REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references
Nonlinear Conjugate Gradient Methods for Optimization of Set-Valued Mappings of Finite Cardinality
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the Dai-Yuan, Polak-Ribière-Polyak, and Hestenes-Stiefel conjugate gradient schemes extend to set-valued optimization and converge globally, with no requirement that the ordering cone be finitely generated.
desk verdict Real extension of CG to set-valued problems with general cones, but line search existence carries an unstated uniform lower-bound hypothesis that the convergence theorems don't assume. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the scalarized subproblem $\varphi(x)=\min_{(a,d)\in P_x\times\mathbb{R}^n}\big[F_a(x,d)+\tfrac12\|d\|^2\big]$ with $F_a(x,d)=\max_{j\in[\omega(x)]}\psi_e\big(\nabla f_{a_j}(x)^\top d\big)$, where $\psi_e$ is the Gerstewitz scalarizing function for the cone $K$; its minimizer $(a_k,u_k)$ supplies both the stopping test ($u_k=0$ characterizes stationary points) and the base descent direction. Strong convexity in $d$ yields the key inequality $-F_k(x_k,u_k)>\tfrac12\|u_k\|^2$ at nonstationary iterates, which converts any lower bound on $|F_k|$ into a lower bound on $\|u_k\|^2$ and is what turns a Zoutendijk-style sum into a convergence statement. The second piece is the Wolfe-type line search (displays (14)–(15)) whose sufficient-decrease half bounds $F(x_{k+1})$ above, in the set order, by the linearized images $f_{a_j}(x_k)+\rho\alpha_k F_k(x_k,d_k)e$; Lipschitz continuity of the gradients and monotonicity of $G(A)=\inf_{z\in A}\psi_e(z)$ with respect to $\preceq_\ell$ then produce the Zoutendijk-like inequality of Theorem 3.2, $\sum_k F_k^2(x_k,d_k)/\|d_k\|^2<+\infty$. The third piece is the regular restart in Step 4 of Algorithm 1, resetting $d_k=u_k$ when $|F_{k-1}(x_k,d_{k-1})|<F_k(x_k,d_{k-1})$, which guarantees $d_k$ is always a $K$-descent direction; access to non-finitely generated cones comes from representing the dual cone through a compact generator $C\subset K^*$ of the form $\{w\in K^*:w^\top e=1\}$, used in the existence proof of Wolfe steps, while PRP and HS convergence is routed through the bounded-step Property (*) of [7] that controls $\beta_k$ when consecutive steps are short.
What would settle it
Run the paper's Algorithm 1 with the Dai-Yuan rule ($\beta_k=\eta\beta_k^{\mathrm{DY}}$, $0\le\eta<(1-\sigma)/(1+\sigma)$) on Example 6.5's problem with the non-finitely generated cone $K_2=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^3: y_3\ge\sqrt{y_1^2+y_2^2}\}$ from the paper's 100 initial points, recording the partial sums of $F_k^2(x_k,d_k)/\|d_k\|^2$ and the norms $\|u_k\|$; Theorem 3.2 predicts bounded partial sums and Theorem 5.1 predicts $\liminf_{k\to\infty}\|u_k\|=0$, so any run where the partial sums diverge while every line search reports a valid Wolfe step, or where $\|u_k\|$ stays bounded away from zero, refutes the central claims. A second probe targets well-definedness: instrument the Wolfe line search to flag when no $\alpha>0$ satisfies (14) on a $K$-descent direction, since the existence guarantee (Theorem 3.1) rests on condition (16) — any flagged instance would show exactly where the guarantee chain depends on that extra boundedness-below condition.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's discovery, on its own terms, is that the entire convergent-descent template of smooth optimization survives when the objective is a finite-cardinality set-valued map $F(x)=\{f_1(x),\dots,f_p(x)\}$ ordered by the lower set less relation, provided the gradient is replaced by the minimizer $(a_k,u_k)$ of the auxiliary scalarized problem $\varphi(x)=\min_{(a,d)\in P_x\times\mathbb{R}^n}\big[\max_{j\in[\omega(x)]}\psi_e(\nabla f_{a_j}(x)^\top d)+\tfrac12\|d\|^2\big]$, where $\psi_e$ is the Gerstewitz scalarizing function for the cone $K$ and the inner maximum runs over the active indices of the minimal elements of $F(x)$. With this surrogate the paper defines $K$-descent directions, a sufficient descent condition, and standard and strong Wolfe conditions for set-valued functions (displays (14) and (15)); proves that a step satisfying them exists along any $K$-descent ray (Theorem 3.1) using a compact generator of the dual