Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

A 25-label taxonomy restores dataflow analysis across LLM API calls.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 16:23 UTC pith:PLGC6WFJ

load-bearing objection Promising abstract for a real SE problem, but we only have the abstract—the attached full text is a different paper (matrix estimation), so the load-bearing claims cannot be checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.28345 v3 pith:PLGC6WFJ submitted 2026-03-30 cs.SE cs.AI

Reachability Across the NL/PL Boundary: A Taxonomy-Driven Dataflow Model for LLM-Integrated Applications

Zihao Xu , Xiao Cheng , Ruijie Meng , Yuekang Li This is my paper
classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords LLM-integrated applicationsNL/PL boundarydataflow analysistaint analysisprogram slicingreachabilityquantitative information flowtaxonomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

When programs call large language models, a runtime value can enter a natural-language prompt through a template placeholder, be transformed opaquely, and return as code, JSON, or text that later logic consumes. Traditional dataflow tools need a summary of how a callee maps inputs to outputs; an LLM call has none, so analysis stops at this natural-language / programming-language boundary. PRISM is a reachability model for that boundary. It treats the missing summary as placeholder-to-output reachability and, because the LLM’s internal map is unbounded and opaque, replaces it with a finite taxonomy of 25 labels grounded in quantitative information-flow theory. Each label supplies a reachability predicate. The model is sound relative to its own labeling, with residual mislabeling measured empirically rather than eliminated by construction. Independent models and human annotators apply the labels consistently, the taxonomy covers thousands of real prompt–output pairs with almost no residual discovery risk, and the resulting predicates improve taint analysis, catch real vulnerabilities, and shrink backward slices without dropping true dependencies.

Core claim

PRISM is the first reachability model for the NL/PL boundary created by LLM API calls. It abstracts the missing dataflow summary of an LLM call as placeholder-to-output reachability, using a finite 25-label taxonomy along the dimensions of information preservation and output modality; each label yields a sound reachability predicate for a placeholder, with residual labeling error only bounded empirically.

What carries the argument

A 25-label taxonomy of placeholder-to-output behavior (information preservation × output modality), grounded in quantitative information-flow theory, that turns each label into a reachability predicate usable by taint analysis and program slicing.

Load-bearing premise

That a fixed set of 25 labels is a good enough finite stand-in for every possible opaque way an LLM can map a placeholder into its output, so residual mistakes only need to be measured after the fact rather than ruled out by design.

What would settle it

On a held-out set of real LLM-integrated programs, either independent annotators fail to agree on the 25 labels (kappa well below 0.72), many placeholder–output pairs remain unclassifiable, or the PRISM-augmented taint analysis does not substantially beat a conservative baseline that treats every LLM call as a total barrier or total sink.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Taint analysis that uses PRISM predicates nearly doubles a conservative baseline and reaches F1 of 81.7 percent, beating a direct LLM baseline.
  • On six real OpenClaw CVEs the model detects every vulnerable flow and confirms every patch (F1 100 percent).
  • Backward slicing can drop roughly a quarter of irrelevant code while retaining every true dependency.
  • The same 25 labels cover 8,119 real-world pairs with a Good-Turing discovery probability of 0.09 percent and inter-annotator agreement of Fleiss’ kappa at least 0.72.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same taxonomy could be attached to other opaque external services (web search, code interpreters, tool APIs) whose input–output maps lack classical summaries.
  • If the residual empirical error is dominated by a few ambiguous labels, those labels could be refined or split without rewriting the surrounding analysis infrastructure.
  • Static tools that already consume dataflow summaries could treat PRISM labels as drop-in stubs for LLM call sites, lowering the cost of adopting the model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission claims to introduce PRISM, the first reachability model for dataflow across the NL/PL boundary created by LLM API calls. From the abstract, PRISM abstracts missing LLM dataflow summaries as placeholder-to-output reachability via a finite 25-label taxonomy (information preservation × output modality) grounded in quantitative information flow; each label induces a reachability predicate. The model is asserted sound with respect to its labeling, with residual error only bounded empirically. Reported evidence includes inter-annotator/model agreement (Fleiss’ κ ≥ 0.72), full coverage of 8,119 real pairs (Good-Turing discovery probability 0.09%), taint-analysis F1 = 81.7% (nearly doubling a conservative baseline), perfect detection/confirmation on six OpenClaw CVEs (F1 = 100%), and removal of ~25% of irrelevant code in backward slicing without dropping true dependencies. Critically, the full manuscript supplied under this submission is a different paper (learning-assisted high-dimensional covariance/precision matrix estimation via reparameterized LADMM, arXiv:2603.28346), so none of the PRISM derivations, labeling protocol, residual-error measurement, baselines, or CVE methodology can be inspected.

