Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quasi-difference-convexity: Modernization of Quasi-differentiable Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a broad class of composite quasi-difference-convex programs—functions whose directional derivatives are differences of convex functions—can be minimized by iterative strongly convex surrogate programming, with…

desk verdict A solid theory paper with real new preservation and convergence results; the exact-solve caveat is acknowledged and shouldn't block peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12413 v1 pith:BWTSWIMX submitted 2025-07-16 math.OC

Jong-Shi Pang , Yulin Peng This is my paper
classification math.OC MSC 90C2690C3049J5290C25
keywords quasi-difference-convexfunctionsquasi-differentiableoptimizationdifference-of-convexprogrammingnonsmoothnonconvexsurrogationdirectionalstationarityfractionalKurdyka-Lojasiewiczinequality
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 argues that the classical notion of quasi-differentiable functions—functions whose directional derivative at any point is a difference of convex functions—deserves a modern life under the name quasi-difference-convex (quasi-dc). It shows that the class is strikingly closed under composition: sums, products, quotients, p-norms, and finite maxima of quasi-dc functions remain quasi-dc, so fractional programs, dc programs, and many composite statistical objectives fit in one framework. The main algorithmic claim is that a min-max composite quasi-dc program can be solved by repeatedly forming a strongly convex surrogate problem from the directional derivative and taking an Armijo line search; accumulation points are weak directional stationary points, and under a finite-max structure they are full directional stationary points. Under additional Lipschitz, sign, and Kurdyka–Lojasiewicz assumptions, the whole iterate sequence converges with rates. A sympathetic reader would care because this unifies classical fractional programming, the difference-of-convex algorithm, and recent composite nonsmooth methods under a single convergence theory, and it upgrades the older subsequential-convergence analyses to sequential convergence with rates.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is surrogation of the directional derivative. At a reference point $\bar{x}$, each composite piece $\theta_j = \phi_j \circ P_j$ is replaced by a parameterized family of convex functions $\hat{\theta}_j(\cdot;\bar{x},\xi)$ that agree with $\theta_j$ at $\bar{x}$ and whose directional derivatives at $\bar{x}$ dominate $\theta_j'(\bar{x};\cdot)$; the parameters $\xi$ index choices of subgradients of the convex and concave parts and active differentiable branches. The algorithm then minimizes the strongly convex program $\min_{z\in X} \max_{j\in M_\varepsilon(\bar{x})} \hat{\theta}_j(z;\bar{x},\xi) + \frac{\rho}{2}\|z-\bar{x}\|^2$, takes an Armijo line search along the difference between the solution and the current point, and repeats. Directional derivative dominance plus the touching property is what turns a stationary condition of the surrogate into directional stationarity of the original, while the dd-joint upper semicontinuity of the surrogates is the limiting tool that lets accumulation-point arguments pass to the limit.

