Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

An Efficient Unsupervised Framework for Convex Quadratic Programs via Deep Unrolling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Unrolling PDQP into a network and training it with an unsupervised KKT-condition loss yields near-optimal warm starts that accelerate solving by up to 45% in-distribution and 14-31% out-of-distribution.

desk verdict A useful extension of unrolled LPs to QPs with a sensible unsupervised KKT loss and promising speedups, but the proof of Prop 3.2 is wrong, the neuron bound is overstated, and the experiments need error bars and code. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01051 v1 pith:VKUARX3I submitted 2024-12-02 math.OC cs.LG

Linxin Yang , Bingheng Li , Tian Ding , Jianghua Wu , Akang Wang , Yuyi Wang , Jiliang Tang , Ruoyu Sun
show 1 more author
Xiaodong Luo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.LG MSC 90C2090C25
keywords convexquadraticprogrammingdeepunrollingprimal-dualhybridgradientunsupervisedlearningKKTconditionswarm-startingtooptimizegraphneuralnetworks
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 tries to make convex quadratic programming faster by learning good starting points. It unrolls the PDQP solver, a matrix-free primal-dual hybrid gradient algorithm, into a neural network called PDQP-net, then trains it with an unsupervised loss built from KKT conditions: primal residual, dual residual, and primal-dual gap. The central claim is that the resulting predictions, used as warm starts, cut PDQP solving time by up to 45% on in-distribution instances and by 14-31% on out-of-distribution instances.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unrolled PDQP layer: each layer of PDQP-net mirrors one PDQP iteration, with learnable step sizes $\beta_k,\eta_k,\theta_k,\tau_k$, learnable channel-expansion matrices $W^k_{\bar{x}},W^k_y,W^k_\theta$, and piecewise-linear projection operators expressed through ReLU and shifts. Unrolling guarantees that PDQP-net can align exactly with PDQP when the extra matrices are set to the identity. The training signal is the unsupervised KKT residual loss $\mathcal{L}=\hat{r}_{\mathrm{primal}}+\hat{r}_{\mathrm{dual}}+\hat{r}_{\mathrm{gap}}$, where each residual is normalized, so the network directly minimizes feasibility violations and the optimality gap instead of distance to collected labels.

What would settle it

On a held-out family of convex QPs, train PDQP-net with the proposed loss and compare PDQP iteration counts for low-loss predictions against randomly perturbed starting points with controlled larger loss; if low-loss starts do not consistently reduce iterations, or if equal-loss starts produce widely different speedups, the residual-to-speedup link underlying the framework fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a network obtained by unrolling the PDQP iteration, with learnable step sizes and ReLU-based projections, can replicate the PDQP sequence exactly for a suitable parameter assignment, and that training it to minimize normalized KKT residuals produces primal-dual predictions with much smaller primal-dual gaps than supervised training. The theory states that a K-layer PDQP-net of polynomial size can align with PDQP (Theorem 3.1), that $O(\log(1/\epsilon))$ neurons suffice for an $\epsilon$-optimal solution while preserving linear convergence (Proposition 3.1), and that supervised predictions close in distance can nonetheless have large duality gaps (Proposition 3.2). Empirically, warm-started PDQP achieves up to 45% acceleration and up to 49% iteration reduction, with 14-31% acceleration on the out-of-distribution Maros-Meszaros instances.

