IWP: Token Pruning as Implicit Weight Pruning in Large Vision Language Models

Dong-Jae Lee; Junmo Kim; Sunghyun Baek

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Token pruning in large vision-language models is equivalent to choosing which rank-1 key-value updates best keep the dual attention weight matrix.

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 14:52 UTC pith:J3TLHT73

load-bearing objection Only the abstract exists for IWP; the cached full text is an unrelated Tikhonov paper, so the dual-to-softmax claim and the reported trade-off stay unchecked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2604.00757 v2 pith:J3TLHT73 submitted 2026-04-01 cs.CV cs.AI

IWP: Token Pruning as Implicit Weight Pruning in Large Vision Language Models

Dong-Jae Lee , Sunghyun Baek , Junmo Kim This is my paper

classification cs.CV cs.AI

keywords token pruninglarge vision-language modelsdual form of attentionrank-1 updatesmaximal marginal relevancetraining-free compressionvisual tokens

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.

Large vision-language models pay a heavy compute cost that scales with the number of visual tokens. This paper argues that attention can be rewritten as an implicit linear layer whose weight matrix is exactly the sum of rank-1 outer products, one per token's key-value pair. Pruning tokens therefore reduces to selecting the subset of those rank-1 updates that most faithfully approximates the original dual weight. Extending the same view to ordinary softmax attention yields a simple metric that scores both a token's information magnitude and how much it duplicates other tokens. Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance then picks the subset efficiently, without any training. Experiments show a stronger accuracy-efficiency trade-off than prior training-free pruners and also re-interpret why those earlier heuristics sometimes work.

Core claim

Attention's dual form makes every visual token a rank-1 update to an implicit weight matrix; the best training-free pruning policy is therefore the subset of those updates that minimises the approximation error of the dual matrix, which can be scored by a magnitude-plus-duplication metric and selected by Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance.

What carries the argument

The dual-form identity of attention (weight matrix = sum of token-wise key-value outer products) together with the derived magnitude-duplication score and the Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance selector that realises the optimal subset.

Load-bearing premise

That the rank-1 dual-form picture remains accurate enough for ordinary softmax attention inside real large vision-language models that the magnitude-duplication scores actually control how well the dual weight (and therefore the model outputs) are preserved.

What would settle it

At a fixed keep-ratio, measure the Frobenius error between the original dual attention weight and the weight rebuilt from only the selected tokens; if that error is large while accuracy stays high, or if the method under-performs simple baselines whose dual-weight error is smaller, the central claim fails.

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

If this is right

Any training-free visual-token pruner can be re-read as an (implicit) approximation algorithm for the dual attention matrix.
The same magnitude-duplication score supplies a drop-in replacement criterion for existing attention-score or gradient-based heuristics.
Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance can be applied layer-wise or block-wise without retraining, immediately lowering FLOPs for image and video LVLMs.
When the dual-matrix residual is driven to zero, the pruned model is guaranteed to reproduce the original attention output for the retained tokens.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the dual-form residual can be bounded analytically, one could certify worst-case accuracy loss before running the model.
The same outer-product view may extend to text-only transformers, suggesting a unified token-pruning theory across modalities.
Chunk size and progressive schedule in PCMMR are free parameters that could be tuned online from the dual residual itself.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

Only the abstract exists for IWP; the cached full text is an unrelated Tikhonov paper, so the dual-to-softmax claim and the reported trade-off stay unchecked.

read the letter

The one thing you need to know: we do not have the IWP manuscript. The cache is arXiv 2604.00759, a solid but completely different error analysis of classical and learned Tikhonov schemes. Everything below is therefore abstract-only for Lee, Baek, and Kim’s token-pruning paper.