cone $K^*$, which is how non-finitely generated cones enter; and proves a Zoutendijk-like inequality $\sum_k F_k^2(x_k,d_k)/\|d_k\|^2<+\infty$ for iterates following Wolfe steps (Theorem 3.2). The convergence theorems — Theorem 4.1 for the general scheme with any $\beta_k\ge 0$ under a divergence condition, Theorem 5.1 for a bounded fraction of the Dai-Yuan parameter, and Theorems 5.2–5.3 for the Polak-Ribière-Polyak and Hestenes-Stiefel parameters via the bounded-step Property (*) of [7] — all conclude $\liminf_{k\to\infty}\|u_k\|=0$: a subsequence of iterates reaches the necessary stationarity condition for local weak minimality, under the usual Lipschitz and bounded-level-set assumptions and with no restriction that the ordering cone be finitely generated.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the component functions stay bounded below, in the cone's ordering sense, along every search ray the algorithm tries: this is condition (16) inside Theorem 3.1, it is what guarantees a usable step size exists, and it is stronger than the bounded-level-set assumptions that the convergence theorems themselves are stated under — if it fails, the algorithm may have no admissible step even though all the assumptions used in the convergence proofs hold.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The three classical update rules (Dai-Yuan, Polak-Ribière-Polyak, Hestenes-Stiefel) now carry global-convergence guarantees for set optimization under any closed, convex, pointed, solid ordering cone, including non-finitely generated cones such as the second-order cone of Example 6.5, a case the prior conjugate gradient theories for vector and set objectives explicitly left open.
- The framework gives a reusable template: any future choice of $\beta_k$ that is nonnegative and satisfies the bounded-step Property (*) inherits global convergence from Theorems 3.2 and 5.2, so extending the family of convergent set-CG methods reduces to verifying a bounded-step condition rather than re-proving the convergence argument.
- For robust counterpart problems with finitely many scenarios ($F(x)=\{f_1(x),\dots,f_p(x)\}$), the algorithms provide a provably convergent first-order method; the numerical comparison shows the three new rules are competitive with the existing Fletcher-Reeves and conjugate-descent baselines in iterations and runtime, with the PRP and HS rules ahead on some instances and DY ahead on the cone probl
- Because the convergence target is stationarity, which is necessary for local weak minimality, the methods are suitable as a first-order engine that produces candidate limit points to be certified as weakly minimal afterward through the partition-set reduction of Lemma 2.4.
- The regular restart in Step 4 — resetting $d_k=u_k$ whenever $|F_{k-1}(x_k,d_{k-1})|<F_k(x_k,d_{k-1})$ — is what guarantees every direction is a $K$-descent direction, and the authors identify as future work the search for a Wolfe-type line search that removes this restart, which would let the iterates keep full CG direction updates more often.
Reading between the lines
- The line search's well-definedness (Theorem 3.1) needs the extra boundedness condition (16) — all component functions bounded below in the cone order along every search ray — which is not among the standing assumptions (3.1)–(3.3) invoked by the convergence theorems. My reading: the practical guarantee is conditional on the search never descending to $-\infty$ in the cone order along a ray; a smoo
- The theory treats the subproblem $\varphi$ at each iterate as an exact oracle and requires the minimal elements of $F(x_k)$ to be computed at every step; on large-$p$ or high-dimensional instances these inner computations, rather than the CG iteration itself, are likely to dominate the runtime. A testable extension is to replace the exact solve with a few accelerated subgradient steps and check nu
- Convergence is to stationarity, and stationarity is only necessary for local weak minimality; the paper does not quantify how often the terminal iterates are actually minimal. In Example 6.1 it reports (by inspection of plots) that the generated points are weakly minimal, so an empirical study of the minimality rate on other instances would sharpen the practical reading of the theorems.
