Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 39 references

On Squared-Variable Formulations for Nonlinear Semidefinite programming

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that a second-order necessary point of the squared-variable reformulation is exactly a second-order necessary point of the original nonlinear semidefinite program when the factor is square.

desk verdict A genuinely new and clean equivalence: 2NP of the nonsymmetric squared-variable reformulation maps exactly to 2NP of the original nonlinear SDP, without transversality or strict complementarity, and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02099 v1 pith:NJUWQQUY submitted 2025-02-04 math.OC

Lijun Ding , Stephen J. Wright This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C2290C3090C46
keywords nonlinearsemidefiniteprogrammingsquared-variablereformulationsecond-ordernecessaryconditionsmatrixfactorizationpositiveconstraintsoverparametrizationnuclearnormminimizationlocalminimizers
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 claims that, for nonlinear semidefinite programs, a second-order necessary point—a candidate at which the objective's curvature is nonnegative along all relevant feasible directions—survives the rewrite of the constraint $X \succeq 0$ as $X = F F^\top$ with square $F$. The main theorem says the correspondence is exact in both directions: second-order necessary points of the factored problem are exactly second-order necessary points of the original problem, and vice versa. The same correspondence holds for direct-substitution problems of the form $\min h(F F^\top)$. A symmetric-factor variant works fully only when no two nonzero eigenvalues of $F$ sum to zero. If true, the result lets equality-constrained and unconstrained solvers that routinely reach second-order points be applied to problems whose natural formulation has a semidefinite constraint.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two trace lemmas (Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2) that connect curvature in the factor space to curvature in the matrix space. For a direction $\Delta$ in $F$-space, the corresponding direction in $X$-space is $W = F\Delta^\top + \Delta F^\top$; the lemmas relate the term $\operatorname{tr}(\nabla h(X)\Delta\Delta^\top)$ to $\operatorname{tr}(W X^\dagger W \nabla h(X))$, using the pseudoinverse $X^\dagger$ and a null-space basis $V$ of $X$. Lemma 2.2 constructs, for every $W$ in the relevant subspace, a $\Delta$ that realizes $W$ while making the trace correction vanish, and it is this construction that removes the strict-complementarity assumption needed in earlier treatments.