Load-bearing premise

The acceleration result rests on the assumption that a prediction with smaller normalized KKT residuals will reliably make PDQP converge in fewer iterations; the paper does not prove a quantitative link between residual values and solver speedup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PDQP-net warm starts reduce PDQP solving time by about 30-45% and iteration count by up to 49% on the tested in-distribution QP instances.
  • The framework generalizes to out-of-distribution instances, achieving 14-31% acceleration on most Maros-Meszaros test problems.
  • Unsupervised training eliminates the need for solver-generated optimal solutions as labels, while producing lower primal-dual gaps than supervised training.
  • The theoretical results tie network size to solver convergence: a PDQP-net with $O(\log(1/\epsilon))$ neurons reaches $\epsilon$-accuracy with linear convergence.
  • The unrolled architecture outperforms a conventional GNN baseline on solution-quality residuals across real-world and synthetic benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same unrolling-plus-KKT-loss recipe could transfer to other first-order solvers whose updates are piecewise-linear and differentiable with respect to step sizes.
  • Because the loss is fully unsupervised and differentiable, it could be embedded inside larger end-to-end systems such as model-predictive control where optimal QP labels are not available at train time.
  • The empirical link between normalized KKT residuals and solver speedup is not proven, so a quantitative residual-to-iteration bound would make the acceleration claim robust for unseen distributions.
  • The logarithmic neuron bound suggests that QP families with fixed sparsity need only mild network growth as required accuracy increases, encouraging tests on much larger instances.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PDQP-net, a deep-unrolling network that mimics the PDQP primal-dual algorithm for convex quadratic programs, and trains it with an unsupervised loss built from normalized KKT residuals (primal feasibility, dual stationarity, and primal-dual gap). The authors prove (Theorem 3.1) that with a specific parameter assignment the network can exactly reproduce the PDQP iterate sequence, argue (Proposition 3.1) that a K-layer network inherits PDQP's linear convergence with O(log 1/epsilon) neurons, and use Proposition 3.2 to motivate why supervised training can produce large primal-dual gaps. Empirically they report lower residuals for the unsupervised PDQP-net relative to supervised and GNN baselines on QPLIB and synthetic instances, and report 14-45% warm-start acceleration of PDQP, including out-of-distribution Maros-Meszaros instances.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a practically useful extension of learning-to-optimize to convex QPs, and the unsupervised KKT-informed loss is an appealing idea that avoids solver-generated labels. The work is original and clearly within the journal's scope. Strengths include the explicit unrolling construction, the exact replication argument in Theorem 3.1, and the focus on primal-dual gap quality rather than only distance to the optimum. However, the theoretical support is substantially weaker than claimed: Proposition 3.1 relies on a convergence theorem for equality-constrained QPs that does not cover the inequality-constrained problem actually solved, and the proof of Proposition 3.2 contains an invalid Taylor bound. The central acceleration claim also lacks statistical support and a demonstrated link between the surrogate loss and warm-start performance. These issues are fixable but currently block acceptance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Proposition 3.2] The stated bound is not proved. The Taylor expansion step uses |P(x0)-P(x*)| <= ||c|| ||x0-x*|| + (1/2)||Q|| ||x0-x*||^2, which omits the Qx* term in the gradient of P at x*. For a constrained optimum, Qx*+c need not vanish, and the inequality can fail; for example, with Q=I, c=0, the constraint x1 >= 1 gives x*=e1 and x0=e1+delta e2, for which the left side is delta + 0.5 delta^2 while the right side is 0.5 delta^2. Consequently Proposition 3.2's conclusion is not established, and the motivation for preferring the KKT-residual loss over a distance-based loss needs a corrected argument.
  2. [Appendix B, Proposition 3.1] The linear convergence result quoted as Theorem B.1 is for equality-constrained QPs (min 1/2 x^T Q x + c^T x subject to Ax = b), whereas the paper's problem (1) has inequality constraints Ax >= b and bound constraints l <= x <= u. The paper does not show that the fixed-restart schedule and parameter choices required by Theorem B.1 apply to the PDQP form used in Algorithm 1. Therefore the claim that PDQP-net 'exhibits at least the same convergence properties' and the O(log 1/epsilon) neuron bound are not established for the problem class under study; Theorem 3.1 shows only exact replication of finitely many iterates, not convergence.
  3. [Sections 3.3, 4.3, and Appendix G] The central speedup claim assumes that smaller normalized KKT residuals produce larger PDQP warm-start gains, but no experiment or analysis connects the value of the loss L to the number of PDQP iterations. The paper reports residual values and speedups in separate tables, but does not show their relationship; there is no ablation varying the relative weights of r_hat_primal, r_hat_dual, and r_hat_gap, and no comparison against randomized or supervised warm starts matched by residual value. Because the acceleration is the paper's main practical payoff, a direct scatter plot or rank-correlation analysis between residual components and iteration reduction, together with repeated-run averages, is needed to support the causal interpretation.
  4. [Tables 2 and 4] The empirical evidence as reported is not reproducible: no seeds, no error bars, no hyperparameter details (network depth, channel widths, MLP sizes, number of training instances, loss weights), and no code. In addition, Table 2 contains an internal inconsistency: for QPLIB-8845 the reported improvement is 30.64%, but (104.51 - 76.17)/104.51 = 27.1%. Section 4.5's statement that the framework is 'nearly 20 times faster' is also contradicted by the 31.61% speedup shown in Table 4. These discrepancies must be corrected, and the experiments repeated across multiple seeds, before the acceleration claims can be assessed fairly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.6, Figure 2] The caption says 'two QPLIB instances' but three panels (a)-(c) are shown, and the text says 'for both problems' while discussing three datasets; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Appendix G] There are several typos, including 'Supervised-Learning vs Unsupervised-Learning' in the section title, 'trianing' in Figure 3, and 'intances' in Section 4.5; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Section 4.1] The improvement metric is written as 'Improv. := PDQP - ours / PDQP' without clarifying whether time or iterations are used for computation; a formal definition with the exact numerator and denominator would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Table 6] The reported number of nonzeros for QSHIP04L is '6,33', which appears to be a typo for 633, and the formatting of the QISREAL entry is inconsistent; these should be checked against the dataset documentation.
  5. [Appendix H] The sentence 'It is necessary for zeta = 0' should be replaced by a statement about the projected gradient vanishing; the sign conventions in the RCV expression should also be verified for consistency.
  6. [Remark 3.1] The remark states as established that PDQP-net approximates optimal solutions with O(log 1/epsilon) neurons, but this depends on Proposition 3.1, whose proof currently relies on an inapplicable theorem; the remark should be conditioned on a corrected convergence argument.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theoretical neuron-count guarantee restates PDQP's iteration bound by construction; the empirical warm-start acceleration remains an independent, externally benchmarked result.