Significance. If the abstract’s claims hold under a correct manuscript, the contribution would be significant for software engineering and security analysis of LLM-integrated applications: traditional taint analysis and slicing break at opaque LLM calls, and a reusable, taxonomy-driven dataflow summary is a natural and useful abstraction. Strengths claimed in the abstract—explicit soundness-relative-to-labeling, multi-annotator reliability, Good-Turing coverage, and end-to-end CVE evaluation—are the right kinds of evidence for this problem. Those strengths cannot be credited on the present submission because the full text does not contain PRISM.

major comments (3)
  1. Manuscript identity mismatch: the title/abstract describe PRISM (NL/PL reachability, 25-label taxonomy, OpenClaw CVEs, taint/slicing results), but the full text is an unrelated paper on machine learning-assisted high-dimensional matrix estimation (LADMM reparameterization, covariance/precision estimation, Theorems 4.1–4.9, Tables 1–5). No PRISM definitions, predicates, labeling protocol, residual-error experiment, or security evaluation appear in the body. The central claims cannot be audited; this is a load-bearing failure of the submission as provided.
  2. Even taking the abstract alone, soundness is only relative to labeling, with residual error bounded empirically rather than eliminated (abstract: unbounded LLM I/O behaviors; residual error bounded empirically). For security uses (six OpenClaw CVEs at claimed F1=100%), any systematic mislabeling of preservation/modality can produce false negatives on vulnerable flows. Without the full text, there is no way to check how residual error was measured, whether it is conditioned on security-critical classes, or how predicates are derived from labels.
  3. The free parameters of the approach (taxonomy cardinality of 25; the empirical residual-error bound) are load-bearing for the claim that a finite taxonomy yields adequate dataflow summaries. The abstract reports coverage and κ, but not sensitivity of taint/CVE results to alternative taxonomies, label noise, or LLM-as-annotator circularity. These checks are required for the soundness claim and are absent from the supplied manuscript.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract metrics (κ ≥ 0.72, Good-Turing 0.09%, F1 81.7%/100%) cannot be mapped to sections, tables, or appendices because the body is a different paper; if a correct PRISM manuscript is resubmitted, each metric needs a clear protocol, baseline definition, and CVE selection criteria.
  2. arXiv identifiers in the package appear swapped (claimed 2603.28345 vs. body 2603.28346); editorial cleanup is needed before any re-review.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation found in the PRISM abstract; soundness is explicitly conditional on labeling, not forced by construction.

full rationale

The supplied CACHEABLE full text is a different paper (high-dimensional matrix estimation, arXiv:2603.28346), so equation-level derivation of PRISM predicates cannot be inspected. From the PRISM abstract alone: the chain is (opaque LLM I/O) → finite 25-label taxonomy (information preservation × output modality, motivated by QIF) → per-label reachability predicates → analyses (taint, CVE, slicing). Soundness is stated only “with respect to its labeling, with residual error bounded empirically,” which is conditional abstraction, not a self-definitional loop. Coverage (8,119 pairs, Good-Turing 0.09%), inter-annotator/model agreement (κ ≥ 0.72), and external benchmarks (taint F1, six OpenClaw CVEs, slicing) are independent checks, not fitted quantities renamed as predictions. No uniqueness theorem, self-citation chain, or ansatz smuggled via overlapping authors appears in the abstract. Residual mislabeling risk is a correctness/assumption issue, not circularity. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

Abstract-only review of PRISM. Load-bearing commitments are the finite taxonomy abstraction of opaque LLM behavior, empirical residual-error bounds standing in for full soundness, and the claim that labeled reachability predicates are sufficient for taint/slicing. No free numeric constants are stated in the abstract; invented entities are the model name and the 25-label scheme itself.

