Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 73 references

Isometry pursuit

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Isometry pursuit claims that picking a near-orthonormal D-column block from a wide matrix can be done by normalization plus multitask basis pursuit, a convex surrogate for greedy or brute-force search.

desk verdict Promising idea, broken normalization: Eq. 18 contradicts Definition 3, so the algorithm amplifies long columns; one-line fix could make this a real contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18502 v2 pith:BBKP6FZD submitted 2024-11-27 stat.ML cs.AIcs.IRcs.LGstat.ME

Samson Koelle , Marina Meila This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.AIcs.IRcs.LGstat.ME
keywords isometrypursuitmultitaskbasisorthonormalcolumnselectionsymmetricnormalizationgrouplassodiversificationinterpretablecoordinatesconvexoptimization
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

Isometry pursuit is a proposed convex algorithm for selecting a set of $D$ columns from a wide matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}^{D\times P}$ that is as close to orthonormal as possible. The paper claims that after rescaling each column by a symmetric normalization that makes unit-length vectors longest, multitask basis pursuit with the identity matrix as target identifies orthonormal column-submatrices, with a formal guarantee in the square case. If correct, this offers a convex alternative to greedy and brute-force search for tasks like choosing interpretable coordinates from a dictionary or diversifying a selected subset. On the Iris, Wine, and Ethanol datasets, two-stage isometry pursuit achieves lower isometry loss than greedy search.

What carries the argument

The key object is the symmetric normalization $q_c(v) = (e^{\|v\|^c} + e^{\|v\|^{-c}})/(2e)$, intended to satisfy Definition 3: global maximizers are exactly the unit sphere, rescaling is invariant under inversion of vector length, and $q$ depends only on length. It is paired with multitask basis pursuit, the group-lasso penalty $\|\beta\|_{1,2} = \sum_p \|\beta_{p.}\|_2$ under the equality constraint $w(X,c)\beta = I_D$. Longer, non-orthogonal columns force larger row norms in $\beta$, so the support of the minimizer marks the columns closest to an orthonormal block. The ground-truth loss $l_c(X) = \sum_d g(\sigma_d(X),c)$ with $g(t,c) = (e^{tc}+e^{t^{-c}})/(2e)$ is uniquely minimized at orthonormal matrices and serves as the brute-force objective.

What would settle it

Evaluate $q_1(t) = (e^t + e^{1/t})/(2e)$ at $t=10$ and at $t=1$: at $t=10$ the value is roughly $1.1 \times 10^3$, while at $t=1$ it is about $0.568$, so unit vectors are not the global maximizer and Definition 3 is violated as written. A corrected normalization would need to be checked numerically before Proposition 4 can hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that orthonormal column-submatrices of a wide matrix can be recovered by a two-step convex procedure: normalize, then solve a group-sparse regression. Each column $v$ is replaced by $q_c(v)v$ where $q_c(v) = (e^{\|v\|^c} + e^{\|v\|^{-c}})/(2e)$ is designed to peak at unit length; then the algorithm minimizes the multitask basis pursuit penalty $\|\beta\|_{1,2} = \sum_p \|\beta_{p.}\|_2$ subject to $w(X,c)\beta = I_D$. Proposition 4 states that for a square normalized submatrix the minimizer is orthonormal and the minimal loss equals $D$, and Proposition 3 states the selected support is invariant under orthonormal changes of basis of $X$. The practical estimator is two-stage: first use isometry pursuit to prune the candidate columns, then run brute-force search on the pruned set with a ground-truth isometry loss $l_c$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Proposition 4 assumes that the stated formula for $q_c$ has its global maximum exactly on the unit sphere and that a row-norm comparison in the QR decomposition argument is valid; if either fails, the orthonormality guarantee does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-stage isometry pursuit achieves lower isometry loss than greedy search on Iris, Wine, and Ethanol, with statistically significant paired differences.
  • Isometry pursuit prunes the candidate set to a small support before brute-force search, making exhaustive enumeration feasible for moderate dictionaries.
  • Because the support is invariant under orthonormal transformations of the data matrix, the selected coordinates do not depend on the choice of orthonormal frame.
  • For square normalized submatrices, the multitask basis pursuit minimizer is exactly orthonormal, giving a formal foundation for the pruning step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the square-submatrix guarantee extends to overcomplete dictionaries, the same normalize-then-pursuit recipe could replace the greedy feature-by-feature construction used in local isometry embedding methods.
  • The same mechanism suggests a generic diversification primitive: given a pool of items, normalize their feature vectors and let group lasso pick a small orthogonal spread, which is directly relevant to retrieval and recommendation.
  • One testable extension is to random dictionaries with a planted orthonormal $D$-block: if isometry pursuit consistently recovers that block as $P$ grows, the convex relaxation is doing genuine combinatorial work rather than only pruning.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes isometry pursuit, a method for selecting approximately orthonormal D-column submatrices of a wide D×P matrix. The method first normalizes columns with a radially symmetric function q_c, then applies multitask basis pursuit to the normalized matrix to obtain a sparse set of candidate columns; a two-stage variant prunes with this convex program and then applies brute-force search over the reduced set. The authors state two theoretical results: invariance of the selected support under orthonormal changes of basis (Proposition 3) and a square-case guarantee that the multitask basis pursuit solution on a suitably normalized matrix is orthonormal (Proposition 4). Experiments on Iris, Wine, and Ethanol report lower ground-truth loss than greedy search.