What would settle it

Take a two-variable sum-of-ratios quasi-dc program with a known isolated directional stationary point, implement the basic algorithm with an interior-point solver stopped at a fixed tolerance for each subproblem, and check whether the accumulation point still satisfies weak directional stationarity; a visible failure on a sequence of tightening tolerances would show that the exact-solve assumption is not a removable technicality. Equivalently, construct a bounded-level-set instance satisfying all six surrogate properties except the uniform upper approximation at an accumulation point; if the iterates still converge to a non-stationary point, that assumption is necessary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quasi-difference-convex functions, defined by requiring the directional derivative $f'(\bar{x};\cdot)$ to be representable as $\max_{a\in\underline{\partial}f(\bar{x})} a^{\top}v - \max_{b\in\overline{\partial}f(\bar{x})} b^{\top}v$, form a broad and algorithmically tractable class. The paper proves composition closure results: differentiable, piecewise affine, p-norm, and quasi-dc outer functions composed with quasi-dc inner functions are again quasi-dc, covering sums, products, quotients, and finite maxima. On the algorithmic side, for the composite program $\min_{x\in X} \max_j \phi_j(P_j(x))$, the paper constructs parameterized convex surrogates $\hat{\theta}_j$ that touch the true objective at the reference point and dominate its directional derivative; each iteration solves a strongly convex program and performs an Armijo line search. The convergence theorems state that every accumulation point of the basic algorithm is a weak directional stationary solution, that the finite-max variant computes a directional stationary solution, and that under structural assumptions the whole sequence converges with linear or sublinear rates. The paper presents this as a modernization of quasi-differentiable optimization, replacing the old emphasis on subsequential convergence with the modern standard of sequential convergence and rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every strongly convex surrogate subproblem is solved exactly at each iteration; if only inexact solutions are available—as with any practical iterative solver—the descent and stationarity conclusions of the main theorems do not directly apply, and the paper defers the inexact analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sum-of-ratios fractional programs with nondifferentiable numerators and denominators, including the square-root formulation used in communication systems, are covered by the composite quasi-dc model and inherit the convergence guarantees.
  • The basic algorithm yields weak directional stationarity of every accumulation point; the finite-max enhancement upgrades this to full directional stationarity under a singleton active-branch condition.
  • When the outer functions have Lipschitz gradients, the inner differentiable pieces are Lipschitz, and the proximal parameter $\rho$ is chosen larger than a computable constant, unit step sizes are admissible and the uniform descent inequality holds with no line search.
  • Under the uniform Kurdyka–Lojasiewicz property, the uni-signed partial derivative condition, and singleton active-index sets at accumulation points, the whole iterate sequence converges, linearly when the KL exponent is in $(0,1/2]$ and sublinearly otherwise.
  • The results bring the old quasi-differentiable optimization literature in line with modern difference-of-convex and proximal-style analyses, providing sequential rather than only subsequential convergence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The analysis assumes each strongly convex subproblem is solved exactly at every iteration; the paper explicitly defers inexact solves to future work. A natural testbed is to analyze whether a fixed-tolerance inexact solve, with tolerance driven to zero at a controlled rate, preserves the stationarity conclusions.
  • Because the quasi-dc class includes piecewise affine and folded-concave functions, the framework likely extends to sparse statistical estimation and Heaviside-composite constraints; checking which matching conditions hold for each application would translate the general theory into implementable algorithms.
  • The convergence rates are conditional on a power desingularization function at every accumulation point; computing or bounding the KL exponent for specific ratios, products, and max-composites could turn the qualitative rates into explicit constants for practical problems.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to modernize Pshenichnyi's class of quasi-differentiable functions under the name 'quasi-difference-convex' (quasi-dc), and develops a unified iterative convex-programming framework for minimizing pointwise maxima of composite quasi-dc functions. The paper proves preservation results for quasi-dc under differentiable, piecewise-affine, and p-norm outer compositions, and under general quasi-dc outer composition (Propositions 8 and 9). It then constructs convex surrogates for four types of composite objectives and analyzes two descent algorithms: Algorithm 1, which solves one strongly convex subproblem per iteration and is shown to accumulate at weak directional stationary points (Theorem 19), and Algorithm 2, which solves a finite family of subproblems and is claimed to yield directional stationary points in the finite-max setting (Theorem 22). The final part gives a KL-based sequential convergence and rates result for a simplified exact-subproblem version (Theorems 23, 25, 26). The paper is honest about several limitations, most notably that the analysis assumes exact global solves of the convex subproblems and that certain active-index-set conditions are needed at accumulation points.