What the abstract actually claims is coherent and not pure rehash. They cast attention as an implicit linear map whose weight is a sum of rank-1 key–value outer products, so pruning becomes subset selection that best approximates that dual weight. They then say this view extends to softmax attention in LVLMs and yields a metric that mixes information magnitude with duplication, selected by Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance. Training-free, efficiency-focused, and they claim a better performance–cost curve plus a reinterpretation of prior pruners. That framing is the real novelty pitch; MMR-style diversity and visual token dropping are not new, but the dual-weight reduction is a clean story if the algebra holds.

The soft spot is load-bearing and currently uncheckable. The move from the linear dual form to standard softmax is asserted, not shown here. If that approximation is loose in real LVLM layers, the magnitude-plus-duplication metric and PC-MMR selection do not control the dual weight or the outputs. No derivations, error bounds, ablations, tables, or baselines are available, so the “better trade-off” claim is just a claim. Circularity risk looks ordinary for a method paper, not definitional.

Who this is for: people already working on multimodal inference cost who care about training-free visual token reduction. A serious referee should see the full paper if the dual-form derivation and the experiments are real; the abstract alone is enough to clear a desk for that check, not enough to accept or cite. I would not bring the abstract to reading group, and I would not cite it until the actual PDF is in hand. Engage only after the correct manuscript is available; until then treat the dual-to-softmax step as the single point that decides whether the rest is useful or decorative.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The submission (arXiv:2604.00757) claims a training-free visual token pruning framework for large vision–language models grounded in a dual-form view of attention: attention is rewritten as an implicit linear layer whose weight is a sum of rank-1 key–value outer products, so pruning becomes subset selection that best approximates that dual weight. Extending the view to standard softmax attention, the authors derive a scalar metric that jointly measures a token’s information magnitude and duplication, and introduce Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance (PC-MMR) to select the subset efficiently. The abstract asserts a superior performance–efficiency trade-off versus existing training-free pruners and a reinterpretation of prior methods. The full manuscript text supplied in the review package is, however, an unrelated paper on Tikhonov regularization error analysis (arXiv:2604.00759); only the IWP abstract is available for the titled work.

Significance. If the dual-form derivation, the softmax extension, and the magnitude–duplication metric are correct and the reported trade-offs hold, the work would give a principled, training-free account of token pruning that goes beyond purely empirical importance scores and could influence efficient LVLM design. That significance cannot be assessed from the abstract alone: the load-bearing step is the faithfulness of the dual approximation under real softmax attention, and neither the algebra, error bounds, ablations, nor tables are present in the materials provided for review.

major comments (3)

The review package does not contain the IWP manuscript. The title, abstract, and paper_id (2604.00757, cs.CV) describe token pruning via dual-form attention, but the full text is an unrelated Tikhonov regularization paper (2604.00759, math.NA). No sections, equations, theorems, algorithms, or experimental tables for IWP can be audited. A formal technical review of the central claims is therefore impossible on the supplied materials.
Abstract claim that the dual-form / rank-1 outer-product model extends rigorously to standard softmax attention in LVLMs is the load-bearing premise of the whole framework (metric derivation and PC-MMR selection rest on it). Without the derivation, approximation error bounds, or any verification that the dual weight reconstruction controls model outputs, the claim that the magnitude–duplication metric is a valid proxy for pruning cannot be checked. This is the single point on which the paper stands or falls and must be supplied and scrutinized before any accept/reject decision.
The abstract asserts a better performance–efficiency trade-off and a new perspective on existing pruners, but no experimental protocol, baselines, retention ratios, error bars, or ablations are available in the package. Empirical support for the central claim is therefore unreviewable.

minor comments (1)

Once the correct full manuscript is provided, standard presentation checks (notation consistency for the dual weight, complexity of PC-MMR, figure readability of trade-off curves) can be performed; they are not actionable on the current package.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: IWP full derivation unavailable (wrong manuscript cached); abstract framing is intentional dual-form reformulation, not a forced prediction.

