Sopasakis, and Panagiotis Patrinos. A simple and efficient algorithm for nonlinear model predictive control. In2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 1939–1944, 2017

    1939

  58. [66]

    Alpaqa: A matrix-free solver for nonlinear MPC and large-scale nonconvex optimization

    Pieter Pas, Mathijs Schuurmans, and Panagiotis Patrinos. Alpaqa: A matrix-free solver for nonlinear MPC and large-scale nonconvex optimization. In2022 European Control Conference (ECC), pages 417–422. IEEE, 2022. 20 A. The phase I problem for initialization When an initialfeas...

    2022

  59. [2178]

    PMLR, 13–15 Apr 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.