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a worthwhile contribution by connecting the classical quasi-differentiable optimization literature with modern dc programming and proximal/line-search methodology. The preservation results in Section 3 and the abstract surrogate-property framework of Section 4.2 are useful and go beyond the classical subsequential-only analyses. The paper also ships detailed proofs of the central descent and stationarity arguments, and it is explicit about the assumptions that limit generality. The main weaknesses are that the algorithmic claims are proven only under exact subproblem solves, that Type II and Type IV surrogate properties are asserted without proof, and that the general subsequential convergence result relies on a nontrivial singleton active-set condition at accumulation points. These issues are load-bearing for the broad 'solve a broad class of composite quasi-dc programs' claim, though they do not appear to invalidate the proofs under the stated assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 (paragraph before Algorithm 1); Theorems 19, 22, 26] The convergence analysis assumes that each subproblem (27), and also (39)/(54), is solved exactly, with x_{ν+1/2} the global minimizer. This assumption is load-bearing: Lemma 18 uses exact optimality to prove finite Armijo termination and the descent inequality (34); Theorem 19 uses it to derive (36) and to pass to a limit parameter ξ^∞; Theorem 22 uses it in the comparison (43); and Theorem 26 assumes x_{ν+1} is the unique exact minimizer of (54). The paper explicitly acknowledges that practical convex solvers return only approximate minimizers and defers inexact analysis to future work. As a result, Theorems 19, 22, and 26 do not directly apply to the iterates that would be produced by the algorithms in computational practice. This is not a contradiction in the proofs, but it is a substantial gap between the algorithmic claims and the analyzed regime. I recommend adding an inexact-solve analysis, or at minimum reformulating the headline results as exact-subproblem theory and discussing the perturbation issues that arise with approximate solves.
  2. [Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.4] For Type II (vector-convexified outer) and Type IV (concave outer) compositions, the text asserts that the constructed surrogate functions satisfy the same six properties used by the convergence theory — including dd-joint upper semicontinuity and uniform upper approximation — but no proofs are supplied. Section 4.1.2 says 'details are omitted' for the univariate Type II case and says 'It can be shown' for the multivariate case; Section 4.1.4 says the Type IV surrogates 'share similar properties.' Since Theorem 19 is stated abstractly in terms of those properties, the claimed coverage of Type II and Type IV rests on unverified assertions. The authors should either provide complete proofs of the six properties for these types, or restrict the main convergence theorems to the types for which the properties are established.
  3. [Proposition 11, Remark 12, Theorem 19(B)] The uniform upper approximation condition (15) is needed in the crucial case (B) of Theorem 19, and Proposition 11 shows that this condition for Type I composites requires the active index set M^diff_{k;max}(x∞) to be a singleton at the accumulation point for every k with a positive partial derivative ∂φ/∂y_k. Remark 12 admits that this prevents full treatment of the general finite-max-minus-dc inner structure. This is a structural restriction on the main subsequential convergence theorem, not a minor technicality, because the advertised class of inner functions in (13) includes the case of multiple nonconvex differentiable active pieces. The paper should state this restriction more prominently in the introduction/abstract and should identify which of the motivating applications are actually covered by Theorem 19 and Corollary 21.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Proof of Proposition 6] The formula 'max_{γ∈[a_j,a_j]} γt − max_{γ∈[b_j,b_j]} γt' appears to have a typo: the upper and lower endpoints of the intervals are identical, so the intended intervals with distinct endpoints should be written as [a_j, \bar a_j] and [b_j, \bar b_j].
  2. [Lemma 24] In the final sentence of the proof, 'Passing to the limit ν(∈κ)→0' should be 'ν(∈κ)→∞'.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous spelling inconsistencies, including 'Boulingand' instead of 'Bouligand', 'Lipchitz' instead of 'Lipschitz', 'Lojaziewicz' instead of 'Lojasiewicz', and both 'Dinkelbach' and 'DinKelbach'. Please copyedit the manuscript.
  4. [Section 4.1.1, equation (32)] The denominator term in (32) is written as 'd^diff_j(¯x⊤(x−¯x)' with a missing closing parenthesis; the intended expression should be ∇d^diff_j(¯x)⊤(x−¯x).
  5. [Proposition 8, p-norm case] The displayed identity for ∥F'(¯x;v)∥_p is presented as a sum of a negative convex term and a max of convex terms; since this is meant to prove a dc decomposition, it would be clearer to write it explicitly as [convex function] − [convex function].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quasi-dc framework and convergence theorems are derived from explicit surrogation properties, not from their conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained derivations. Proposition 1 proves the equivalence between quasi-difference-convexity and quasi-differentiability via support-function representations rather than assuming it. The surrogate functions in Section 4 are constructed explicitly for each composite type, and the six properties used later (touching, joint continuity, lower Lipschitz boundedness, directional derivative dominance/consistency, dd-joint upper semicontinuity) are proved in the text rather than stipulated to match the desired stationarity. The convergence theorems (Theorems 19, 22, and 26) follow from these properties plus Armijo descent and limit arguments; the argument does not presuppose that the iterates already satisfy the stationarity claimed. Theorem 23 is imported from the authors' own monograph [20] as a general KL-based sequential-convergence template with a published proof, but it is a standard external black-box result whose hypotheses (sufficient descent and a KL-type inequality) do not encode the paper's quasi-dc stationarity conclusions, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way. The explicit assumption of exact subproblem solves (Section 5, paragraph before Algorithm 1) is a genuine practical limitation of the algorithmic claim, since inexact solves are deferred to future work, but this weakens applicability of Theorems 19/22/26 to the computationally realistic regime without making the conclusions identical to the hypotheses. No empirical predictions are fitted, and no definition is secretly defined in terms of the target result; the 'renaming' of quasi-differentiable functions as quasi-dc is transparent and is not used to manufacture a derivation.