  1. self definitional [Appendix B, proof of Proposition 3.1 (paragraph after Theorem B.1)]
    "Since the network width is a fixed number and ρ ∈ (0, 1), the number of neurons at each layer is bounded by a constant. Thus, the total number of neurons has the same order as K(ε), which is O(log 1/ε)."

    Proposition 3.1 is proved by giving PDQP-Net the identity channel weights and PDQP's own step sizes (Appendix A), which makes the K-layer PDQP-Net exactly K iterations of PDQP. The advertised O(log 1/ε)-neuron approximation bound is therefore just the O(log 1/ε) iteration complexity of PDQP from Theorem B.1 (Lu & Yang), with 'iterations' renamed as 'neurons'. The claimed network-size prediction is equivalent by construction to the convergence of the algorithm being unrolled, and it says nothing about trained networks. This is a transparent inheritance, but as a first-principles theoretical result it reduces to its input.

full rationale

The empirical central claim is not circular: PDQP-net is trained with an unsupervised KKT-residual loss, and acceleration is measured by actual PDQP solver time and iteration counts against a zero initialization, on external benchmarks (QPLIB, Maros-Meszaros) plus synthetic instances. The DUAL4 negative result (-2.12%) shows the outcome is not forced by the loss. The KKT loss being also the evaluation metric is a limitation of the quality comparison, but it does not make the warm-start speedup circular. The only self-citation, to the authors' own PDLP unrolling framework (Li et al. 2024), supplies the channel-expansion architecture and is not used as a uniqueness or correctness argument. The theoretical alignment and neuron-count results are by-construction consequences of unrolling PDQP, which the paper states openly; they lower the novelty of the theory contribution but do not infect the empirical benchmark results. Overall, a partial, low-severity circularity in one theoretical claim with independent empirical content, hence a score of 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on learned network parameters (step sizes, projection weights, MLPs) that are fitted to training data and not disclosed, and on cited convergence theory for PDQP. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Learnable step sizes per layer (beta_k, eta_k, theta_k, tau_k) = not reported
    Network parameters trained via AdamW (Section 4.1); exact learned values not disclosed.
  • Channel expansion weight matrices (W^k_xbar, W^k_y, W^k_theta) = not reported
    Learned matrices mapping scalar iterates to channel-expanded embeddings; dimensions d_x, d_y not specified.
  • MLP parameters (fx, fy, gx, gy) = not reported
    Initial embedding and output decoding MLPs in Algorithm 2; architecture not described in main text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Q is positive semidefinite and constraints are linear, so KKT conditions are necessary and sufficient (assuming a constraint qualification)
    Stated in Section 2.1 and used in Section 3.3 to justify the unsupervised loss.
  • domain assumption PDQP converges linearly under quadratic growth conditions (Theorem B.1 from Lu and Yang 2024)
    Invoked in Appendix B to establish PDQP-net's convergence and O(log 1/epsilon) neuron count; stated for equality-constrained QPs but applied to inequality-constrained problem (1).
  • domain assumption The ReLU-based projection operators exactly replicate the box projections of PDQP
    Validated in Appendix F for cases x >= l, x <= u, both, and unbounded; required for Theorem 3.1 alignment.
  • ad hoc to paper The RCC reduced-cost term in the loss faithfully estimates complementarity slackness contributions from variable bounds
    Introduced in Appendix G and H; no proof that this surrogate equals the true reduced cost when stationarity holds approximately.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Efficient Unsupervised Framework for Convex Quadratic Programs via Deep Unrolling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKUARX3I