free parameters (2)
  • Taxonomy cardinality (25 labels)
    Finite partition size is a design choice that must cover unbounded LLM behaviors; abstract reports coverage of 8,119 pairs and Good-Turing discovery probability 0.09% but does not derive 25 from first principles.
  • Empirical residual labeling-error bound
    Soundness is claimed w.r.t. labeling with residual error only bounded empirically; the bound itself is a fitted/measured quantity not given numerically in the abstract.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption LLM internal transformations are opaque; only observable input–output relationships can ground dataflow summaries.
    Stated as the reason classical callee summaries fail at the NL/PL boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper A finite taxonomy along information preservation and output modality is sufficient to induce sound reachability predicates for analysis.
    Core modeling choice of PRISM; not a standard theorem of program analysis.
  • domain assumption Quantitative information flow theory supplies a valid grounding for the two taxonomy dimensions.
    Abstract claims the taxonomy is grounded in QIF; details not available without the correct paper body.
  • domain assumption Inter-annotator / multi-model agreement (Fleiss’ κ ≥ 0.72) and corpus coverage imply dependable labels for security-critical analysis.
    Used to support dependability claims in the abstract.
invented entities (3)
  • PRISM reachability model no independent evidence
    purpose: Abstract missing LLM dataflow summaries as placeholder-to-output reachability predicates for taint analysis and slicing.
    Named contribution of the paper; independent evidence would be external replications or formal proofs not present in the abstract.
  • 25-label NL/PL reachability taxonomy no independent evidence
    purpose: Finite classification of placeholder–output behavior along information preservation and output modality.
    Invented partition that drives all predicates; coverage statistics are internal to the paper’s corpus.
  • NL/PL boundary (as analysis cut) no independent evidence
    purpose: Name the program point where traditional dataflow breaks at LLM API calls.
    Framing device; useful but not an independently measured physical entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 42111 in / 3165 out tokens · 37089 ms · 2026-07-13T16:23:01.034631+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

LLM API calls have become a standard programming primitive, but they create a program boundary that disrupts traditional dataflow analysis. A runtime value may be inserted into a natural-language prompt through a template placeholder, transformed opaquely by the LLM, and returned as code, JSON, or text consumed by downstream logic. Existing analyses such as taint analysis and program slicing require a dataflow summary that describes how a callee maps inputs to outputs; an LLM call provides no such summary, breaking analysis at what we call the NL/PL boundary. We introduce PRISM, the first reachability model for this boundary. PRISM abstracts the missing dataflow summary of an LLM call as placeholder-to-output reachability. Because the LLM's internal transformation is opaque, the only observable signal is the input-output relationship, which spans an unbounded range of behaviors. PRISM therefore uses a finite taxonomy grounded in quantitative information flow theory. It classifies placeholder-output behavior into 25 labels along two dimensions: information preservation and output modality. Each label yields a reachability predicate for a placeholder. The model is sound with respect to its labeling, with residual error bounded empirically. PRISM is dependable and effective. Independent models and human annotators assign its labels consistently (Fleiss' kappa >= 0.72), and the labels cover 8,119 real-world pairs, leaving no pair unclassifiable; the Good-Turing discovery probability is 0.09%. For taint analysis, PRISM nearly doubles the conservative baseline and outperforms a direct LLM baseline, achieving F1 = 81.7%. Across six real OpenClaw CVEs, it detects every vulnerable flow and confirms every patch (F1 = 100%). In backward slicing, it removes about a quarter of irrelevant code without discarding any true dependency.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. StealthBench: Measuring Operational Stealth in Autonomous Offensive-Security Agents

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    StealthBench's LLM-judge panel finds no AI agent solves offensive-security tasks stealthily more than 54% of the time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. Fan, Y. Liao, H. Liu, An overview of the estimation of large covariance and precision matrices, The Econometrics Journal 19 (2016) C1–C32

    2016

  2. [2]

    M. J. Wainwright, High-dimensional statistics: A non-asymptotic viewpoint, volume 48, Cambridge university press, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Giraud, Introduction to high-dimensional statistics, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021

    C. Giraud, Introduction to high-dimensional statistics, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    T. W. Anderson, An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis, volume 2, Wiley New York, 1958

    1958

  5. [5]

    C. Lam, J. Fan, Sparsistency and rates of convergence in large covariance matrix estima- tion, Annals of statistics 37 (2009) 4254

    2009

  6. [6]

    Pourahmadi, High-dimensional covariance estimation: with high-dimensional data, John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    M. Pourahmadi, High-dimensional covariance estimation: with high-dimensional data, John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    F. Li, N. R. Zhang, Bayesian variable selection in structured high-dimensional covariate spaces with applications in genomics, Journal of the American statistical association 105 (2010) 1202–1214