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

The central claim rests on the specific composite structure (13), the postulated surrogate properties, and exact subproblem solves, plus standard convex analysis. No free parameters are fitted to data; algorithmic constants like ρ, σ, β are hyperparameters. For sequential convergence, the KL property and singleton active-set assumptions are additional restrictions explicitly stated in the theorems.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each inner function p_jk has the form (13): a dc function plus the pointwise maximum of finitely many continuously differentiable functions.
    Section 4.1 defines the composite class; the entire algorithm and convergence analysis is restricted to this structure, which excludes more general quasi-dc compositions.
  • domain assumption The surrogate families bθ_j satisfy six properties including directional derivative dominance and dd-joint upper semicontinuity (Subsection 4.2).
    These properties are proven for the four types under additional smoothness/convexity conditions, but are assumed as postulates in the general statements of Theorems 19 and 22.
  • domain assumption At each iteration the strongly convex subproblem (27) is solved exactly.
    Stated before Algorithm 1; the authors acknowledge inexact solves are not covered and defer that analysis to future work.
  • domain assumption For sequential convergence, the objective Θmax + δ_X satisfies the uniform KL property and the active index set MΘ(x∞) is a singleton (Theorem 26).
    These are hypotheses of the final convergence theorem, limiting applicability to KL functions with nondegenerate maxima.
  • standard math Standard convex analysis facts, e.g., support function representation of positively homogeneous convex functions (Rockafellar [80, Corollary 13.1.2]).
    Used in Proposition 1 and throughout the proof of quasi-differentiability equivalence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-difference-convexity: Modernization of Quasi-differentiable Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWTSWIMX

@misc{pith2026250712413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-difference-convexity: Modernization of Quasi-differentiable Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWTSWIMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12413}
}
read the original abstract

Quasi-differentiable functions were introduced by Pshenichnyi in a 1969 monograph written in Russian and translated in an English version in 1971. This class of nonsmooth functions was studied extensively in two decades since but has not received much attention in today's wide optimization literature. This regrettable omission is in spite of the fact that many functions in modern day applications of optimization can be shown to be quasi-differentiable. In essence, a quasi-differentiable function is one whose directional derivative at an arbitrary reference vector, as a function of the direction, is the difference of two positively homogenous, convex functions. Thus, to bring quasi-differentiable functions closer to the class of difference-of-convex functions that has received fast growing attention in recent years in connection with many applied subjects, we propose to rename quasi-differentiable functions as quasi-difference-convex (quasi-dc) functions. Besides modernizing and advancing this class of nonconvex and nondifferentiable functions, our research aims to put together a unified treatment of iterative convex-programming based descent algorithms for solving a broad class of composite quasi-dc programs and to establish their subsequential convergence, sequential convergence, and rates of convergence; the latter two topics are in line with the modern focus of such analysis for convex programs and some extensions and are departures from the sole emphasis of subsequential convergence in the traditional studies of quasi-differentiable optimization. Through this research, we have gained significant new insights and understanding, advanced the fundamentals, and broadened the applications of this neglected yet pervasive class of nonconvex and nondifferentiable functions and their optimization.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Solving Constrained Affine Heaviside Composite Optimization Problems by a Progressive IP Approach

    math.OC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A progressive IP method with successive decomposition and approximation solves constrained affine Heaviside composite optimization problems, with proven convergence to local optima and numerical support from classific...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [20]

    Cui and J.S

    Y. Cui and J.S. Pang . Modern Nonconvex Nondifferentiable Optimization . MOS-SIAM Se- ries on Optimization. SIAM Publication (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Ahn, J.S

    M. Ahn, J.S. Pang, and J. Xin . Difference-of-convex learning: Directional stationarity, optimality, and sparsity. SIAM Journal on Optimization 27(3): 1637–1665 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    Almogy and O

    Y. Almogy and O. Levin. A class of fractional programming problems. Operations Research 19: 57–67 (1971)

    1971

  4. [3]

    Attouch and J

    H. Attouch and J. Bolte. The convergence of the proximal algorithm for nonsmooth func- tions involving analytic features. Mathematical Programming 116: 5–16 (2009)

    2009

  5. [4]

    Attouch, J

    H. Attouch, J. Bolte, and B.F. Svaiter . Convergence of descent methods for semi- algebraic and tame problems: proximal algorithms, forward backward splitting, and regularized Gauss Seidel methods. Mathematical Programing 137: 91–129 (2013)

    2013

  6. [5]

    Bagirov, A.M

    A. Bagirov, A.M. Rubinov, and V,F. Demyanov . Numerical methods for minimizing quasi differentiable functions: A survey and comparison. In V. Demyanov and A. Rubinov (eds.), Quasidifferentiability and Related Topics . Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000) pp. 33- 71