- Because the Zoutendijk-like inequality and the Property (*) argument are stated in the same shape as the scalar and vector cases, the same proof skeleton plausibly transfers to other descent templates — for instance projected or proximal variants for constrained set optimization — which would make the paper's contribution a general recipe for set-valued first-order methods rather than three isolat
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript develops nonlinear conjugate gradient methods for unconstrained set-valued optimization problems whose objective maps have finite image sets under the lower set less preorder. It introduces a notion of K-descent direction and standard/strong Wolfe conditions for set-valued functions, proves an existence theorem for Wolfe steps, derives a Zoutendijk-like inequality, and then states global convergence results for a general conjugate gradient scheme and for Dai-Yuan, Polak-Ribière-Polyak, and Hestenes-Stiefel variants. The numerical section compares the proposed methods with two existing conjugate gradient methods on five test instances, including one with a non-finitely generated ordering cone.
Significance. The intended contribution is meaningful: if the proofs are completed, the paper would extend nonlinear conjugate gradient methods to set optimization without requiring the ordering cone to be finitely generated and without imposing a regularity condition on the solution set. The proposed Zoutendijk-like condition and the treatment of a non-polyhedral cone in the numerical experiments are potentially useful advances over the vector-optimization CG literature, and the paper also engages with an open problem raised in that literature. However, as written, several load-bearing hypotheses are either unstated in the standing assumptions or not verified for the proposed algorithms, and one central proof is deferred to a prior work by reference. These gaps prevent the paper from currently supporting its main convergence claims.
major comments (3)
- [Theorem 3.1 / Section 4.1] The existence of a Wolfe step in Theorem 3.1 is proved only under the additional assumption (16), which is not part of Assumptions 3.1–3.3 and is not restated in Theorems 4.1, 5.1, or 5.3. Section 4.1 explicitly justifies Step 5 by Theorem 3.1, so the sequences whose convergence is asserted are not proved to exist without (16). The hypothesis (16) is not a consequence of the standing assumptions: for F(x)={(x,x^2)} with K=R_+^2, x0=1, and the descent direction d=-1, the first component tends to -infinity along the ray, so (16) fails even though Assumptions 3.1–3.3 can be satisfied. The authors need either to add (16) to the standing assumptions and to the convergence theorems, or to prove Wolfe-step existence under a weaker condition that is actually satisfied by the algorithm's iterates.
- [Theorems 5.2 and 5.3] Theorem 5.2, which is the vehicle for the PRP and HS convergence results, has no proof: the text states only 'The lines of the proof are similar to [30, Theorem 5.10]'. The setting here differs from [30] in essential ways (set-valued objective, variable partition sets P_k, variable cardinality omega_k, and a different step-length condition), so this deferral is not sufficient for a load-bearing result. Moreover, Theorem 5.3 assumes that d_k satisfies the sufficient descent condition (12) for beta_k=max{beta_PRP_k,0} or max{beta_HS_k,0}, but no lemma in the manuscript establishes this condition for these choices of beta_k; Proposition 4.1 gives a sufficient-descent condition of the form (28), and the PRP/HS formulas are not shown to fit it. Without such a verification, Theorem 5.3 does not establish convergence of the PRP and HS methods as defined in Algorithm 1.
- [Section 6, Example 6.4] The numerical example 6.4 is degenerate: in the displayed definition of f_i(x), the bracketed expression equals (1,-1) for every i in [5], so all five component functions are identical and F(x) is always a singleton. This example therefore does not exercise the finite-cardinality set-valued structure, and the comparisons in Tables 4 and 5, as well as the discussion of the two ordering cones K1 and K2, are not informative for the proposed methods. The example should be corrected or replaced.
minor comments (6)
- [Section 4.1] There is a placeholder '(Theorem )' in the sentence preceding Algorithm 1; the theorem number should be filled in.
- [Algorithm 1, Step 5] In the strong-Wolfe branch, the expression 'F_k(x_k)+alpha_k d_k,d_k)' should read F_k(x_k+alpha_k d_k,d_k).
- [Section 5 heading] The heading 'Hastenes-Stiefel' is a typo; the standard spelling is 'Hestenes-Stiefel', as used in the abstract.