@misc{pith2026241201051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Efficient Unsupervised Framework for Convex Quadratic Programs via Deep Unrolling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKUARX3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01051}
}
read the original abstract

Quadratic programs (QPs) arise in various domains such as machine learning, finance, and control. Recently, learning-enhanced primal-dual hybrid gradient (PDHG) methods have shown great potential in addressing large-scale linear programs; however, this approach has not been extended to QPs. In this work, we focus on unrolling "PDQP", a PDHG algorithm specialized for convex QPs. Specifically, we propose a neural network model called "PDQP-net" to learn optimal QP solutions. Theoretically, we demonstrate that a PDQP-net of polynomial size can align with the PDQP algorithm, returning optimal primal-dual solution pairs. We propose an unsupervised method that incorporates KKT conditions into the loss function. Unlike the standard learning-to-optimize framework that requires optimization solutions generated by solvers, our unsupervised method adjusts the network weights directly from the evaluation of the primal-dual gap. This method has two benefits over supervised learning: first, it helps generate better primal-dual gap since the primal-dual gap is in the objective function; second, it does not require solvers. We show that PDQP-net trained in this unsupervised manner can effectively approximate optimal QP solutions. Extensive numerical experiments confirm our findings, indicating that using PDQP-net predictions to warm-start PDQP can achieve up to 45% acceleration on QP instances. Moreover, it achieves 14% to 31% acceleration on out-of-distribution instances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed unsupervised learning framework. The left panel illustrates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the primal-dual gap of points generated by randomly perturbing the optimal solution, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the primal-dual gap of each iteration during the training process of the supervised and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    cs.SE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    PRISM restores dataflow analysis across LLM API calls via a 25-label taxonomy of placeholder-to-output reachability grounded in quantitative information flow.

  2. Solving Quadratic Programs via Deep Unrolled Douglas-Rachford Splitting

    math.OC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 4-layer network derived from a gradient-modified Douglas-Rachford algorithm predicts warm starts that reduce SCS iterations by up to 50% and total solve time by up to 40% on convex QP benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    On implementing a primal-dual interior-point method for conic quadratic optimization

    Erling D Andersen, Cees Roos, and Tamas Terlaky. On implementing a primal-dual interior-point method for conic quadratic optimization. Mathematical Programming, 95: 0 249--277, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Machine learning for combinatorial optimization: a methodological tour d’horizon

    Yoshua Bengio, Andrea Lodi, and Antoine Prouvost. Machine learning for combinatorial optimization: a methodological tour d’horizon. European Journal of Operational Research, 290 0 (2): 0 405--421, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Multi-period trading via convex optimization

    Stephen Boyd, Enzo Busseti, Steve Diamond, Ronald N Kahn, Kwangmoo Koh, Peter Nystrup, Jan Speth, et al. Multi-period trading via convex optimization. Foundations and Trends in Optimization , 3 0 (1): 0 1--76, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Enhancing sparsity by reweighted l_1 minimization

    Emmanuel J Candes, Michael B Wakin, and Stephen P Boyd. Enhancing sparsity by reweighted l_1 minimization. Journal of Fourier analysis and applications, 14: 0 877--905, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Learning to optimize: A tutorial for continuous and mixed-integer optimization

    Xiaohan Chen, Jialin Liu, and Wotao Yin. Learning to optimize: A tutorial for continuous and mixed-integer optimization. Science China Mathematics, pp.\ 1--72, 2024 a

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    On representing linear programs by graph neural networks

    Ziang Chen, Jialin Liu, Xinshang Wang, Jianfeng Lu, and Wotao Yin. On representing linear programs by graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12288, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Expressive power of graph neural networks for (mixed-integer) quadratic programs

    Ziang Chen, Xiaohan Chen, Jialin Liu, Xinshang Wang, and Wotao Yin. Expressive power of graph neural networks for (mixed-integer) quadratic programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05938, 2024 b

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Support-vector networks

    Corinna Cortes. Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 1995

    1995

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Linear programming and extensions

    George B Dantzig. Linear programming and extensions. In Linear programming and extensions. Princeton university press, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    QPLIB : A library of quadratic programming instances

    Fabio Furini, Emiliano Traversi, Pietro Belotti, Ambros Gleixner Antonio Frangioni, Nick Gould, Leo Liberti, Andrea Lodi, Ruth Misener, Hans Mittelmann, Nikolaos Sahinidis, Stefan Vigerske, and Angelika Wiegele. QPLIB : A library of quadratic programming instances. Mathematica...