    2000

  7. [6]

    A. Beck. Introduction to Nonlinear Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications with Python and MATLAB. Second edition. MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization. SIAM Publication (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    H. Benson . Using concave envelopes to globally solve the non-linear sum of ratios problem. Journal of Global Optimization 22: 343–364 (2002)

    2002

Show all 98 references
  1. [8]

    H. Benson. Global optimization algorithm for the non-linear sum of ratios problem. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 112: 1–29 (2002)

    2002

  2. [9]

    Bertsekas

    D.P. Bertsekas. Nonlinear Programming. Third Edition. Athena Scientific (Belmont 2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Bo ¸t, M.N

    R.I. Bo ¸t, M.N. Dao, and G. Li. Extrapolated proximal subgradient algorithms for noncon- vex and nonsmooth fractional programs.Mathematics of Operations Research47(3): 2415–2443 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Bo ¸t, G

    R.I. Bo ¸t, G. Li, and M. Tao. A full splitting algorithm for fractional programs with struc- tured numerators and denominators. arXiv:2312.14341v1 (December 2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J.V. Burke. Descent methods for composite nondifferentiable optimization problems. Math- ematical Programming 33(3): 260–279 (1985)

    1985

  6. [13]

    Burke and M.C

    J.V. Burke and M.C. Ferris. A Gauss-Newton method for convex composite optimization. Mathematical Programming 71(2): 179–194 (1995)

    1995

  7. [14]

    Burke, T

    J.V. Burke, T. Hoheisel, and Q.V. Nguyen . A study of convex convex-composite func- tions via infimal convolution with applications. Mathematics of Operations Research 46(4): 1324–1348 (2021). 52

    2021

  8. [15]

    F.H. Clarke. Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis . Classics in Applied Mathematics, Vol- ume 5. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (Philadelphia 1990). [Reprint of the work first published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (New York 1983).]

    1990

  9. [16]

    Crouzeix, J.A

    J.P. Crouzeix, J.A. Ferland, and S. Schaible . An algorithm for generalized fractional programs. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 47(1): 35–49 (1985)

    1985

  10. [17]

    Crouzeix and J.A

    J.P. Crouzeix and J.A. Ferland . Algorithms for generalized fractional programs. Mathe- matical Programming 52: 181–207 (1991)

    1991

  11. [18]

    Y. Cui, J. Liu, and J.S. Pang. The minimization of piecewise Functions: Pseudo stationarity. Journal of Convex Analysis 30: 793–834 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Y. Cui, J. Liu, and J.S. Pang . Nonconvex and nonsmooth approaches for affine chance- constrained stochastic programs Set-Valued and Variational Analysis 30(3): 1149–1211 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Cui, J.S

    Y. Cui, J.S. Pang, and B. Sen . Composite difference-max programs for modern statistical estimation problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization 28(4): 3344–3374 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Demyanov

    V.F. Demyanov. Quasidifferentiable optimization: Optimality conditions. In C. Floudas and P. Pardalos, editors. Encyclopedia of Optimization . (Springer, Boston 2008) pp. 3205–3213

    2008

  15. [23]

    Demyanov and L.C.W

    V.F. Demyanov and L.C.W. Dixon . Editors: Quasidifferentiable calculus. Mathematical Programming Studies 29 (Springer 1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    Demyanov, S

    V.F. Demyanov, S. Gamidov, T.I. Sivelina, L.C.W. Dixon. An algorithm for minimizing a certain class of quasidifferentiable functions Mathematical programming study 29: 74–84 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    Demyanov and L.N

    V.F. Demyanov and L.N. Polyakova. Minimization of a quasi-differentiable function in a quasi-differentiable set. U.S.S.R. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics20(4): 34–43 (1979)

    1979

  18. [26]

    Demyanov, L.N

    V.F. Demyanov, L.N. Polyakova, and A.M. Rubinov . Nonsmoothness and quasidiffer- entiability. Mathematical Programming Study 29: 1–19 (1986)

    1986

  19. [27]

    Demyanov and A

    V.F. Demyanov and A. Rubinov . On quasidifferentiable functionals. Soviet Mathematics Doklady 21: 14–17 (1980)

    1980

  20. [28]

    Demyanov and A

    V.F. Demyanov and A. Rubinov . Quasidifferentiability and Related Topics . Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers (Dordrecht 2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    de Oliveira

    W. de Oliveira . Proximal bundle methods for nonsmooth DC programming. Journal of Global Optimization 75(2): 523–563 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Dinkelbach