- [Theorem 3.1, proof of Step 2] The symbol alpha^diamond is introduced without definition, and the sentence 'that is, (17) is not true for all alpha in [0,alpha^diamond], where alpha^diamond > bar-alpha' is unclear; it should be rephrased.
- [Theorem 3.1, proof of Step 2] The phrase 'the relation (17) does not not hold for all alpha in [0,infty)' contains a double negative and should be corrected to 'does not hold for all alpha in [0,infty)'.
- [Theorem 4.1] The divergence condition (31) is an additional assumption, not a consequence of the standing assumptions; since none of the subsequent results verifies (31), the global-convergence claim for the general scheme should be stated as conditional on (31) whenever this theorem is cited.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the convergence theorems follow from the paper's own Wolfe line-search and Zoutendijk-like arguments; the only flagged issue is an extra hypothesis in Theorem 3.1, which is a correctness gap rather than circular reasoning.
full rationale
The central convergence results are derived from the paper's own assumptions and new line-search/Zoutendijk machinery, not from fitted data or from conclusions that are built into the hypotheses. Theorem 3.2 proves the Zoutendijk-like sum (24) from the standard Wolfe conditions and Lipschitz continuity, and Theorems 4.1, 5.1, and 5.3 then derive liminf ||u_k|| = 0 by standard contradiction arguments using that sum. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction, and no result is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to establish. The self-citation to [24] supplies previously proposed FR and CD conjugate gradient methods for comparison and provides the stationary-point terminology; the present convergence theorems do not rely on [24] as their load-bearing justification. One non-circular but genuine issue: Theorem 3.1's existence proof for Wolfe steps assumes condition (16), that A ≺_K f_{a_j}(x + alpha d) along the entire ray, and this condition is not among the standing Assumptions 3.1-3.3 used in the convergence theorems. This means Algorithm 1's well-definedness is not fully supported as stated, since Step 5 is justified by Theorem 3.1; however, this is a missing/extra hypothesis, not a circular reduction of the convergence claim to its own premise. Similarly, Theorem 5.2 says its proof is similar to an external result [30, Theorem 5.10] and does not reproduce all details; importing an external theorem by citation is not circularity. The numerical experiments compare against fixed benchmark instances independently; they are not used as inputs to the convergence proofs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the fitted-variable and self-citation concerns that define circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- rho (sufficient decrease parameter) =
0.0001 in experiments
- sigma (Wolfe curvature parameter) =
0.1 in experiments
- eta (DY step restriction) =
0 <= eta < (1-sigma)/(1+sigma)
- e (Gerstewitz scalarization element) =
(1,1,1) or (0,0,1) in examples
assumptions (8)
- domain assumption K is a closed, convex, solid, pointed cone in R^m.
- domain assumption F(x) = {f_1(x),...,f_p(x)} with continuously differentiable f_i.
- domain assumption Level set L = {x : F(x) <=_l F(x0)} is bounded.
- domain assumption Gradient functions f_i are Lipschitz continuous on an open set containing L.
- domain assumption The sequence of value sets has a common lower bound: there exists bounded S with S <=_l S_k for all k.
- ad hoc to paper For the search ray, there exists A with A strictly lower than f_{a_j}(x+alpha d) for all alpha>0.
- ad hoc to paper The sequence of step norms diverges: sum 1/||d_k||^2 = infinity.