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey

    Carlos E Garcia, David M Prett, and Manfred Morari. Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey. Automatica, 25 0 (3): 0 335--348, 1989

    1989

  4. [12]

    The machine learning for combinatorial optimization competition (ml4co): Results and insights

    Maxime Gasse, Simon Bowly, Quentin Cappart, Jonas Charfreitag, Laurent Charlin, Didier Ch \'e telat, Antonia Chmiela, Justin Dumouchelle, Ambros Gleixner, Aleksandr M Kazachkov, et al. The machine learning for combinatorial optimization competition (ml4co): Results and insight...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Pdhg-unrolled learning-to-optimize method for large-scale linear programming

    Bingheng Li, Linxin Yang, Yupeng Chen, Senmiao Wang, Qian Chen, Haitao Mao, Yao Ma, Akang Wang, Tian Ding, Jiliang Tang, et al. Pdhg-unrolled learning-to-optimize method for large-scale linear programming. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Efficient and interpretable deep blind image deblurring via algorithm unrolling

    Yuelong Li, Mohammad Tofighi, Junyi Geng, Vishal Monga, and Yonina C Eldar. Efficient and interpretable deep blind image deblurring via algorithm unrolling. IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 6: 0 666--681, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Knowledge-driven deep unrolling for robust image layer separation

    Risheng Liu, Zhiying Jiang, Xin Fan, and Zhongxuan Luo. Knowledge-driven deep unrolling for robust image layer separation. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 31 0 (5): 0 1653--1666, 2019

    2019

  8. [17]

    A practical and optimal first-order method for large-scale convex quadratic programming, 2024

    Haihao Lu and Jinwen Yang. A practical and optimal first-order method for large-scale convex quadratic programming, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07710

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Portfolio selection

    Harry Markowitz. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7 0 (1): 0 77--91, 1952. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x

    1952

  10. [19]

    A repository of convex quadratic programming problems

    Istvan Maros and Csaba M \'e sz \'a ros. A repository of convex quadratic programming problems. Optimization methods and software, 11 0 (1-4): 0 671--681, 1999

    1999

  11. [20]

    Solving mixed integer programs using neural networks

    Vinod Nair, Sergey Bartunov, Felix Gimeno, Ingrid Von Glehn, Pawel Lichocki, Ivan Lobov, Brendan O'Donoghue, Nicolas Sonnerat, Christian Tjandraatmadja, Pengming Wang, et al. Solving mixed integer programs using neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13349, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Operator splitting for a homogeneous embedding of the linear complementarity problem

    Brendan O'Donoghue. Operator splitting for a homogeneous embedding of the linear complementarity problem. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 31 0 (3): 0 1999--2023, 2021

    1999

  13. [22]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu ...

    2019

  14. [23]

    Osqp: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs

    Bartolomeo Stellato, Goran Banjac, Paul Goulart, Alberto Bemporad, and Stephen Boyd. Osqp: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs. Mathematical Programming Computation, 12 0 (4): 0 637--672, 2020

    2020

  15. [24]

    Primal-dual interior-point methods

    Stephen J Wright. Primal-dual interior-point methods. SIAM, 1997

    1997

  16. [25]

    Fista-net: Learning a fast iterative shrinkage thresholding network for inverse problems in imaging

    Jinxi Xiang, Yonggui Dong, and Yunjie Yang. Fista-net: Learning a fast iterative shrinkage thresholding network for inverse problems in imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40 0 (5): 0 1329--1339, 2021

    2021

  17. [26]

    Ista-net: Interpretable optimization-inspired deep network for image compressive sensing

    Jian Zhang and Bernard Ghanem. Ista-net: Interpretable optimization-inspired deep network for image compressive sensing. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 1828--1837, 2018

    2018

  18. [27]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  19. [28]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  20. [29]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  21. [30]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

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