Significance. If the method worked as stated, it would offer a convex alternative to greedy or brute-force selection of orthonormal column submatrices, with plausible applications to interpretable coordinate selection and diversification. The paper has clear strengths: the problem is well motivated, the code is publicly available, and the experimental protocol is reproducible. However, the central normalization in Eq. (18) contradicts its own definition, and the proofs of Propositions 3 and 4 contain invalid algebraic steps. Because the algorithm as printed does not implement the intended length penalty and the main theoretical claim is unsupported as proved, the paper's core contribution is not currently established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (18); Sec. 3.3, Algorithm 1] The concrete normalization in Eq. (18) contradicts Definition 3. For q_c(v) = (e^{||v||^c} + e^{||v||^{-c}})/(2e), writing t = ||v||_2, the expression e^{t^c} + e^{t^{-c}} has its minimum at t = 1, so q_c(v) = 1 on the unit sphere and q_c(tu) > 1 for t > 1, with q_c(tu) tending to infinity as t tends to infinity. Thus the unit sphere is a global minimum, not the argmax required by Eq. (10), and the normalization n(v) = q_c(v)v in Eq. (14) amplifies long vectors instead of shrinking them. Since Algorithm 1 and Eq. (22) use w(X, c) built from this q_c, the printed algorithm does not implement the proposed method; all downstream theoretical and experimental statements using this normalization are affected. If a reciprocal formula was intended, the text must be corrected and the experiments re-run.
  2. [Sec. 6.2.2, proof of Proposition 4] The proof's chain 'by Proposition 3, l_c(X) = l_c(R) and so ||β||_{1,2} = ||R^{-1}||_{1,2}' is invalid. Proposition 3 concerns the support of the multitask basis pursuit solution under left multiplication by an orthonormal matrix; it does not equate the ground-truth loss l_c with the basis-pursuit objective. Moreover, for a square normalized design W = QR, the constraint I_D = Wβ gives β = R^{-1}Q^T, whose row norms are not in general the row norms of R^{-1}. Therefore the lower bound ||β_{d.}|| ≥ ||X_{.d}||^{-1} = 1 is not established, and Proposition 4 remains unproved.
  3. [Sec. 6.2.1, proof of Proposition 3] The proof of Proposition 6 contains an invalid equality: from I_D = UXβ, left multiplication by U^{-1} yields U^{-1} = Xβ, not I_D = XβU. A correct argument would introduce the variable γ = βU and use the unitary invariance of the ||·||_{1,2} row norm; as written, the displayed derivation does not prove the claimed invariance. Since Proposition 3 is invoked in the proof of Proposition 4, this error is load-bearing.
  4. [Sec. 3.1–3.2 and Sec. 4 (experimental evaluation)] The evaluation is partly circular: the ground-truth loss l_c in Eq. (6) is defined through g, and the normalization q_c in Eq. (18) is built from the same g; Figure 1 explicitly states that the two losses are equivalent when D = 1. Thus the method's prior is directly shaped to the metric used for benchmarking, and the final brute-force stage optimizes that same metric. This does not by itself invalidate the two-stage comparison, because greedy search also minimizes l_c, but it weakens the interpretation. To substantiate the claim of a general advantage, the authors should report results against a ground truth not constructed from g, for example ||X_{.S}^T X_{.S} - I_D||_F or the distance to the nearest orthonormal basis, and should compare the normalization's pruning quality against random or length-only pruning.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4] There are typos: 'helps identity' should be 'helps identify', and 'Jacoban matrices' should be 'Jacobian matrices'.
  2. [Proposition 4 statement] The statement 'arg min_{X.S ∈ R^{D×D}} bβ_c(X.S) is orthonormal' does not type-check, since bβ_c(X.S) returns a coefficient matrix rather than a scalar objective; please clarify what is being minimized and in which variable.
  3. [Table 1 and Sec. 4] The table and text use l1 to denote the ground-truth loss l_c with c = 1; define this notation explicitly to avoid confusion with the ℓ1 norm.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The caption lists '(P, D) = (4, 15) and (13, 18)', which is inconsistent with the P > D convention used elsewhere; swap the roles or correct the values.
  5. [Proposition 5] The statement writes ||βU|| without the ||·||_{1,2} subscript in the statement, although the proof uses it.
  6. [Sec. 6.2.2] The QR decomposition is introduced for '\tilde X.S' but the proof then refers to X.S; clarify whether the decomposition is applied to the normalized matrix w(X, c)_{.S} and how the diagonal entries of R relate to the original column norms.
  7. [Sec. 5] The sentence 'suggest that a related two stage procedure always succeeds' is stated informally and is not proven or fully tested; please label it as a conjecture or provide supporting evidence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the normalization q_c is built from the same function g as the ground-truth loss l_c, and the paper asserts their 1D equivalence by construction.