full rationale

The only IWP content available is the abstract. It presents (1) a dual-form reformulation of attention as an implicit linear layer whose weight is the sum of rank-1 key-value outer products, (2) the consequent view that token pruning equals subset selection approximating that dual weight, (3) an extension to softmax attention yielding a magnitude-plus-duplication metric, (4) Progressive Chunked MMR selection, and (5) experimental trade-off claims. The 'thus reduces to' step is definitional under the chosen reformulation (standard theoretical framing), not a self-definitional loop that renames a fitted target as a prediction, nor a self-citation uniqueness claim. No equations, metric derivation, self-citations, or experimental fitting details of IWP are present: the CACHEABLE FULL MANUSCRIPT TEXT is an unrelated Tikhonov-regularization error-analysis paper (arXiv:2604.00759). Per hard rules, circularity may be claimed only when a specific reduction can be quoted and exhibited; none can. Residual risk is ordinary method-paper risk (metric designed then validated), not equation-level circularity. Score 0 with empty steps is the honest outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 2 invented entities

Abstract-only ledger for IWP. Load-bearing ideas pulled from the abstract: dual form of attention as sum of rank-1 KV outer products; extension of that dual view to softmax attention; existence of a scalar metric combining information magnitude and duplication; and that Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance efficiently finds a good subset. No free parameters or invented physical entities appear in the abstract; algorithmic constructs are listed as invented entities with no independent evidence outside the paper.

axioms (3)

domain assumption Attention can be rewritten as an implicit linear layer whose weight is the sum of rank-1 outer products from each token's key-value pair (dual form).
Stated as the grounding of the framework in the abstract; standard linear-algebra dual views of attention exist in prior literature, but the exact form used here is not checkable without the paper body.
ad hoc to paper The dual-form subset-selection objective remains a valid proxy for pruning under standard softmax attention in LVLMs.
Abstract says they 'extend this perspective to standard softmax attention' and then derive the metric; this bridge is load-bearing and not independently verified here.
ad hoc to paper A token's contribution can be quantified by a scalar that jointly captures information magnitude and information duplication.
Presented as a derived novel metric; formula not given in the abstract.

invented entities (2)

Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance (PC-MMR) no independent evidence
purpose: Efficiently select the subset of tokens under the proposed magnitude-duplication metric.
Named selection procedure introduced in the abstract; no external definition or independent evidence in the provided text.
IWP dual-weight token metric (magnitude + duplication) no independent evidence
purpose: Score tokens for pruning by approximating contribution to the dual attention weight matrix.
Core scoring object of the method; only described qualitatively in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19970 in / 2636 out tokens · 27413 ms · 2026-07-13T14:52:39.288224+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Large Vision Language Models show impressive performance across image and video understanding tasks, yet their computational cost grows rapidly with the number of visual tokens. Existing token pruning methods mitigate this issue through empirical approaches while overlooking the internal mechanism of attention. In this paper, we propose a novel training free token pruning framework grounded in the dual form perspective of attention. We reformulate attention as an implicit linear layer whose weight matrix is the sum of rank 1 outer products, each generated by a single token's key value pair. Token pruning thus reduces to selecting an optimal subset of these rank 1 updates that best approximates the original dual weight matrix. Extending this perspective to standard softmax attention in LVLMs, we derive a novel metric quantifying both a token's information magnitude and information duplication. To efficiently select the subset with the proposed metric, we introduce Progressive Chunked Maximal Marginal Relevance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves a better trade off between performance and efficiency, while providing another perspective on existing pruning approaches.

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

C-PTQ: Fisher-weighted Channel-wise Sensitivity for Post-training Quantization of MLLMs
cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

C-PTQ weights quantization error by per-channel Fisher information of the task loss, improving low-bit accuracy of multimodal LLMs by small margins over existing channel-wise scaling methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A neural-network-based convex regularizer for inverse problems

A. Goujon et al. “A neural-network-based convex regularizer for inverse problems”. In:�� 9 (2023), pp. 781–795.��:��

2023
[2]

A. K. Louis.�� . Stuttgart: Teubner, 1989

1989
[3]

