Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Distributed Asynchronous Time-Varying Quadratic Programming with Asynchronous Objective Sampling

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that multi-agent systems can track the minimizer of a time-varying quadratic program with bounded error even when each agent samples the objective asynchronously, and that a known-size error ball is achievable.

desk verdict Asynchronous sampling and the nonconvex aggregate are genuinely new, but Theorem 3 is false as stated: it bounds minimizer distance, not value gaps, and constant offsets break the claimed error ball. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11732 v2 pith:FI2L7BYO submitted 2024-11-18 math.OC

Gabriel Behrendt , Zachary I. Bell , Matthew Hale This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C2090C2568W15
keywords asynchronousoptimizationtime-varyingquadraticprogrammingdistributedblockcoordinatedescentnonconvextrackingerrorobjectivesampling
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 proves that a network of agents can keep tracking the moving minimizer of a time-varying quadratic program even when each agent samples the objective at its own unsynchronized times, on top of asynchronous computation and communication. The paper first shows that asynchronous sampling makes the agents' combined objective behave like a different, possibly nonconvex quadratic program, then proves that a classic asynchronous block coordinate descent algorithm tracks the solutions of that phantom problem with bounded error, and finally bounds the gap between the phantom minimizers and the true ones. The result is a suboptimality bound of the form $a_z \rho_z^{r_z-1} + (4\bar{u}/\phi)^{n/(2n+4)}(K_2/K_1)^{1/(2n+4)}$ for each sampled time $t_z$, so the agents' error stays inside a ball of known size. It answers an open problem in time-varying optimization, though only for quadratic programs and only under a dwell-time assumption that the paper concedes cannot be checked from problem data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the asynchronous projected block coordinate descent law $x_i^i(k+1) = \Pi_{X_i}[x_i^i(k) - \gamma_z(Q_{[i]}(\theta_i(t_z))x(k) + r_{[i]}(\theta_i(t_z)))]$ combined with a partial-asynchrony delay bound $B$. The analysis tracks the suboptimality gap $\alpha(k;t_z) = g(x(k);t_z) - g(x_k^*(t_z);t_z)$ and the recent-update energy $\beta(k) = \sum_{\tau=k-B}^{k-1}\|s(\tau)\|^2$, and the engine of the proof is an inequality (Lemma 12) of the form $\alpha(k+B) \le \gamma_z^{-2}F_z\beta(k+B) + \gamma_z^{-1}G_z\beta(k)$, which yields the linear contraction rate $\rho_z = 1-\gamma_z c_z$. A second engine is Lemma 2, a minimizer-distance bound expressed through the $L^2$ difference of the two objectives, which converts tracking of the phantom problem into tracking of the original one.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a two-agent strongly convex quadratic problem where one agent samples twice as often as the other, shrink the sampling interval so that the objective changes before the iterates reach the required dwell stage $\hat{k}_z$ (for instance, let the minimizer move at a rate comparable to the algorithm's contraction speed), and measure $|g(x(\eta_z);t_z) - f^*(t_z)|$ over many sample times; the central claim fails if this error grows without bound or systematically exits the ball predicted by Theorem 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that asynchronous objective sampling, previously an open problem in time-varying multi-agent optimization, can be handled for quadratic programs by reusing the classic asynchronous block coordinate descent algorithm without modification. When agents sample the continuously varying objective at different times, each gradient evaluation uses a different snapshot of the data, and the paper shows (Theorem 1) that the agents are then implicitly minimizing an aggregate quadratic program $g(x;t_z)$ that need not be convex. It proves (Theorem 2) that this nonconvex aggregate is still tracked with an error that decays geometrically in the number of update blocks, and it derives (Theorem 3) a bound on $|g(x(\eta_z);t_z) - f^*(t_z)|$ that combines that tracking error with a minimizer-shift term coming from a new $L^2$-norm bound on how far the aggregate's minimizers lie from the original problem's minimizers. The significance is that no agent needs to know or coordinate the other agents' sampling times; a bounded error guarantee holds anyway.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes each sampled objective stays fixed for a dwell time $\kappa_z$ that must be long enough for the iterates to reach a special time $\hat{k}_z$ at which the nearest optimal points all have equal cost, and $\hat{k}_z$ depends on constants that cannot be computed from the problem data; if objectives change faster than this, the claimed bounded-error guarantees are not covered (and the paper concedes they would no longer hold).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Synchronizing sampling across agents sharpens the bound to just $a_z\rho_z^{r_z-1}$, recovering (up to constants) the linear convergence of earlier time-varying distributed algorithms.
  • Synchronizing sampling, computation, and communication ($B=1$) recovers the centralized gradient-descent rate for time-varying strongly convex functions, showing the async result generalizes the existing theory.
  • Agents can sample probabilistically (the simulations use sampling probabilities 0.5 and 0.1) and still keep bounded error, so no coordination of sampling schedules is needed.
  • Increasing the rate of sampling shrinks the $K_2$ term, and increasing computation/communication activity shrinks the $a_z\rho_z^{r_z-1}$ term, so the error ball can be tuned by the designer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The nonconvex phantom-objective result suggests a general principle: asynchrony in data acquisition converts a convex problem into a nonconvex one at the aggregate level, so the real design question is not algorithm choice but how to control sampling drift; a testable extension is to quantify the largest sampling skew (max $|\theta_i(t_z)-\theta_j(t_z)|$) that preserves convexity of the aggregate.
  • Because $\hat{k}_z$ is not computable from data, a practitioner cannot verify Assumption 7 before deployment; a natural empirical test is whether a fixed heuristic dwell time (say $\kappa_z = cB$) yields bounded error in practice, which the paper's theory does not cover.
  • The minimizer-shift exponent $1/(2n+4)$ means the guaranteed ball grows slowly with dimension; in high-dimensional QPs the bound may be loose even with frequent sampling, suggesting the need for dimension-dependent refinements that the paper does not address.
  • The same $L^2$-perturbation technique might extend to strongly convex problems beyond quadratics, but it would need an error-bound condition and compact polyhedral structure analogous to Lemmas 4-5, so the quadratic assumption is likely doing real work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies distributed asynchronous optimization of time-varying quadratic programs, allowing agents to sample their objectives, compute, and communicate asynchronously. Agents' asynchronous sampling produces an aggregate quadratic objective (Problem 2) that can be nonconvex, even when the original problem is strongly convex (Theorem 1). The authors analyze a projected block coordinate descent algorithm (Algorithm 1) and prove a bounded suboptimality result for tracking the aggregate problem (Theorem 2), then attempt to relate the aggregate problem to the original one via a minimizer-distance bound (Lemma 2) to obtain the main claim (Theorem 3) that the agents' objective value at the iterate tracks the original optimal value within a known error ball. Synchronous special cases are derived as corollaries, and two numerical experiments illustrate the algorithm's performance.