    W. Dinkelbach . Nonlinear fractional programming. Management Science 13(7): 492–498 (1967)

    1967

  23. [31]

    F an and R

    J. F an and R. Li. Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle prop- erties. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96(456): 1348–1360 (2001). 53

    2001

  24. [32]

    J. F an, L. Xue, and H. Zou. Strong oracle optimality of folded concave penalized estimation. Annals of Statistics 42(3): 819–849 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    F ang, J

    Y. F ang, J. Liu, and J.S. Pang. Treatment learning with Gini constraints by Heaviside com- posite optimization and a progressive method. Revision of arXiv:2401.01565 (Original August 2024; revised January 2025)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Freund and F

    R.W. Freund and F. Jarre. Solving the sum-of-ratio problem by an interior- point method. Journal of Global Optimization 19: 83–102 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Y. Gao. Optimality conditions with Lagrange multipliers for inequality constrained quasidif- ferentiable functions. In V.F. Demyanov and A. Rubinov, editors: Quasidifferentiability and Related Topics. Kluwer Academic Publishers (Dordrecht 2000) pp. 151–162

    2000

  28. [36]

    Geiping and M

    J. Geiping and M. Moeller . Composite optimization by nonconvex majorization- minimization. SIAM Journal on Imaging Science 11(4): 2494–2528 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Gharanjik, M

    A. Gharanjik, M. Soltanalian, B.S. Mysore, and B. Ottersten. Grab-n-pull: A max- min fractional quadratic programming framework with applications in signal and information processing. Signal Processing, 160, 02 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    G ´omez, Z

    A. G ´omez, Z. He, and J.S. Pang . Linear-step solvability of some folded concave and singly-parametric sparse optimization problems. Mathematical Programming 198(2): 1339– 1380 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Gorokhovik and M

    V.V. Gorokhovik and M. Trafimovich. Positively homogeneous functions revisited. Jour- nal of optimization theory and applications 171(2): 481–503 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Gorokhovik and M

    V.V. Gorokhovik and M. Trafimovich. Saddle representations of positively homogeneous functions by linear functions. Optimization letters 12: 1971–1980 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Gruzdeva and A.S

    T.V. Gruzdeva and A.S. Strekalovsky . On solving the sum-of-ratios problem. Applied Mathematics and Computation 318: 260–269 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and M. W ainwright. Statistical Learning with Sparsity: The Lasso and Generalizations . Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, Volume 143, CRC Press (Boca Raton 2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    P. Hartman. On functions representable as a difference of convex functions. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 9(3): 707–713 (1959)

    1959

  36. [44]

    Hiriart-Urruty

    J.B. Hiriart-Urruty. Generalized differentiability, duality and optimization for problems dealing with differences of convex functions. In J. Ponstein (ed.), Convexity and Duality in Optimization. Proceedings of the Symposium on Convexity and Duality in Optimization Held at th...

    1985

  37. [45]

    Hochbaum and Ch

    D.S. Hochbaum and Ch. Lu . A faster algorithm for solving a generalization of isotonic median regression and a class of fused Lasso problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization 27(4): 2563–2596 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    P.J. Huber. Robust regression: Asymptotics, conjectures, and Monte Carlo. Annals of Statis- tics 1(5): 799–821 (1973). 54

    1973

  39. [47]

    Ishikuka

    Y.O. Ishikuka . Optimality conditions for quasi-differentiable programs with application to two-level optimization. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 26(6): 1388–1398 (1988)

    1988

  40. [48]

    Jargalsaikhan1 and B

    D. Jargalsaikhan1 and B. Darkhijav. On the minimization problem of the sum of ratios. Journal of Institute of Mathematics and Digital Technology 4(1): (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Joki, A.M

    K. Joki, A.M. Bagirov, N. Karmitsa, and M.M. M ¨akel¨a. A proximal bundle method for nonsmooth DC optimization utilizing nonconvex cutting planes. Journal of Global Opti- mization 68: 501–535 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Kanzow and T

    Ch. Kanzow and T. Neder . A bundle-type method for nonsmooth DC programs. Journal of Global Optimization 88: 285-326 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    K.C. Kiwiel. A quadratic approximation method for minimizing a class of quasidifferentiable functions Numerische Mathematik 45(3): 411–430 (1984)

    1984

  44. [52]

    Kiwiel, V.F

    K.C. Kiwiel, V.F. Demyanov, L.C.W. Dixon . A linearization method for minimizing certain quasidifferentiable functions. Mathematical programming study 29: 85–94 (1986)