- domain assumption Property (*) holds for the PRP and HS variants under the assumptions of Theorem 5.2.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Conjugate Gradient Methods for Optimization of Set-Valued Mappings of Finite Cardinality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7MIYCNV
@misc{pith2026241220168,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Conjugate Gradient Methods for Optimization of Set-Valued Mappings of Finite Cardinality},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7MIYCNV}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20168}
}
read the original abstract
This article presents nonlinear conjugate gradient methods for finding local weakly minimal points of set-valued optimization problems under a lower set less ordering relation. The set-valued objective function of the optimization problem under consideration is defined by finitely many continuously differentiable vector-valued functions. For such optimization problems, at first, we propose a general scheme for nonlinear conjugate gradient methods and then introduce Dai-Yuan, Polak-Ribi{\`e}re-Polyak, and Hestenes-Stiefel conjugate gradient parameters for set-valued functions. Toward deriving the general scheme, we introduce a condition of sufficient decrease and Wolfe line searches for set-valued functions. For a given sequence of descent directions of a set-valued function, it is found that if the proposed standard Wolfe line search technique is employed, then the generated sequence of iterates for set optimization follows a Zoutendijk-like condition. With the help of the derived Zoutendijk-like condition, we report that all the proposed nonlinear conjugate gradient schemes are globally convergent under usual assumptions. It is important to note that the ordering cone used in the entire study is not restricted to be finitely generated, and no regularity assumption on the solution set of the problem is required for any of the reported convergence analyses. Finally, we demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through numerical experiments. In the numerical experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods not only on the commonly used test instances for set optimization but also on a few newly introduced problems under general ordering cones that are neither nonnegative hyper-octant nor finitely generated.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[30]
P´ erez, L.L.R., Prudente, L.F.: Nonlinear conjugate gradient me thods for vector optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 28(3), 2690–2720 (2018)
work page 2018
-
[5]
Eichfelder, G., Niebling, J., Rockt¨ aschel, S.: An algorithmic approa ch to multiobjective optimization with decision uncertainty. J. Glob. Optim. 77(1), 3–25 (2020)
work page 2020
-
[1]
Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A.: Robust convex optimization. Math. Op er. Res. 23(4), 769–805 (1998)
work page 1998
-
[2]
Bouza, G., Quintana, E., Tammer, C.: A steepest descent method for set optimization problems with set-valued mappings of finite cardinality. J. Optim. The ory Appl. 190(3), 711–743 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[3]
Drummond, L.M.G., Svaiter, B.F.: A steepest descent method for v ector optimization. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 175(2), 395–414 (2005)
work page 2005
-
[4]
Ehrgott, M., Ide, J., Sch¨ obel, A.: Minmax robustness for multi-o bjective optimization problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 239(1), 17–31 (2014)
work page 2014
-
[6]
In: Recent Developments in Vector Optimization
Eichfelder, G., Jahn, J.: Vector optimization problems and their so lution concepts. In: Recent Developments in Vector Optimization. Vector Optim., pp. 1–27. Springer, Berlin (2012)
work page 2012
-
[7]
Gilbert, J.C., Nocedal, J.: Global convergence properties of conj ugate gradient methods for optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 2(1), 21–42 (1992)
work page 1992
Show all 35 references
-
[8]
Gon¸ calves, M.L.N., Lima, F.S., Prudente, L.F.: A study of Liu-Store y conjugate gradient methods for vector optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 425, 127099 (2022)
2022
-
[9]
Gon¸ calves, M.L.N., Prudente, L.F.: On the extension of the Hager –Zhang conjugate gradient method for vector optimization. Comput. Optim. Appl. 76(3), 889–916 (2020)
2020
-
[10]
preorder relations in set optimization