Significance. The asynchronous-sampling problem is well motivated, and the paper introduces a useful modeling framework in which asynchronous objective sampling creates a nonconvex aggregate quadratic program. Theorem 1 gives an explicit, checkable construction of this phenomenon, and the detailed constant-level analysis of asynchronous block coordinate descent is a nontrivial contribution that may be of independent interest. If a correct tracking guarantee could be established, this would be the first bounded-tracking result for distributed time-varying quadratic programs with asynchronous objective sampling. However, the main result connecting the aggregate problem to the original QP (Theorem 3) is not established as stated and is in fact false under the paper's own assumptions; consequently, the advertised open-problem solution is not realized in the current version.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C, Theorem 3 and its proof] The proof bounds the wrong quantity. Lemma 2 bounds the distance between minimizers of two functions in S, not the difference between their optimal values. In Eq. (9), after bounding alpha by Lemma 1, the remaining term is the value gap |g(x*_k(tz);tz) - f*(tz)|, and Lemma 2 gives no control of this term. The inequality asserted in Case 3, |g(x*_k(tz);tz) - f*(tz)| <= |h(x*_k(tz);tz) - f*(tz)|, is not generally valid: if h(x*_k(tz);tz) < f*(tz), the right-hand side is smaller than the left-hand side. Moreover, the claimed bound contains no factor such as L_g or L_h, so it cannot be obtained by combining Lemma 2 with Lipschitz continuity of the objective. The theorem is false as stated. For example, take X=[-1,1], phi=1, psi=2, f(x)=x^2/2, and g(x)=x^2/2+C with C>0 large. All standing assumptions are satisfied, g is in S and nonnegative, the minimizers of f and g coincide, and the auxiliary h(x)=x^2/2+Mg,z is also in S. The value gap is |g(0)-f*|=C, while the second term of Theorem 3 grows like O(C^{1/3}) and the first term can be made arbitrarily small by taking r_z large. The claimed bounded-value-gap guarantee therefore fails.
  2. [Section IV-C, Theorem 3, Case 3] The auxiliary function h(x;tz)=1/2||x||^2+Mg,z need not belong to the class S defined in Section II. The class S requires 0<phi<psi, but h has Hessian equal to the identity, giving equal strong-convexity and smoothness constants; unless the problem's psi is chosen strictly larger than 1, h is not in S. In addition, the membership condition in S requires the gradient bound u_bar >= max_{x in X} ||x||, which is not guaranteed by the standing assumptions. The assertion in Case 3 that "f,h are in S for this choice of h" is therefore unsupported, and Lemma 2 cannot be invoked as written.
  3. [Section IV-B, Remark 1 and Eq. (7)] The claim that the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) goes to zero as z increases because each rho_i lies in (0,1) is not generally true. Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 allow r_z in N_0, so when r_i=0 the exponent r_i-1 is -1 and the corresponding factor rho_i^{-1} is greater than 1; if this happens infinitely often, the product need not vanish. The uniform ultimate boundedness interpretation in Remark 1 is therefore not justified by the displayed argument. The theorem would need either an assumption that r_z >= 1 for all z or a separate argument controlling the accumulated terms.
  4. [Appendix C, Lemma 19 and Assumption 7] The existence of the time k_hat_z is load-bearing for Assumption 7 and hence for Lemma 1 and Theorem 3, but the proof does not close the gap between Eq. (38) and Eq. (33). Eq. (38) bounds ||s(k)||, the block update at time k, while Lemma 4 and Eq. (33) require a bound on the full projected gradient ||x(k) - Pi_X[x(k) - grad_x g(x(k);tz)]||. The text asserts this implication without showing how the unupdated blocks and stale information are controlled; the beta sums alone do not immediately imply that all block residuals vanish simultaneously. As written, the derivation of k_hat_z is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A and Lemma 2] The constant nu_X is used in the definition of K1 but is never defined geometrically or otherwise; the paper only states nu_X in (0,1). Please provide a definition or a precise citation for this constant from the source of Lemma 2.
  2. [Section V-A] Figure 2 is described as comparing Algorithm 1 with a consensus algorithm on an example with N=2 agents, while the main numerical setup in Section V-A uses N=10 agents. Please state the problem parameters used for the comparison in Figure 2 and clarify how the two settings relate.
  3. [Section V] The simulations demonstrate qualitative tracking behavior, but they do not compare the empirical suboptimality gap with the bound in Theorem 3. Since the theorem is the paper's central quantitative claim, a comparison (even with conservative estimates of the constants) would help the reader calibrate the result.
  4. [Figure 4] The axis label in Figure 4 reads "R efer ence"; this should be corrected to "Reference".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 3's bound is assembled from external optimization lemmas and problem-data constants, with no fitted quantity or self-citation chain doing the work.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing result (Theorem 3) is derived in two independent pieces. Lemma 1 bounds the suboptimality of Algorithm 1 on the aggregate Problem 2; its proof (Appendix D) builds on external asynchronous convergence analyses (Bertsekas-Tsitsiklis [10], Tseng [13], Luo-Tseng [14]) and does not invoke the theorem being proved. Lemma 2 is a minimizer-stability bound taken from Nozari et al. [36], relating argmins of two functions in S through their L2 distance; it is external and parameter-free. Theorem 3 combines these with K2(f,g,h), which is defined directly from the problem data (original objective f, aggregate objective g, and the explicit function h(x;tz)=1/2||x||^2+Mg,z), so the right-hand side is a computed bound rather than a fitted output. The constants az, rhoz, K1, K2, and the step-size limits are all derived from Assumptions 1-8 and the known objectives; no parameter is fit to the gap |g(x(eta_z);t_z)-f*(t_z)| that the theorem predicts. The only self-citations ([18], [19]) appear in the introduction and in Corollaries 1-2, where the paper recovers known synchronous linear rates; these corollaries are proven directly (e.g., g(.;t_z)=f(.;t_z) under synchronous sampling), so the self-citations are not load-bearing for the main claim. The paper also explicitly concedes that removing Assumption 7 (the timescale separation) would void the guarantees; that is a stated limitation, not a circular definition. Even if the proof's use of Lemma 2 to bound a value gap by a minimizer-distance bound raises a correctness question, that concern is distinct from circularity, since the bound's ingredients are not the quantity being bounded. Accordingly, the derivation is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 11 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem rests on eight domain assumptions, three external technical results, and no fitted parameters. Assumption 7 is the most fragile because the required dwell time depends on an uncomputable endpoint; most other assumptions are standard or weak.