    2010

  8. [8]

    Serra, P

    A. Serra, P. Coretto, M. Fratello, R. Tagliaferri, Robust and sparse correlation matrix estimation for the analysis of high-dimensional genomics data, Bioinformatics 34 (2018) 625–634

    2018

  9. [9]

    R. Pang, B. J. Lansdell, A. L. Fairhall, Dimensionality reduction in neuroscience, Current Biology 26 (2016) R656–R660

    2016

  10. [10]

    J. Fan, Y. Fan, J. Lv, High dimensional covariance matrix estimation using a factor model, Journal of Econometrics 147 (2008) 186–197

    2008

  11. [11]

    J. Fan, Y. Liao, M. Mincheva, High dimensional covariance matrix estimation in approxi- mate factor models, Annals of statistics 39 (2011) 3320

    2011

  12. [12]

    G. V. Moura, A. A. Santos, E. Ruiz, Comparing high-dimensional conditional covariance matrices: Implications for portfolio selection, Journal of Banking & Finance 118 (2020) 105882

    2020

  13. [13]

    Sarhadi, D

    A. Sarhadi, D. H. Burn, G. Yang, A. Ghodsi, Advances in projection of climate change impacts using supervised nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques, Climate dynamics 48 (2017) 1329–1351

    2017

  14. [14]

    Miftakhova, K

    A. Miftakhova, K. L. Judd, T. S. Lontzek, K. Schmedders, Statistical approximation of high-dimensional climate models, Journal of Econometrics 214 (2020) 67–80

    2020

  15. [15]

    X. Chen, M. Xu, W. B. Wu, Covariance and precision matrix estimation for high- dimensional time series, Annals of Statistics 41 (2013) 2994–3021

    2013

  16. [16]

    Avella-Medina, H

    M. Avella-Medina, H. S. Battey, J. Fan, Q. Li, Robust estimation of high-dimensional covariance and precision matrices, Biometrika 105 (2018) 271–284

    2018

  17. [17]

    Janková, S

    J. Janková, S. van de Geer, Honest confidence regions and optimality in high-dimensional precision matrix estimation, Test 26 (2017) 143–162. 43

    2017

  18. [18]

    C.-M. Ting, H. Ombao, S.-H. Salleh, A. Z. Abd Latif, Multi-scale factor analysis of high- dimensional functional connectivity in brain networks, IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 7 (2018) 449–465

    2018

  19. [19]

    H. Ke, Z. Ren, J. Qi, S. Chen, G. C. Tseng, Z. Ye, T. Ma, High-dimension to high- dimension screening for detecting genome-wide epigenetic and noncoding rna regulators of gene expression, Bioinformatics 38 (2022) 4078–4087

    2022

  20. [20]

    J. R. Bradley, S. H. Holan, C. K. Wikle, Multivariate spatio-temporal models for high- dimensional areal data with application to longitudinal employer-household dynamics, The Annals of Applied Statistics 9 (2015) 1761

    2015

  21. [21]

    Q. Wei, Z. Zhao, Large covariance matrix estimation with oracle statistical rate via majorization-minimization, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 71 (2023) 3328–3342

    2023

  22. [22]

    Fatima, P

    G. Fatima, P. Babu, P. Stoica, Two new algorithms for maximum likelihood estimation of sparse covariance matrices with applications to graphical modeling, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 72 (2024) 958–971

    2024

  23. [23]

    V. A. Nguyen, D. Kuhn, P. Mohajerin Esfahani, Distributionally robust inverse covariance estimation: The wasserstein shrinkage estimator, Operations research 70 (2022) 490–515

    2022

  24. [24]

    W. Zhu, X. Chen, W. B. Wu, Online covariance matrix estimation in stochastic gradient descent, Journal of the American Statistical Association 118 (2023) 393–404

    2023

  25. [25]

    F. Wen, L. Chu, R. Ying, P. Liu, Fast and positive definite estimation of large covariance matrix for high-dimensional data analysis, IEEE Transactions on Big Data 7 (2019) 603– 609

    2019

  26. [26]

    Sedghi, A

    H. Sedghi, A. Anandkumar, E. Jonckheere, Multi-step stochastic admm in high dimen- sions: Applications to sparse optimization and matrix decomposition, Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  27. [27]