    1986

  45. [53]

    Korramabadi

    S.S. Korramabadi. Sum of Ratios Optimization using a new variant of Dinkelbach’s Algo- rithm. Master thesis. Graduate Program in Electrical and Computer Engineering. York Uni- versity (May 2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    K. Kurdyka. On gradients of functions definable in o-minimal structures. Annal de l’Institute Fourier 48(3): 769–783 (1998)

    1998

  47. [55]

    Le Thi and T

    H.A. Le Thi and T. Pham Dinh. DC programming and DCA: Thirty years of developments. Mathematical Programming, Series B 169(1): 5–68 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Le Thi and T

    H.A. Le Thi and T. Pham Dinh. The DC programming and DCA revised with DC models of real world nonconvex optimization problems. Annals of Operations Research 133(1–4): 23–46 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Le Thi and T

    H.A. Le Thi and T. Pham Dinh . Recent advances in in DC programming and DCA. In N.T. Nguyen and H.A. Le-Thi, editors. Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence, Volume 8342 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2014) pp. 1–37

    2014

  50. [58]

    H.A. Le Thi,. V.G. Huynh, and T. Pham Dinh. Minimizing compositions of differences-of- convex functions with smooth mappings.Mathematics of Operations Research49(2): 1140-1168 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    H.A. Le Thi,. V.G. Huynh, and T. Pham Dinh . Analysis of difference-of-convex algo- rithm with subanalytic data. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 179(1) 103–126 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Le Thi and T

    H.A. Le Thi and T. Pham Dinh . DC approximation approaches for sparse optimization. European Journal of Operations Research 244(1): 26–46 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    A.S. Lewis. Lecture notes for the course ORIE 7391: Topics in Mathematical Programming at Cornell University in Fall 2020 (transcribed by Qingxuan Jiang). https://mathreader. github.io/files/note_kurdyka_lojasiewicz_inequality.pdf. 55

    2020

  54. [62]

    Li and T.K

    G. Li and T.K. Pong . Calculus of the exponent of Kurdyka-Lojasiewicz inequality and its applications to linear convergence of first-order methods. Foundation of Computational Mathematics 18: 1199–1232 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Li and Y

    H. Li and Y. Cui . Variational theory and algorithms for a class of asymptotically approach- able nonconvex problems. Mathematics of Operations Research (2025). arXiv: 2307.00780v3 (November 2024)

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. Li, Y. W ang, and A. Merchant. Spectral normalized-cut graph partitioning with fairness constraints. arXiv:2307.12065v1 (July 2023)

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Q. Li, L. Shen, N. Zhang, and J. Zhou . A proximal algorithm with backtracked extrapo- tion for a class of structured fractional programming. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 56: 98–122 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Liu and J.S

    J. Liu and J.S. Pang. Risk-based robust statistical learning by stochastic difference-of-convex value-function optimization. Operations Research 71(2): 397–414 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Liu and J.S

    J. Liu and J.S. Pang Heaviside Composite Optimization: Theory, Algorithms, Applications, and Numerics. Monograph in progress (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Lojasiewicz

    M.S. Lojasiewicz. Sur la probl` eme de division.Studia Mathematica 18(1): 87–136 (1959)

    1959

  61. [69]

    Lojasiewicz

    M.S. Lojasiewicz . Ensembles semi-analytiques. Institute des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques Bures-sur-Yvette (1964)

    1964

  62. [70]

    Z. Lu, Z. Zhou, and Z. Sun . Enhanced proximal DC algorithms with extrapolation for a class of structured nonsmooth DC minimization. Mathematical Programming 176(1-2): 369– 401 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Lu and Z

    Z. Lu and Z. Zhou. Nonmonotone enhanced proximal DC algorithms for a class of structured nonsmooth DC programming. SIAM Journal on Optimization 29(4): 2725–2752 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Mordukhovich

    B.S. Mordukhovich. Variational Analysis and Applications. Springer Monographs in Math- ematics (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Nouiehed, J.S

    M. Nouiehed, J.S. Pang, and M. Razaviyayn. On the pervasiveness of difference-convexity in optimization and statistics. Mathematical Programming 174(1–2): 195–222 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Nurminski

    E.A. Nurminski. Non-differentiable optimization with ε-subgradient methods. Working paper WP-78-55. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (November 1978)

    1978

  67. [75]

    J.S. Pang, M. Razaviyayn, and A. Alvarado . Computing B-stationary points of nons- mooth dc programs. Mathematics of Operations Research 42, 95–118 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Pham Dinh and H.A