  1. self definitional [Sections 3.1-3.2 (Eqs. 5-8 and 17-18); Figure 1 caption]
    "lc : RD×P → R+ (5) X 7→ Σ g(σd(X), c) (6) ... g : R+ × R+ → R+ (7) t, c→ (e^{t^c} + e^{t^{-c}})/(2e) (8); qc : RD → R+ (17) v 7→ (e^{||v||^c} + e^{||v||^{-c}})/(2e) (18). Figure 1: "The two losses are equivalent in the one-dimensional case.""

    Eq. (18) defines q_c(v) using the same function g(·, c) that Eq. (6) uses to define the ground-truth loss l_c via singular values. The normalization is therefore not an independent surrogate: it is cut from the same formula as the evaluation metric. The Figure 1 caption asserts that the two losses are equivalent for D = 1, i.e., the agreement between the convex surrogate and the 'ground truth' is a consequence of the equal definitions rather than a derived result. The loop is partial because in D > 1 l_c depends on singular values while multitask basis pursuit operates on column norms, so the central orthogonality mechanism is not fully defined by the shared g.

full rationale

The strongest circularity concern is the shared construction of the ground-truth loss l_c and the normalization q_c from the same function g, with the Figure 1 caption claiming their 1D equivalence; that equivalence is a designed match, not an independent confirmation. However, the central algorithm is not merely this 1D match: multitask basis pursuit adds a joint-sparsity/orthogonality mechanism, and the two-stage method is evaluated against greedy search on the same ground-truth l_c, a comparison that could fail and is not forced by the shared g. The paper's other weaknesses are correctness issues rather than circularity: the printed q_c in Eq. (18) does not satisfy Definition 3 (its argmax is not the unit sphere), and the proof of Proposition 4 asserts ∥β∥_{1,2} = ∥R^{-1}∥_{1,2} without justification. These are significant validity gaps but not reductions of a prediction to its input. Self-citations to Koelle et al. are contextual and not load-bearing. Overall, partial by-construction alignment warrants a moderate score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the correctness of the normalization and on two proof steps; both are currently unverified or incorrect as printed. No new physical entities are introduced; the only new object is the loss l_c, which is a mathematical construction rather than an entity.

free parameters (1)
  • c = 1 in all experiments
    Scaling constant in q_c and l_c controls the basin width near unit length; chosen by hand, not tuned or cross-validated.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper q_c as defined in Eq. (18) has unit-norm vectors as its unique global maximizers
    This is assumed in Definition 3 and used throughout; as printed it is false because q_c(t) grows with t, so the method relies on an unstated correction.
  • domain assumption A rank-D orthonormal submatrix exists in X for the theoretical guarantee
    Proposition 4 is stated for the special case where a rank-D orthonormal submatrix exists; in real data this is generally not guaranteed.
  • standard math Standard linear algebra facts: QR decomposition, singular value invariance under unitary transforms
    Used in the proofs of Propositions 3 and 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isometry pursuit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBKP6FZD