Stability of data-dependent ridge-regularization for inverse problems

S. Neumayer and F. Altekr¨ uger. “Stability of data-dependent ridge-regularization for inverse problems”. In:�� 41.6 (2025).��:��

2025
[4]

Ghosts in tomography, the null space of the Radon transform

A. K. Louis and W. T¨ ornig. “Ghosts in tomography, the null space of the Radon transform”. In: �� 3.1 (1981), pp. 1–10.��:��

1981
[5]

Singular value decompositions and inversion methods for the exterior Radon transform and a spherical transform

E. T. Quinto. “Singular value decompositions and inversion methods for the exterior Radon transform and a spherical transform”. In:�� 95.2 (1983), pp. 437– 448.��:��

1983
[6]

Orthogonal function series expansions and the null space of the Radon transform

A. K. Louis. “Orthogonal function series expansions and the null space of the Radon transform”. In: �� 15.3 (1984), pp. 621–633.��:��

1984
[7]

The x-ray transform: singular value decomposition and resolution

P. Maass. “The x-ray transform: singular value decomposition and resolution”. In:�� 3.4 (1987), p. 729.��:��

1987
[8]

Singular value decomposition and its application to numerical inversion for ray transforms in 2D vector tomography

E. Derevtsov et al. “Singular value decomposition and its application to numerical inversion for ray transforms in 2D vector tomography”. In:�� 19 (2011), pp. 689– 715.��:��

2011
[9]

H. W. Engl, M. Hanke, and A. Neubauer.�� . Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 375. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996

1996
[10]

On the convergence rates of Tikhonov regularization with a posteriori parameter choice rules

B. Hofmann. “On the convergence rates of Tikhonov regularization with a posteriori parameter choice rules”. In:�� 59.1-4 (1995), pp. 345–361

1995
[11]

The approximate inverse in action with an application to computerized tomography

A. Rieder and T. Schuster. “The approximate inverse in action with an application to computerized tomography”. In:�� 37.6 (2000), pp. 1909–1929.��:��

2000
[12]

Rieder.��

A. Rieder.�� . Wies- baden: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, 2003

2003
[13]

Optimized filter functions for filtered back projection reconstructions

M. Beckmann and J. Nickel. “Optimized filter functions for filtered back projection reconstructions”. In:�� 19.5 (2024), pp. 903–939.��:��. 18

2024
[14]

Learned primal–dual reconstruction

J. Adler and O. ¨Oktem. “Learned primal–dual reconstruction”. In:�� 37.6 (2018), pp. 1322–1332.��:��

2018
[15]

Learning fast approximations of sparse coding

K. Gregor and Y. LeCun. “Learning fast approximations of sparse coding”. In:�� (2010), pp. 399–406.��:��

2010
[16]

Solving inverse problems using data-driven models

S. Arridge et al. “Solving inverse problems using data-driven models”. In:�� 28 (2019), pp. 1–174.��:��

2019
[17]

Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse problems

S. Dittmer et al. “Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse problems”. In: �� 62 (2020), pp. 456–470.��:��

2020
[18]

Invertible residual networks in the context of regularization theory for linear inverse problems

C. Arndt et al. “Invertible residual networks in the context of regularization theory for linear inverse problems”. In:�� 39.12 (2023).��:��

2023
[19]

Task adapted reconstruction for inverse problems

J. Adler et al. “Task adapted reconstruction for inverse problems”. In:�� 38.7 (2022). ��:��

2022
[20]

A data-driven iteratively regularized Landweber iteration

A. Aspri et al. “A data-driven iteratively regularized Landweber iteration”. In:�� 41 (2018), pp. 1190–1227.��:��

2018
[21]

T. M. Buzug.�� . Springer, 2008.��:��

2008
[22]

scikit-image: image processing in Python

S. van der Walt et al. “scikit-image: image processing in Python”. In:��2 (2014).��:��

2014
[23]

Learning weakly convex regularizers for convergent image- reconstruction algorithms