assumptions (11)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: Q(t) is symmetric and Q(t) ⪰ xi I_n with xi > 0 for all t, so Problem 1's objective is strongly convex.
    Defines the problem class; the nonconvexity that arises belongs to the aggregate Problem 2, not the original QP.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: X = X_1 x ... x X_N with non-empty, compact, polyhedral blocks X_i.
    Allows each agent to project its own block independently and is used in the error-bound condition.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: Q[i](.) and r[i](.) are Lipschitz in time.
    Bounds how much the objective can move between samples; formalized in Lemma 20.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: every agent samples regularly enough that |theta_i(t_{z+1}) - theta_i(t_z)| <= Delta.
    Bounds the staleness of each agent's sampled objective; used in Lemma 20.
  • domain assumption Assumption 5: successive minimizers of the aggregate problem move by at most sigma_{z+1}.
    Controls drift of the nonconvex solution set; sigma_z <= d_X always holds, so it is a weak assumption.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6: g(x; t_z) >= 0 for all x and t_z.
    A technical non-negativity condition that can be arranged by adding a constant to the objective.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 7: each objective g(.; t_z) is minimized for kappa_z ticks, with kappa_z = k_hat_z + r_z B.
    This timescale-separation assumption requires a dwell time longer than an uncomputable finite endpoint k_hat_z; it is the most fragile premise in the paper.
  • domain assumption Assumption 8: partial asynchrony, meaning computation and communication delays are bounded by B.
    Standard asynchronous optimization setting from Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis [10]; without it, delays can cause divergence.
  • standard math Error bound condition for quadratic programs over polyhedral sets (Luo-Tseng [14, Theorem 2.3]).
    Bridges first-order residual to distance to the solution set for the nonconvex aggregate QP; used in Lemma 4.
  • standard math Lipschitz-descent and partial-asynchrony lemmas from Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis [10] and Tseng [13] (Lemmas 6-9).
    Provide the descent inequalities and stale-gradient bounds used in Lemma 1.
  • standard math Nozari et al. Proposition A.2 [36], used to bound the distance between minimizers by an L2 function-distance term.
    Basis for Lemma 2 and the second term of Theorem 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed Asynchronous Time-Varying Quadratic Programming with Asynchronous Objective Sampling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FI2L7BYO