@misc{pith2026241118502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isometry pursuit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBKP6FZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18502}
}
read the original abstract

Isometry pursuit is a convex algorithm for identifying orthonormal column-submatrices of wide matrices. It consists of a novel normalization method followed by multitask basis pursuit. Applied to Jacobians of putative coordinate functions, it helps identity isometric embeddings from within interpretable dictionaries. We provide theoretical and experimental results justifying this method. For problems involving coordinate selection and diversification, it offers a synergistic alternative to greedy and brute force search.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18502 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plots of ground truth loss, normalized length, and basis pursuit loss for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Isometry losses l1 for Wine, Iris, and Ethanol datasets across R replicates. Lower brute losses are shown with turquoise, while lower two stage losses are shown with pink. Equal losses are shown with black lines. As detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Support Cardinalities for Wine, Iris, and Ethanol datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of Isometry and Group Lasso Losses across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Consistency of dictionary-based manifold learning

    Samson J Koelle, Hanyu Zhang, Octavian-Vlad Murad, and Marina Meila. Consistency of dictionary-based manifold learning. In Sanjoy Dasgupta, Stephan Mandt, and Yingzhen Li, editors, Proceedings of The 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 238 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4348–4356. PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Tony Cai and Lie Wang

    T. Tony Cai and Lie Wang. Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57(7):4680–4688, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2011. 2146090

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.2011 2011

  3. [3]

    Selecting the independent coordinates of manifolds with large aspect ratios

    Yu-Chia Chen and Marina Meila. Selecting the independent coordinates of manifolds with large aspect ratios. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/ 2019/fi...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    LDLE: Low distortion local eigenmaps

    Dhruv Kohli, Alexander Cloninger, and Gal Mishne. LDLE: Low distortion local eigenmaps. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Universal local parametrizations via heat kernels and eigenfunctions of the laplacian

    Peter W Jones, Mauro Maggioni, and Raanan Schul. Universal local parametrizations via heat kernels and eigenfunctions of the laplacian. September 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Sparse principal component analysis and its l1-relaxation

    Santanu S Dey, R Mazumder, M Molinaro, and Guanyi Wang. Sparse principal component analysis and its l1-relaxation. arXiv: Optimization and Control, December 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Sparse PCA: A geometric approach

    D Bertsimas and Driss Lahlou Kitane. Sparse PCA: A geometric approach. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 24:32:1–32:33, October 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Solving Large-Scale sparse PCA to certifiable (near) optimality

    Dimitris Bertsimas, Ryan Cory-Wright, and Jean Pauphilet. Solving Large-Scale sparse PCA to certifiable (near) optimality. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 23(13):1–35, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Selecting the independent coordinates of manifolds with large aspect ratios

    Yu-Chia Chen and M Meil˘a. Selecting the independent coordinates of manifolds with large aspect ratios. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., abs/1907.01651, July 2019

    1907 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Manifold coordinates with physical meaning

    Samson J Koelle, Hanyu Zhang, Marina Meila, and Yu-Chia Chen. Manifold coordinates with physical meaning. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 23(133):1–57, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Product manifold learning with independent coordinate selection

    Jesse He, Tristan Brugère, and Gal Mishne. Product manifold learning with independent coordinate selection. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Workshop on Topology, Algebra, and Geometry in Machine Learning (TAG-ML) at ICML, June 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Daniel Freeman, Theodore R

    Adly Templeton, Tom Conerly, Jonathan Marcus, Jack Lindsey, Trenton Bricken, Brian Chen, Adam Pearce, Craig Citro, Emmanuel Ameisen, Andy Jones, Hoagy Cunningham, Nicholas L Turner, Callum McDougall, Monte MacDiarmid, C. Daniel Freeman, Theodore R. Sumers, Edward Rees, Joshua ...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Principal manifolds and nonlinear dimensionality reduction via tangent space alignment