    T. Pham Dinh and H.A. Le Thi . Convex analysis approach to DC programming: Theory, algorithm and applications. Acta Mathematica Vietnamica 22(1): 289–355 (1997)

    1997

  69. [77]

    Poliquin and R.T

    R.A. Poliquin and R.T. Rockafellar . Amenable functions in optimization. Chapter in book edited by F. Giannessi Nonsmooth Optimization Methods Taylor and Francis Group 338–353 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Pshenichnyi

    B.N. Pshenichnyi. Necessary Conditions for an Extremum. Marcel Dekker, New York (1971). 56

    1971

  71. [79]

    Robinson

    S.M. Robinson. Implicit B-differentiability in generalized equations. Technical report #2854, Mathematics Research Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1985)

    1985

  72. [80]

    Rockafellar

    R.T. Rockafellar. Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press (1970)

    1970

  73. [81]

    Rockafellar and R.J.B

    R.T. Rockafellar and R.J.B. Wets . Variational Analysis. (Springer, Berlin 1998)

    1998

  74. [82]

    J.O. Royset . Approximations of semicontinuous functions with applications to stochastic optimization and statistical estimation. Mathematical programming 184(1–2): 289–318 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    Scholtes

    S. Scholtes. Introduction to Piecewise Differentiable Equations. Springer Briefs in Optimiza- tion (Springer-Verlag, New York 2002)

    2002

  76. [84]

    A. Shapiro . Quasidifferential calculus and first-order optimality conditions in nonsmooth optimization. Mathematical Programming Study 29: 56–68 (1986)

    1986

  77. [85]

    Shapiro and Y

    A. Shapiro and Y. Yomdin . On functions representable as a difference of two convex func- tions, and necessary conditions in constrained optimization. Department of Mathematics, Ben- Gurion University of the Negev. Preprint (1987)

    1987

  78. [86]

    P. Shen, Y. W ang, amd D. Wu. A spatial branch and bound algorithm for solving the sum of linear ratios optimization problem. Numerical algorithms 93(3): 1373–1400 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Shen and W

    K. Shen and W. Yu . Fractional programming for communication systems–Part I: Power control and beamforming. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 66(10): 2616–2630 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Shen and W

    K. Shen and W. Yu . Fractional programming for communication systems–Part II: Upload scheduling via matching. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 66(10): 2631–2644 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    Shi and J

    J. Shi and J. Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence . 22(8): 888–905 (2000)

    2000

  82. [90]

    Tibshirani, H

    R.J. Tibshirani, H. Hoefling, R.A. Tibshirani. Nearly-isotonic regression. Technometrics 53(1): 54–61 (2011)

    2011

  83. [91]

    Tibshirani, M

    R. Tibshirani, M. Saunders, S. Rosset, J. Zhu, and K. Knight . Sparsity and smooth- ness via the fused lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Method- ology 67(1): 91–108 (2005)

    2005

  84. [92]

    H. Tuy . Global minimization of a difference of two convex functions. In B. Cornet, V.H. Nguyen, and J.P. Vial, editors. Nonlinear Analysis and Optimization (Springer, Berlin 1987) pp. 150–182

    1987

  85. [93]

    H. Tuy . Convex Analysis and Global Optimization . Second Edition. Springer Optimization and Its Applications. (Springer, Cham, 2016). [First Edition: Kluwer Publishers, Dordrecht (1998).]

    1998

  86. [94]

    S. Uryasev. On the anti-monotonicity of differential mappings connected with general equi- librium problem. Optimization 19(5): 693–709 (1988)

    1988

  87. [95]

    van Ackooij, S

    W. van Ackooij, S. Demassey, P. Javal, H. Morais, W. de Oliveira, and B. Swaminathan. A bundle method for nonsmoothDC programming with application to chance- constrained problems. Computational Optimization and Applications 78(2): 451–490 (2021). 57

    2021

  88. [96]

    Yu and J

    S.X. Yu and J. Shi. Multiclass spectral clustering. ICCV’03: Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. Vol. 2 (2003) page 31

    2003

  89. [97]

    Zappone and E.A

    A. Zappone and E.A. Jorswieck . Energy efficiency in wireless networks via fractional programming theory. Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory 11(3-4): 185–396 (2014)

    2014

  90. [98]

    J. Zhou, N. Zhang, and Q. Li . An equivalent formulation and multi-proximity gradient algorithm for a class of nonsmooth fractional programming. arXiv: 2311.00957v2 (March 2024). 58

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.