@misc{pith2026241111732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed Asynchronous Time-Varying Quadratic Programming with Asynchronous Objective Sampling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FI2L7BYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11732}
}
read the original abstract

Existing works on multi-agent time-varying optimization allow agents to asynchronously communicate and/or compute, but do not allow asynchronous sampling of objectives. Sampling can be difficult to synchronize, and we therefore present a multi-agent optimization framework that allows asynchrony in sampling, communications, and computations for time-varying quadratic programs. We show that agents have bounded error when tracking the solution to the asynchronously sampled problem, which solves an open problem for quadratic programs. Simulations validate these results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The four behaviors that Algorithm 1 can exhibit. First, the blue lines depict the possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tracking error between the true state of the network and the minimizer of (10), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of α for the problem in Section V-A for varying B. As B decreases, agents compute and communicate more often, thus shrinking the suboptimality gap α and tracking x ∗ (t) more closely. −  − −  −      −  − −  −  [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The positions zi(t) for the problem in Section V-B. Agents start far from the desired reference but closely track it thereafter. Tracking error is due to agents possibly tracking an out￾dated sample of the reference, as well as asynchrony in their computations and comm…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sensor-based reactive navigation in unknown convex sphere worlds,

    O. Arslan and D. E. Koditschek, “Sensor-based reactive navigation in unknown convex sphere worlds,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 38, no. 2-3, pp. 196–223, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    D-map: Distributed maximum a posteriori probability estimation of dynamic systems,