    Zhenyue Zhang and Hongyuan Zha. Principal manifolds and nonlinear dimensionality reduction via tangent space alignment. SIAM J. Scientific Computing, 26(1):313–338, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Local Multidimensional Scaling for nonlinear dimension reduc- tion, graph drawing and proximity analysis

    Lisha Chen and Andreas Buja. Local Multidimensional Scaling for nonlinear dimension reduc- tion, graph drawing and proximity analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104(485):209–219, March 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Tenenbaum, V

    J.B. Tenenbaum, V . Silva, and J.C. Langford. A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science, 290(5500):2319–2323, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    Donoho and Michael A

    Scott Shaobing Chen and David L. Donoho and Michael A. Saunders. Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM REVIEW, 43(1):129, February 2001. 8

    2001

  9. [17]

    Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables

    Ming Yuan and Yi Lin. Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 68(1):49–67, February 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Multi-task feature selection

    G Obozinski, B Taskar, and Michael I Jordan. Multi-task feature selection. 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    A probabilistic framework for learning task relationships in multi-task learning

    Dit-Yan Yeung and Yu Zhang. A probabilistic framework for learning task relationships in multi-task learning. 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Convex Optimization

    Stephen P Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, March 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Least angle and ℓ1 penalized regression: A review

    Tim Hesterberg, Nam Hee Choi, Lukas Meier, and Chris Fraley. Least angle and ℓ1 penalized regression: A review. February 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    R. A. Fisher. Iris. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C56C76

    1988 doi

  15. [23]

    Stefan Aeberhard and M. Forina. Wine. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5PC7J

    1991 doi

  16. [24]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learni...

    2011

  17. [25]

    Towards exact molecular dynamics simulations with machine-learned force fields

    Stefan Chmiela, Huziel E Sauceda, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Alexandre Tkatchenko. Towards exact molecular dynamics simulations with machine-learned force fields. Nat. Commun., 9(1): 3887, September 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Conic optimization via operator splitting and homogeneous self-dual embedding

    Brendan O’Donoghue, Eric Chu, Neal Parikh, and Stephen Boyd. Conic optimization via operator splitting and homogeneous self-dual embedding. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 169(3):1042–1068, June 2016. URL http://stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/ scs.html

    2016

  19. [27]

    CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization

    Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(83):1–5, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    A rewriting system for convex optimization problems

    Akshay Agrawal, Robin Verschueren, Steven Diamond, and Stephen Boyd. A rewriting system for convex optimization problems. Journal of Control and Decision, 5(1):42–60, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Sparse solution with cvxpy

    CVXPY Developers. Sparse solution with cvxpy. https://www.cvxpy.org/examples/ applications/sparse_solution.html. Accessed: 2024-07-11

    2024

  22. [30]

    The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries

    Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. SIGIR Forum, 51(2):209–210, August 1998

    1998

  23. [31]

    Recent advances in diversified recommendation

    Qiong Wu, Yong Liu, Chunyan Miao, Yin Zhao, Lu Guan, and Haihong Tang. Recent advances in diversified recommendation. May 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    https://python.langchain.com/docs/ how_to/example_selectors_mmr/

    Select by maximal marginal relevance (MMR). https://python.langchain.com/docs/ how_to/example_selectors_mmr/. Accessed: 2024-11-22

    2024

  25. [33]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv [cs.CL], December 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Better RAG using relevant information gain

    Marc Pickett, Jeremy Hartman, Ayan Kumar Bhowmick, Raquib-Ul Alam, and Aditya Vempaty. Better RAG using relevant information gain. arXiv [cs.CL], July 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Diversify-verify-adapt: Efficient and robust retrieval-augmented ambiguous question answering

    Yeonjun In, Sungchul Kim, Ryan A Rossi, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Tong Yu, Ritwik Sinha, and Chanyoung Park. Diversify-verify-adapt: Efficient and robust retrieval-augmented ambiguous question answering. arXiv [cs.CL], September 2024. 9

    2024

  28. [36]

    Enhancing diversity in RAG document retrieval using projection-based techniques

    Sam Weiss. Enhancing diversity in RAG document retrieval using projection-based techniques. https://medium.com/@samcarlos_14058/ enhancing-diversity-in-rag-document-retrieval-using-projection-based-techniques-9fef5422e043 , August 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-22

    2024

  29. [37]