A. Goujon, S. Neumayer, and M. Unser. “Learning weakly convex regularizers for convergent image- reconstruction algorithms”. In:�� 17.1 (2024), pp. 91–115.��:��

2024
[24]

The generalized LASSO problem and uniqueness

A. Ali and R. J. Tibshirani. “The generalized LASSO problem and uniqueness”. In:�� 13.2 (2019), pp. 2307–2347.��:��

2019
[25]

A primal-dual splitting method for convex optimization involving Lipschitzian, prox- imable and linear composite terms

L. Condat. “A primal-dual splitting method for convex optimization involving Lipschitzian, prox- imable and linear composite terms”. In:�� 158.2 (2013), pp. 460–479.��:��

2013
[26]

Learning Regularization Functionals for Inverse Problems: A Comparative Study

J. Hertrich et al. “Learning Regularization Functionals for Inverse Problems: A Comparative Study”. In:�� (2025)

2025
[27]

Scherzer et al.��

O. Scherzer et al.�� . Vol. 167. Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, 2009.��:��

2009
[28]

Decomposition method for Lipschitz stability of general LASSO-type problems

C. Hu, W. Yao, and J. Zhang. “Decomposition method for Lipschitz stability of general LASSO-type problems”. In:�� (2024)

2024
[29]

H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes.�� . Springer, Cham, 2017.��:��

2017
[30]

Lipschitz Continuity of Solutions of Linear Inequalities, Programs and Complementarity Problems

O. L. Mangasarian and T.-H. Shiau. “Lipschitz Continuity of Solutions of Linear Inequalities, Programs and Complementarity Problems”. In:�� 25.3 (1987), pp. 583– 595.��:��. 19

1987

[1] [1]

A neural-network-based convex regularizer for inverse problems

A. Goujon et al. “A neural-network-based convex regularizer for inverse problems”. In:�� 9 (2023), pp. 781–795.��:��

2023

[2] [2]

A. K. Louis.�� . Stuttgart: Teubner, 1989

1989

[3] [3]

Stability of data-dependent ridge-regularization for inverse problems

S. Neumayer and F. Altekr¨ uger. “Stability of data-dependent ridge-regularization for inverse problems”. In:�� 41.6 (2025).��:��

2025

[4] [4]

Ghosts in tomography, the null space of the Radon transform

A. K. Louis and W. T¨ ornig. “Ghosts in tomography, the null space of the Radon transform”. In: �� 3.1 (1981), pp. 1–10.��:��

1981

[5] [5]

Singular value decompositions and inversion methods for the exterior Radon transform and a spherical transform

E. T. Quinto. “Singular value decompositions and inversion methods for the exterior Radon transform and a spherical transform”. In:�� 95.2 (1983), pp. 437– 448.��:��

1983

[6] [6]

Orthogonal function series expansions and the null space of the Radon transform

A. K. Louis. “Orthogonal function series expansions and the null space of the Radon transform”. In: �� 15.3 (1984), pp. 621–633.��:��

1984

[7] [7]

The x-ray transform: singular value decomposition and resolution

P. Maass. “The x-ray transform: singular value decomposition and resolution”. In:�� 3.4 (1987), p. 729.��:��

1987

[8] [8]

Singular value decomposition and its application to numerical inversion for ray transforms in 2D vector tomography

E. Derevtsov et al. “Singular value decomposition and its application to numerical inversion for ray transforms in 2D vector tomography”. In:�� 19 (2011), pp. 689– 715.��:��

2011

[9] [9]

H. W. Engl, M. Hanke, and A. Neubauer.�� . Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 375. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996

1996

[10] [10]

On the convergence rates of Tikhonov regularization with a posteriori parameter choice rules

B. Hofmann. “On the convergence rates of Tikhonov regularization with a posteriori parameter choice rules”. In:�� 59.1-4 (1995), pp. 345–361

1995

[11] [11]