    M. Tan, Z. Hu, Y. Yan, J. Cao, D. Gong, Q. Wu, Learning sparse pca with stabilized admm method on stiefel manifold, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 33 (2019) 1078–1088

    2019

  28. [28]

    J. Xu, K. Lange, A proximal distance algorithm for likelihood-based sparse covariance estimation, Biometrika 109 (2022) 1047–1066

    2022

  29. [29]

    Tibshirani, et al., Proximal gradient descent and acceleration, Lecture Notes (2010)

    R. Tibshirani, et al., Proximal gradient descent and acceleration, Lecture Notes (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    D. Kim, J. A. Fessler, Another look at the fast iterative shrinkage/thresholding algorithm (fista), SIAM Journal on Optimization 28 (2018) 223–250

    2018

  31. [31]

    Treister, J

    E. Treister, J. Turek, A block-coordinate descent approach for large-scale sparse inverse covariance estimation, Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  32. [32]

    Z. Qin, K. Scheinberg, D. Goldfarb, Efficient block-coordinate descent algorithms for the group lasso, Mathematical Programming Computation 5 (2013) 143–169

    2013

  33. [33]

    A. A. Amini, M. J. Wainwright, High-dimensional analysis of semidefinite relaxations for sparse principal components, in: 2008 IEEE international symposium on information theory, IEEE, 2008, pp. 2454–2458. 44

    2008

  34. [34]

    Friedman, T

    J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso, Biostatistics 9 (2008) 432–441

    2008

  35. [35]

    Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 58 (1996) 267–288

    R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 58 (1996) 267–288

    1996

  36. [36]

    M. Lin, D. Sun, K.-C. Toh, C. Wang, Estimation of sparse gaussian graphical models with hidden clustering structure, Journal of Machine Learning Research 25 (2024) 1–36

    2024

  37. [37]

    Danaher, P

    P. Danaher, P. Wang, D. M. Witten, The joint graphical lasso for inverse covariance esti- mation across multiple classes, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 76 (2014) 373–397

    2014

  38. [38]

    L. Zhao, Y. Wang, S. Kumar, D. P. Palomar, Optimization algorithms for graph laplacian estimation via admm and mm, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 67 (2019) 4231– 4244

    2019

  39. [39]

    Hallac, S

    D. Hallac, S. Vare, S. Boyd, J. Leskovec, Toeplitz inverse covariance-based clustering of multivariate time series data, in: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2017, pp. 215–223

    2017

  40. [40]

    Hsieh, M

    C.-J. Hsieh, M. A. Sustik, I. S. Dhillon, P. Ravikumar, Quic: Quadratic approximation for sparse inverse covariance estimation, Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (2014) 2911–2947

    2014

  41. [41]

    Hsieh, M

    C.-J. Hsieh, M. A. Sustik, I. S. Dhillon, P. K. Ravikumar, R. Poldrack, Big & quic: Sparse inverse covariance estimation for a million variables, Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (2013)

    2013

  42. [42]

    Zhang, N

    Y. Zhang, N. Zhang, D. Sun, K.-C. Toh, A proximal point dual newton algorithm for solving group graphical lasso problems, SIAM Journal on Optimization 30 (2020) 2197– 2220

    2020

  43. [43]

    X. Xie, J. Wu, G. Liu, Z. Zhong, Z. Lin, Differentiable linearized admm, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 6902–6911

    2019

  44. [44]

    Gregor, Y

    K. Gregor, Y. LeCun, Learning fast approximations of sparse coding, in: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on international conference on machine learning, 2010, pp. 399–406

    2010

  45. [45]

    R. Liu, G. Zhong, J. Cao, Z. Lin, S. Shan, Z. Luo, Learning to diffuse: A new perspective to design pdes for visual analysis, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 38 (2016) 2457–2471

    2016

  46. [46]

    Y. Chen, T. Pock, Trainable nonlinear reaction diffusion: A flexible framework for fast and effective image restoration, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 39 (2016) 1256–1272

    2016

  47. [47]

    B. Li, L. Yang, Y. Chen, S. Wang, Q. Chen, H. Mao, Y. Ma, A. Wang, T. Ding, J. Tang, et al., Pdhg-unrolled learning-to-optimize method for large-scale linear programming, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01908 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Z. Lin, Z. Xiong, D. Ge, Y. Ye, Pdcs: A primal-dual large-scale conic programming solver with gpu enhancements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00311 (2025). 45