    URL https://www.vectara.com/blog/ get-diverse-results-and-comprehensive-summaries-with-vectaras-mmr-reranker

    Get diverse results and comprehensive summaries with vec- tara’s MMR reranker. URL https://www.vectara.com/blog/ get-diverse-results-and-comprehensive-summaries-with-vectaras-mmr-reranker . Accessed: 2024-11-22

    2024

  30. [38]

    Towards principled evaluations of sparse autoencoders for interpretability and control

    Aleksandar Makelov, George Lange, and Neel Nanda. Towards principled evaluations of sparse autoencoders for interpretability and control. arXiv [cs.LG], May 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries

    Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, New York, NY , USA, August...

    1998

  32. [40]

    Maria C. N. Barioni, Marios Hadjieleftheriou, Marcos R. Vieira, Caetano Traina, Vassilis J. Tsotras, Humberto L. Razente, and Divesh Srivastava. On query result diversification . In 2011 27th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2011), pages 1163–1174, Los A...

    2011

  33. [41]

    Search result diversification

    Marina Drosou and Evaggelia Pitoura. Search result diversification. SIGMOD Rec., 39(1): 41–47, September 2010. ISSN 0163-5808. doi: 10.1145/1860702.1860709. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/1860702.1860709

    2010

  34. [42]

    Diversifying top-k results

    Lu Qin, Jeffrey Xu Yu, and Lijun Chang. Diversifying top-k results. Proceedings VLDB Endowment, 5(11):1124–1135, July 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Diversity in recommender systems – a survey

    Matevž Kunaver and Tomaž Požrl. Diversity in recommender systems – a survey. Knowledge- Based Systems , 123:154–162, 2017. ISSN 0950-7051. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. knosys.2017.02.009. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0950705117300680

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    Probabilistic latent maximal marginal relevance

    Shengbo Guo and Scott Sanner. Probabilistic latent maximal marginal relevance. InProceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’10, page 833–834, New York, NY , USA, 2010. Association for Computing Machin...

    2010

  37. [45]

    Managing diversity in airbnb search

    Mustafa Abdool, Malay Haldar, Prashant Ramanathan, Tyler Sax, Lanbo Zhang, Aamir Man- aswala, Lynn Yang, Bradley Turnbull, Qing Zhang, and Thomas Legrand. Managing diversity in airbnb search. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Hsiang-Fu Yu, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Qi Lei, and Inderjit S. Dhillon. A greedy approach for budgeted maximum inner product search. In Neural Information Processing Systems , 2016. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7076785

    2016

  39. [47]

    Diversity-awarek-maximum inner product search revisited

    Qiang Huang, Yanhao Wang, Yiqun Sun, and Anthony K H Tung. Diversity-awarek-maximum inner product search revisited. arXiv [cs.IR], February 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Mallat and Zhifeng Zhang

    S.G. Mallat and Zhifeng Zhang. Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 41(12):3397–3415, 1993. doi: 10.1109/78.258082

    1993 doi

  41. [49]

    Mallat and Z

    S. Mallat and Z. Zhang. Adaptive time-frequency decomposition with matching pursuits. In

  42. [50]

    Y .C. Pati, R. Rezaiifar, and P.S. Krishnaprasad. Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. In Proceedings of 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers , pages 40–44 vol.1, 1993. doi: 10.1109/ACSS...

    1993

  43. [51]

    Tropp, A.C

    J.A. Tropp, A.C. Gilbert, and M.J. Strauss. Simultaneous sparse approximation via greedy pursuit. In Proceedings. (ICASSP ’05). IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2005., volume 5, pages v/721–v/724 V ol. 5, 2005. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP. 200...

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Joel A. Tropp. Algorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. part ii: Convex relaxation. Signal Processing, 86(3):589–602, 2006. ISSN 0165-1684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sigpro.2005.05.031. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0165168405002239. Sp...

    2006

  45. [53]

    Theoretical results on sparse representations of multiple- measurement vectors

    Jie Chen and Xiaoming Huo. Theoretical results on sparse representations of multiple- measurement vectors. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 54:4634–4643, 2006. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17333301

    2006

  46. [54]

    Osborne, Brett Presnell, and Berwin A

    Michael R. Osborne, Brett Presnell, and Berwin A. Turlach. On the lasso and its dual. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 9:319 – 337, 2000. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14422381

    2000

  47. [55]

    A necessary and sufficient condition for exact sparse recovery by l1 min- imization

    Charles Dossal. A necessary and sufficient condition for exact sparse recovery by l1 min- imization. Comptes Rendus Mathematique , 350(1):117–120, 2012. ISSN 1631-073X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crma.2011.12.014. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S163...