    F. Y . Jakubiec and A. Ribeiro, “D-map: Distributed maximum a posteriori probability estimation of dynamic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 450–466, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    An online parallel algorithm for recursive estimation of sparse signals,

    Y . Yang, M. Pesavento, M. Zhang, and D. P. Palomar, “An online parallel algorithm for recursive estimation of sparse signals,” IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 290–305, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Time-varying convex optimization: Time- structured algorithms and applications,

    A. Simonetto, E. Dall’Anese, S. Paternain, G. Leus, and G. B. Giannakis, “Time-varying convex optimization: Time- structured algorithms and applications,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 108, no. 11, pp. 2032–2048, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Real-time optimal power flow,

    Y . Tang, K. Dvijotham, and S. Low, “Real-time optimal power flow,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2963–2973, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Exact robot navigation using power diagrams,

    O. Arslan and D. E. Koditschek, “Exact robot navigation using power diagrams,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2016, pp. 1–8

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Optimal power flow pursuit,

    E. Dall’Anese and A. Simonetto, “Optimal power flow pursuit,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 942–952, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Coordinated control of multi-robot systems: A survey,

    J. Cort ´es and M. Egerstedt, “Coordinated control of multi-robot systems: A survey,” SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration , vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 495–503, 2017. August 30, 2025 DRAFT BEHRENDT, BELL, HALE; TECH. REPORT 34

    work page 2017

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    A class of prediction-correction methods for time-varying convex optimization,

    A. Simonetto, A. Mokhtari, A. Koppel, G. Leus, and A. Ribeiro, “A class of prediction-correction methods for time-varying convex optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 64, no. 17, pp. 4576–4591, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    D. P. Bertsekas and J. N. Tsitsiklis, Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods . USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989

    1989

  3. [11]

    Asynchronous parallel nonconvex optimization under the polyak-łojasiewicz condition,

    K. Yazdani and M. Hale, “Asynchronous parallel nonconvex optimization under the polyak-łojasiewicz condition,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 524–529, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Asynchronous optimization over graphs: Linear convergence under error bound conditions,

    L. Cannelli, F. Facchinei, G. Scutari, and V . Kungurtsev, “Asynchronous optimization over graphs: Linear convergence under error bound conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 4604–4619, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    On the rate of convergence of a partially asynchronous gradient projection algorithm,

    P. Tseng, “On the rate of convergence of a partially asynchronous gradient projection algorithm,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 603–619, 1991

    1991

  6. [14]

    Error bound and convergence analysis of matrix splitting algorithms for the affine variational inequality problem,

    Z.-Q. Luo and P. Tseng, “Error bound and convergence analysis of matrix splitting algorithms for the affine variational inequality problem,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 1992

    1992

  7. [15]

    Totally asynchronous large-scale quadratic programming: Regularization, convergence rates, and parameter selection,

    M. Ubl and M. Hale, “Totally asynchronous large-scale quadratic programming: Regularization, convergence rates, and parameter selection,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1465–1476, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Totally asynchronous primal-dual convex optimization in blocks,

    K. R. Hendrickson and M. T. Hale, “Totally asynchronous primal-dual convex optimization in blocks,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 454–466, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Decentralized weapon–target assignment under asynchronous communications,

    K. Hendrickson, P. Ganesh, K. V olle, P. Buzaud, K. Brink, and M. Hale, “Decentralized weapon–target assignment under asynchronous communications,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 312–324, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A totally asynchronous algorithm for time-varying convex optimization problems,

    G. Behrendt and M. Hale, “A totally asynchronous algorithm for time-varying convex optimization problems,” IFAC- PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 5203–5208, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Distributed asynchronous discrete-time feedback optimization,

    G. Behrendt, M. Longmire, Z. I. Bell, and M. Hale, “Distributed asynchronous discrete-time feedback optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00646, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Solving time-varying quadratic programs based on finite-time zhang neural networks and their application to robot tracking,

    P. Miao, Y . Shen, Y . Huang, and Y .-W. Wang, “Solving time-varying quadratic programs based on finite-time zhang neural networks and their application to robot tracking,” Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 26, pp. 693–703, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Dynamic neural networks for kinematic redundancy resolution of parallel stewart platforms,