The approximate inverse in action with an application to computerized tomography

A. Rieder and T. Schuster. “The approximate inverse in action with an application to computerized tomography”. In:�� 37.6 (2000), pp. 1909–1929.��:��

2000

[12] [12]

Rieder.��

A. Rieder.�� . Wies- baden: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, 2003

2003

[13] [13]

Optimized filter functions for filtered back projection reconstructions

M. Beckmann and J. Nickel. “Optimized filter functions for filtered back projection reconstructions”. In:�� 19.5 (2024), pp. 903–939.��:��. 18

2024

[14] [14]

Learned primal–dual reconstruction

J. Adler and O. ¨Oktem. “Learned primal–dual reconstruction”. In:�� 37.6 (2018), pp. 1322–1332.��:��

2018

[15] [15]

Learning fast approximations of sparse coding

K. Gregor and Y. LeCun. “Learning fast approximations of sparse coding”. In:�� (2010), pp. 399–406.��:��

2010

[16] [16]

Solving inverse problems using data-driven models

S. Arridge et al. “Solving inverse problems using data-driven models”. In:�� 28 (2019), pp. 1–174.��:��

2019

[17] [17]

Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse problems

S. Dittmer et al. “Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse problems”. In: �� 62 (2020), pp. 456–470.��:��

2020

[18] [18]

Invertible residual networks in the context of regularization theory for linear inverse problems

C. Arndt et al. “Invertible residual networks in the context of regularization theory for linear inverse problems”. In:�� 39.12 (2023).��:��

2023

[19] [19]

Task adapted reconstruction for inverse problems

J. Adler et al. “Task adapted reconstruction for inverse problems”. In:�� 38.7 (2022). ��:��

2022

[20] [20]

A data-driven iteratively regularized Landweber iteration

A. Aspri et al. “A data-driven iteratively regularized Landweber iteration”. In:�� 41 (2018), pp. 1190–1227.��:��

2018

[21] [21]

T. M. Buzug.�� . Springer, 2008.��:��

2008

[22] [22]

scikit-image: image processing in Python

S. van der Walt et al. “scikit-image: image processing in Python”. In:��2 (2014).��:��

2014

[23] [23]

Learning weakly convex regularizers for convergent image- reconstruction algorithms

A. Goujon, S. Neumayer, and M. Unser. “Learning weakly convex regularizers for convergent image- reconstruction algorithms”. In:�� 17.1 (2024), pp. 91–115.��:��

2024

[24] [24]

The generalized LASSO problem and uniqueness

A. Ali and R. J. Tibshirani. “The generalized LASSO problem and uniqueness”. In:�� 13.2 (2019), pp. 2307–2347.��:��

2019

[25] [25]

A primal-dual splitting method for convex optimization involving Lipschitzian, prox- imable and linear composite terms

L. Condat. “A primal-dual splitting method for convex optimization involving Lipschitzian, prox- imable and linear composite terms”. In:�� 158.2 (2013), pp. 460–479.��:��

2013

[26] [26]

Learning Regularization Functionals for Inverse Problems: A Comparative Study

J. Hertrich et al. “Learning Regularization Functionals for Inverse Problems: A Comparative Study”. In:�� (2025)

2025

[27] [27]

Scherzer et al.��

O. Scherzer et al.�� . Vol. 167. Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, 2009.��:��

2009

[28] [28]

Decomposition method for Lipschitz stability of general LASSO-type problems

C. Hu, W. Yao, and J. Zhang. “Decomposition method for Lipschitz stability of general LASSO-type problems”. In:�� (2024)

2024

[29] [29]

H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes.�� . Springer, Cham, 2017.��:��

2017

[30] [30]

Lipschitz Continuity of Solutions of Linear Inequalities, Programs and Complementarity Problems

O. L. Mangasarian and T.-H. Shiau. “Lipschitz Continuity of Solutions of Linear Inequalities, Programs and Complementarity Problems”. In:�� 25.3 (1987), pp. 583– 595.��:��. 19

1987