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    On the generic uniform uniqueness of the lasso estimator

    Stéphane Chrétien and Sébastien Darses. On the generic uniform uniqueness of the lasso estimator. arXiv: Statistics Theory , 2011. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:88518316

    2011

  49. [57]

    Tibshirani

    Ryan J. Tibshirani. The lasso problem and uniqueness. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 7: 1456–1490, 2012. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5849668

    2012

  50. [58]

    On the distribution, model selection properties and uniqueness of the lasso estimator in low and high dimensions

    Karl Ewald and Ulrike Schneider. On the distribution, model selection properties and uniqueness of the lasso estimator in low and high dimensions. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 2017. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54044415

    2017

  51. [59]

    Tibshirani

    Alnur Ali and Ryan J. Tibshirani. The generalized lasso problem and uniqueness. Elec- tronic Journal of Statistics, 2018. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 51755233

    2018

  52. [60]

    The geometry of uniqueness, sparsity and clustering in penalized estimation

    Ulrike Schneider and Patrick Tardivel. The geometry of uniqueness, sparsity and clustering in penalized estimation. arXiv [math.ST], April 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    The solution path of the group lasso

    Aaron Mishkin and Mert Pilanci. The solution path of the group lasso. 2022. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259504228

    2022

  54. [62]

    The geometry of sparse analysis regularization

    Xavier Dupuis and Samuel Vaiter. The geometry of sparse analysis regularization. SIAM J. Optim. , 33:842–867, 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 195791526

    2019

  55. [63]

    On the uniqueness of solutions for the basis pursuit in the continuum

    Thomas Debarre, Quentin Denoyelle, and Julien Fageot. On the uniqueness of solutions for the basis pursuit in the continuum. Inverse Problems, 38, 2020. URL https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:246473440

    2020

  56. [64]

    The geometry and well-posedness of sparse regularized linear regression

    Jasper Marijn Everink, Yiqiu Dong, and Martin Skovgaard Andersen. The geometry and well-posedness of sparse regularized linear regression. 2024. URL https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:272424099

    2024

  57. [65]

    David L. Donoho. For most large underdetermined systems of linear equations the minimal l1- norm solution is also the sparsest solution. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 59, 2006. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8510060. 11

    2006

  58. [66]

    Statistical learning with sparsity: The lasso and generalizations

    T Hastie, R Tibshirani, and M Wainwright. Statistical learning with sparsity: The lasso and generalizations. May 2015

    2015

  59. [67]

    Geometric algorithms for interpretable manifold learning

    Samson Jonathan Koelle. Geometric algorithms for interpretable manifold learning. Phd thesis, University of Washington, 2022. URL http://hdl.handle.net/1773/48559. Statistics [108]

    2022

  60. [68]

    Decoding by linear programming

    Emmanuel Candes and Terence Tao. Decoding by linear programming. February 2005

    2005

  61. [69]

    Cormen, Charles E

    Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein. Introduction to Algorithms, Third Edition. The MIT Press, 3rd edition, 2009. ISBN 0262033844

    2009

  62. [70]

    Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

    Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall Press, USA, 3rd edition, 2009. ISBN 0136042597

    2009

  63. [71]

    How many random restarts are enough

    Travis Dick, Eric Wong, and Christoph Dann. How many random restarts are enough. 2014. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9473630

    2014

  64. [72]

    Generalized qr factorization and its applications

    E Anderson, Z Bai, and J Dongarra. Generalized qr factorization and its applications. Linear Algebra Appl., 162-164:243–271, February 1992. 12 6 Supplement This section contains algorithms, proofs, and experiments in support of the main text. 6.1 Algorithms We give definitions...

    1992

  65. [1992]

    doi: 10.1109/TFTSA.1992.274245

    Proceedings of the IEEE-SP International Symposium on Time-Frequency and Time- Scale Analysis, pages 7–10, 1992. doi: 10.1109/TFTSA.1992.274245. 10

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.