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    L. Yang, B. Li, T. Ding, J. Wu, A. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Tang, R. Sun, X. Luo, An efficient unsupervised framework for convex quadratic programs via deep unrolling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01051 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Q. Li, T. Ding, L. Yang, M. Ouyang, Q. Shi, R. Sun, On the power of small-size graph neu- ral networks for linear programming, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024) 38695–38719

    2024

  51. [51]

    Q. Chen, T. Zhang, L. Yang, Q. Han, A. Wang, R. Sun, X. Luo, T.-H. Chang, Symilo: A symmetry-aware learning framework for integer linear optimization, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024) 24411–24434

    2024

  52. [52]

    Q. Li, M. Ouyang, T. Ding, Y. Wang, Q. Shi, R. Sun, Towards explaining the power of constant-depth graph neural networks for structured linear programming, in: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  53. [53]

    A. J. Rothman, E. Levina, J. Zhu, Generalized thresholding of large covariance matrices, Journal of the American Statistical Association 104 (2009) 177–186

    2009

  54. [54]

    L. Xue, S. Ma, H. Zou, Positive-definite��-penalized estimation of large covariance matri- ces, Journal of the American Statistical Association 107 (2012) 1480–1491

    2012

  55. [55]

    J. Fan, R. Li, Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle prop- erties, Journal of the American statistical Association 96 (2001) 1348–1360

    2001

  56. [56]

    Zhang, Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty, The Annals of Statistics 38 (2010) 894

    C.-H. Zhang, Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty, The Annals of Statistics 38 (2010) 894

    2010

  57. [57]

    H. Zou, R. Li, One-step sparse estimates in nonconcave penalized likelihood models, Annals of statistics 36 (2008) 1509

    2008

  58. [58]

    H.Attouch, J.Bolte, P.Redont, A.Soubeyran, Proximalalternatingminimizationandpro- jection methods for nonconvex problems: An approach based on the kurdyka-łojasiewicz inequality, Mathematics of operations research 35 (2010) 438–457

    2010

  59. [59]

    R. Vershynin, High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science, volume 47 ofCambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018. doi:���������������������

    2018

  60. [60]

    Davis, W

    D. Davis, W. Yin, A three-operator splitting scheme and its optimization applications, Set-valued and variational analysis 25 (2017) 829–858

    2017

  61. [61]

    P. L. Combettes, V. R. Wajs, Signal recovery by proximal forward-backward splitting, Multiscale modeling & simulation 4 (2005) 1168–1200

    2005

  62. [62]

    A. Beck, M. Teboulle, A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems, SIAM journal on imaging sciences 2 (2009) 183–202

    2009

  63. [63]

    Diamond, S

    S. Diamond, S. Boyd, CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex opti- mization, Journal of Machine Learning Research 17 (2016) 1–5

    2016

  64. [64]

    D. R. Hunter, K. Lange, A tutorial on mm algorithms, The American Statistician 58 (2004) 30–37. 46

    2004

  65. [65]

    Ravikumar, M

    P. Ravikumar, M. J. Wainwright, G. Raskutti, B. Yu, High-dimensional covariance es- timation by minimizing l1-penalized log-determinant divergence, Electronic Journal of Statistics 5 (2011) 935–980

    2011

  66. [66]

    Grishchenko, F

    D. Grishchenko, F. Iutzeler, J. Malick, Proximal gradient methods with adaptive subspace sampling, Mathematics of Operations Research 46 (2021) 1303–1323

    2021

  67. [67]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Negiar, A. Askari, M. Jaggi, Linearly convergent frank-wolfe with back- tracking line-search, in: International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, PMLR, 2020, pp. 1–10

    2020

  68. [68]

    E. G. Birgin, J. M. Martínez, M. Raydan, Spectral projected gradient methods: review and perspectives, Journal of Statistical Software 60 (2014) 1–21

    2014

  69. [69]

    C. Tan, S. Ma, Y.-H. Dai, Y. Qian, Barzilai-borwein step size for stochastic gradient descent, Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    Bach, Breaking the curse of dimensionality with convex neural networks, Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research 18 (2017) 1–53

    F. Bach, Breaking the curse of dimensionality with convex neural networks, Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research 18 (2017) 1–53. URL:���������������������������������� ����. 47

    2017