    A. M. Mohammed and S. Li, “Dynamic neural networks for kinematic redundancy resolution of parallel stewart platforms,” IEEE Transactions on cybernetics , vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1538–1550, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Quadrupedal locomotion via event-based predictive control and qp-based virtual constraints,

    K. A. Hamed, J. Kim, and A. Pandala, “Quadrupedal locomotion via event-based predictive control and qp-based virtual constraints,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4463–4470, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Constrained nonlinear control allocation with singularity avoidance using sequential quadratic programming,

    T. A. Johansen, T. I. Fossen, and S. P. Berge, “Constrained nonlinear control allocation with singularity avoidance using sequential quadratic programming,” IEEE transactions on control systems technology , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 211–216, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    Real-time convex optimization in signal processing,

    J. Mattingley and S. Boyd, “Real-time convex optimization in signal processing,” IEEE Signal processing magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 50–61, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    A barrier varying-parameter dynamic learning network for solving time-varying quadratic programming problems with multiple constraints,

    Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and S. Yang, “A barrier varying-parameter dynamic learning network for solving time-varying quadratic programming problems with multiple constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 8781–8792, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Distributed continuous-time convex optimization with time-varying cost functions,

    S. Rahili and W. Ren, “Distributed continuous-time convex optimization with time-varying cost functions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1590–1605, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Distributed continuous-time algorithm for time-varying optimization with affine formation constraints,

    C. Wu, H. Fang, X. Zeng, Q. Yang, Y . Wei, and J. Chen, “Distributed continuous-time algorithm for time-varying optimization with affine formation constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 2615–2622, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Asynchronous and distributed tracking of time-varying fixed points,

    A. Bernstein and E. Dall’Anese, “Asynchronous and distributed tracking of time-varying fixed points,” in 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 3236–3243. August 30, 2025 DRAFT BEHRENDT, BELL, HALE; TECH. REPORT 35

    2018

  21. [29]

    Decentralized prediction-correction methods for networked time-varying convex optimization,

    A. Simonetto, A. Koppel, A. Mokhtari, G. Leus, and A. Ribeiro, “Decentralized prediction-correction methods for networked time-varying convex optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 5724–5738, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Decentralized dynamic optimization through the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    Q. Ling and A. Ribeiro, “Decentralized dynamic optimization through the alternating direction method of multipliers,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1185–1197, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Distributed online convex optimization with time-varying coupled inequality constraints,

    X. Yi, X. Li, L. Xie, and K. H. Johansson, “Distributed online convex optimization with time-varying coupled inequality constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 68, pp. 731–746, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    A parametric nonconvex decomposition algorithm for real-time and distributed nmpc,

    J.-H. Hours and C. N. Jones, “A parametric nonconvex decomposition algorithm for real-time and distributed nmpc,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 287–302, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Discrete and continuous-time soft-thresholding for dynamic signal recovery,

    A. Balavoine, C. J. Rozell, and J. Romberg, “Discrete and continuous-time soft-thresholding for dynamic signal recovery,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 3165–3176, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Timescale separation in autonomous optimization,

    A. Hauswirth, S. Bolognani, G. Hug, and F. D ¨orfler, “Timescale separation in autonomous optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 611–624, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Online optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking,

    M. Colombino, E. Dall 'Anese, and A. Bernstein, “Online optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 422–432, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Differentially private distributed convex optimization via functional perturbation,

    E. Nozari, P. Tallapragada, and J. Cort ´es, “Differentially private distributed convex optimization via functional perturbation,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 395–408, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Convergence rate for consensus with delays,

    A. Nedi ´c and A. Ozdaglar, “Convergence rate for consensus with delays,” Journal of Global Optimization , vol. 47, pp. 437–456, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Asynchronous iterations in optimization: New sequence results and sharper algorithmic guarantees,

    H. R. Feyzmahdavian and M. Johansson, “Asynchronous iterations in optimization: New sequence results and sharper algorithmic guarantees,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 24, no. 158, pp. 1–75, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Faster asynchronous nonconvex block coordinate descent with locally chosen stepsizes,

    M. Ubl and M. T. Hale, “Faster asynchronous nonconvex block coordinate descent with locally chosen stepsizes,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2022, pp. 4559–4564. August 30, 2025 DRAFT

    2022

Pith tools

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