G¨ unther, C., K¨ obis, E., Popovici, N.: Computing minimal elementsof finite families of sets w.r.t. preorder relations in set optimization. J. Appl. Numer. Op tim. 1(2), 131–144 (2019)
2019
-
[11]
preorder relations in set-valued optimization
G¨ unther, C., K¨ obis, E., Popovici, N.: On strictly minimal elements w.r.t. preorder relations in set-valued optimization. Appl. Set-Valued Anal. Optim. 1(3), 205–219 (2019)
2019
-
[12]
He, Q.R., Chen, C.R., Li, S.J.: Spectral conjugate gradient metho ds for vector optimization problems. Comput. Optim. Appl. 86(2), 457–489 (2023)
2023
-
[13]
IEEE Trans
Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L., While, L.: A review of multiobj ective test prob- lems and a scalable test problem toolkit. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10(5), 477–506 (2006)
2006
-
[14]
Ide, J., K¨ obis, E.: Concepts of efficiency for uncertain multi-ob jective optimization problems based on set order relations. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 80(1), 99–127 (2014)
2014
-
[15]
Fixed Point Theory 36 and Appl
Ide, J., K¨ obis, E., Kuroiwa, D., Sch¨ obel, A., Tammer, C.: The rela tionship between multi-objective robustness concepts and set-valued optimization . Fixed Point Theory 36 and Appl. 2014, 1–20 (2014)
2014
-
[16]
Jahn, J.: A derivative-free descent method in set optimization. Comput. Optim. Appl. 60(2), 393–411 (2015)
2015
-
[17]
Pure Appl
Jahn, J.: A derivative-free rooted tree method in nonconvex s et optimization. Pure Appl. Funct. Anal. 3(4), 603–623 (2018)
2018
-
[18]
Jahn, J., Ha, T.X.D.: New order relations in set optimization. J. Opt im. Theory Appl. 148(2), 209–236 (2011)
2011
-
[19]
Jiang, L., Cao, J., Xiong, L.: Generalized multiobjective robustne ss and relations to set-valued optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 361, 599–608 (2019)
2019
-
[20]
Positivity 22(3), 783–802 (2018)
Karaman, E., Soyertem, M., Atasever, G.I., Tozkan, D., K¨ u¸ c¨uk, M., K¨ u¸ c¨ uk, Y.: Partial order relations on family of sets and scalarizations for set optimizat ion. Positivity 22(3), 783–802 (2018)
2018
-
[21]
Sp ringer, Heidelberg (2015)
Khan, A.A., Tammer, C., Zalinescu, C.: Set-Valued Optimization. Sp ringer, Heidelberg (2015)
2015
-
[22]
Optimization 65(10), 1805–1827 (2016)
K¨ obis, E., K¨ obis, M.A.: Treatment of set order relations by mea ns of a nonlinear scalarization functional: a full characterization. Optimization 65(10), 1805–1827 (2016)
2016
-
[23]
K¨ obis, E., Le, T.T: Numerical procedures for obtaining strong , strict and ideal minimal solutions of set optimization problems. Appl. Anal. Optim. 2(3), 423–440 (2018)
2018
-
[24]
Optimization
Kumar, K., Ghosh, D., Yao, J.-C., Zhao, X.: Nonlinear conjugate g radient meth- ods for unconstrained set optimization problems whose objective f unctions have finite cardinality. Optimization. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/023319 34.2024.2390116
2024
-
[25]
S¯ u rikaisekikenky¯ ujo k¯ oky¯ uroku1031, 85–90 (1998)
Kuroiwa, D.: The natural criteria in set-valued optimization. S¯ u rikaisekikenky¯ ujo k¯ oky¯ uroku1031, 85–90 (1998)
1998
-
[26]
K¨ obis, E., Tammer, C., Kuroiwa, D.: Generalized set order relations and their numerical treatment. Appl. Anal. Optim. 1(1), 45–65 (2017)
2017
-
[27]
Nonlinear Anal
Kuroiwa, D.: On set-valued optimization. Nonlinear Anal. Theory M ethods Appl. 47(2), 1395–1400 (2001)
2001
-
[28]
S¯ urikaisek ikenky¯ ujo k¯ oky¯ uroku 985, 171–176 (1997)
Kuroiwa, D.: Some criteria in set-valued optimization. S¯ urikaisek ikenky¯ ujo k¯ oky¯ uroku 985, 171–176 (1997)
1997
-
[29]
ACM Trans
P´ erez, L.L.R., Prudente, L.F.: A Wolfe line search algorithm for ve ctor optimization. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 45(4), 1–23 (2019)
2019
-
[31]
Mutapcic, A., Boyd, S.: Cutting-set methods for robust conve x optimization with pessimizing oracles. Optim. Methods Softw. 24(3), 381–406 (2009)
2009
-
[32]
Soobshch
Nishnianidze, Z.G.: Fixed points of monotone multivalued operator s. Soobshch. Akad. Nauk Gruzin. SSR 114(3), 489–491 (1984)
1984
-
[33]
Schmidt, M., Sch¨ obel, A., Thom, L.: Min-ordering and max-order ing scalarization methods for multi-objective robust optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Re s. 275(2), 446–459 (2019)
2019
-
[34]
Results Control Optim
Yahaya, J., Kumam, P.: Efficient hybrid conjugate gradient tech niques for vector optimization. Results Control Optim. 14, 100348 (2024)
2024
-
[35]
Young, R.C.: The algebra of many-valued quantities. Math. Ann. 104(1), 260–290 (1931) 37
1931
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.