What would settle it

Theorems 3.1 and 2.1 assert that no example exists of a square-factor second-order point whose projected matrix point fails the weak second-order condition. A single smooth instance with $F\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ satisfying (SSV-2NC) whose $(x,\Lambda)$ violates (NSDP-2NC) would falsify the main claim; the paper's own Example 3.1 already supplies exactly this failure for the symmetric variant, so the decisive experiment is to check whether the same construction can succeed with a nonsymmetric factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Formally, Theorem 3.1 states that if $(x,\Lambda)$ satisfies the paper's weak second-order necessary condition (2NC) for (NSDP), then any $F$ with $C(x)=F F^\top$ makes $(x,F,\Lambda)$ satisfy 2NC for (SSV); conversely, every 2NC point $(x,F,\Lambda)$ of (SSV) gives a 2NC point $(x,\Lambda)$ of (NSDP). Theorem 2.1 proves the analogous equivalence between (BC) and (DSS): a matrix $X$ is a 2NP of the semidefinite-constrained problem exactly when its square factors are 2NPs of the unconstrained factored problem. The paper also shows local minimizers correspond in both directions for the nonsymmetric factorization, while strict local minimizers generically do not exist in the factored problem because $F$ can be rotated without changing $F F^\top$. For the symmetric reformulation, the converse direction needs the eigenvalue condition that no two nonzero eigenvalues of $F$ sum to zero; without it, a second-order point of the factored problem can fail even the first-order conditions of the original.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the weak subspace version of the second-order necessary condition is the right target; the clean correspondence does not survive if one uses the stronger cone version, except in the nondegenerate case where the multiplier fills the null space of the constraint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any algorithm that provably converges to a second-order necessary point of an equality-constrained problem can be applied to (SSV) and will automatically certify a second-order necessary point of the original (NSDP).
  • For convex objectives in the nuclear-norm application, a second-order point of the factored formulation is globally optimal, so the factored form needs no rank assumptions and no strong measurement assumptions.
  • The exact equivalence depends on square factors; with rectangular $d\times k$ factors for $k<d$, there are convex examples where a second-order point of the factored problem is not even first-order for the original.
  • The symmetric-factor variant satisfies the correspondence only under the eigenvalue condition, so a user of symmetric squared variables must check that no two nonzero eigenvalues of $F$ sum to zero.
  • Strict local minimizers are generically absent from the factored problem because of rotational symmetry, while local minimizers themselves do correspond.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops at the theoretical equivalence; an immediate empirical program is to run equality-constrained NLP solvers on (SSV) for benchmark nonlinear SDPs and check whether the second-order points they reach are competitive, which the theorem does not by itself guarantee.
  • Because the weak 2NC is checkable while the stronger cone-based version is generally not, the paper reframes the practical meaning of second-order optimality for this problem class.
  • The same overparametrization logic could be exported to other PSD-constrained problems with convex objectives: square factoring plus a second-order point of the factored form would replace specialized SDP solvers.
  • The rotation symmetry that kills strict local minima in (SSV) is an implicit warning that optimization methods on the factored form must either quotient by that symmetry or tolerate flat directions, a point the paper notes but does not develop into an algorithmic prescription.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies second-order necessary conditions (2NC) for nonlinear semidefinite programming problems (NSDP) and their squared-variable reformulations (SSV), in which the positive semidefinite matrix C(x) is replaced by FF^T, as well as the direct-substitution cases (BC)/(DSS) and symmetric variants (SSV-Sym)/(DSS-Sym). The main results are Theorem 3.1, stating that a point satisfies the (weak) second-order necessary conditions for (NSDP) if and only if any corresponding square factor F satisfies the second-order necessary conditions for (SSV), and Theorem 2.1, the analog for (BC) and (DSS). The paper also proves one-directional results for the symmetric factor variant, characterizes when the eigenvalue condition (EC) is needed, analyzes local-minimizer correspondences in Appendix B, locates the paper's weak 2NC notion relative to the stronger s2NC of Shapiro and Lourenço et al. in Appendix C, and applies the (BC)/(DSS) equivalence to nuclear-norm minimization via an overparametrized factorization. The proofs are algebraic and rely on two technical lemmas (Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2); Lemma 2.2 is proved in Appendix A. The paper is careful to state limitations, including the gap between weak 2NC and stronger cone-based conditions, and it supplies counterexamples (Examples 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, B.1) showing the necessity of stated conditions.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper gives a clean, parameter-free bridge between second-order points of PSD-constrained problems and their squared-factor reformulations, thereby justifying the use of equality-constrained and unconstrained solvers for a broader class of nonconvex matrix optimization problems. The claimed equivalence for the nonsymmetric factor formulation requires no constraint qualification, strict complementarity, or eigenvalue condition, which is a genuine improvement over earlier results in [LFF18] that needed strict complementarity and transversality. The paper is also honest about the scope of its central notion: the equivalence is for the weak 2NC over a subspace, not the stronger cone-based s2NC, and Appendix C explains precisely when the two notions coincide. The proofs are self-contained, with the key algebra in Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 and their application in the theorem proofs; the counterexamples are concrete and demonstrate tightness of the stated hypotheses.

major comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 3.1 and Definition 4] The central equivalence is stated for the weak second-order necessary condition (NSDP-2NC), in which the curvature inequality is required only on the subspace V^T DC_x[z] V = 0. This is a strictly weaker condition than the cone-based s2NC of Shapiro [Sha97] and Lourenço et al. [LFF18], and the paper acknowledges this in footnote 2 and Appendix C. The stated theorem is internally consistent; however, the algorithmic promise in the introduction—that algorithms converging to second-order points of (SSV) can be used to solve (NSDP)—should be read as applying to this weak notion. Since s2NC reduces to 2NC only under strict complementarity (Appendix C, equation (54)), the practical implications for the strong notion remain open. This is a scope limitation, not a mathematical error, and it is handled honestly. I do not regard it as a blocker, but the abstract and introduction could state more prominently that 'second-order point' throughout means the weak 2NC.
  2. [Lemma 2.1] The statement of Lemma 2.1 says 'a rank r matrix X ... has a factorization X = F F^T for some F in R^{d x k} with k >= r', and the proof uses F in R^{d x k}. However, the lemma is applied in Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 3.1 with F square (k = d), and in the proof of Lemma 2.1 the matrix Delta is taken in R^{d x d}, while the statement should presumably allow Delta in R^{d x k} for consistency with the lemma's general F. This is a minor notational mismatch that does not affect the applications, but the lemma's dimension parameters should be stated uniformly.
  3. [Section 3.1, proof of Theorem 3.1] The converse direction of Theorem 3.1 uses Lemma 2.2 with S = Lambda after establishing that Lambda is PSD. This ordering is correct: Lambda >= 0 is proved first via the z = 0, Delta = w v^T argument, and only then is Lemma 2.2 invoked. The reader's concern about circularity is therefore not realized. The only point to note is that the proof of Lambda >= 0 relies on choosing v with F v = 0, which is valid when F is singular; the invertible case is handled separately. This is sound.
  4. [Example 2.1] The example showing that a square factor F is necessary for the 2NP equivalence involves a convex quadratic h and a rank-1 unique minimizer, and the computation of the second-order condition at F_k is algebraic and verifiable. The example is persuasive for the claim that rectangular Burer-Monteiro factors with k < d do not inherit the equivalence. One minor clarification: the statement 'for any k < d there is a 2NP F of (DSS-BM) such that F F^T is not a 1P of (BC)' is established by constructing F_k with a specific eta_k; the displayed calculation shows 2NC holds for all Delta, and the conclusion that F_k F_k^T is not a 1P uses the uniqueness of the 1P of (BC), which is argued. This is complete.
  5. [Appendix C] The appendix correctly explains the relationship between 2NC and s2NC and shows that under strict complementarity the two conditions coincide. However, the claim that the cone of z in Definition 7 contains the subspace of Definition 4 is derived after a nontrivial decomposition (equations (50)-(53)); this is correct. The appendix could be more explicit that the weak 2NC is what is certified by the squared-variable reformulation, while s2NC is not generally certified without strict complementarity. This is already stated in footnote 2, and the appendix is a useful clarification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The label 'Theorem 3.1' in the main text appears as 'Theorem 3.1' in Section 3.1 and is cited correctly, but in the sentence following Definition 5 the text says 'if (x, F, Lambda) satisfies 2NC for (DSS)' where it should say 'for (SSV)'. This is a typo.
  2. [Section 1.2] The notation section defines e_i, I_k, 0_k, and V_X but uses 0_{d-1}, 0_{(n-k) x k}, and I_{d-1} in examples without comment. The usage is clear, but a brief note that subscripts denote sizes would help.
  3. [Equation (3)] The bracehtip markers in equation (3) appear as LaTeX artifacts in the manuscript rendering and obscure the displayed formula. The underlying algebra is correct, but the authors should ensure the final published version renders these annotations properly.
  4. [Section 2.3] The application to nuclear norm minimization uses the notation Y and Z in (NNM-DSS) and then switches to Y1, Y2, Y3 in the symmetric variant. The relationship between these notations is stated, but a diagram or explicit block-matrix display would improve readability.
  5. [Appendix B, Example B.1] The local-minimizer example is long and the displayed expression for g(F+Delta)-g(F) in (47) would benefit from a check of the quadratic term; the subsequent inequality involving 10(z+y1^2)^2 and (z+y2^2)^2 is plausible but the algebra is dense. Adding a sentence explaining the choice of constants would improve readability without changing the result.
  6. [References] The related work discussion cites [LKB24] but does not compare the present theorem's 2NP-to-2NP correspondence with the general framework's Proposition 2.2 in a formal remark; the current comparison in Section 1.1 is helpful but could be sharpened by stating the relationship between the assumptions of [LKB24, Proposition 2.2] and the failure of 1P equivalence for (SSV)/(NSDP).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 3.1 is proved from explicit definitions and independently stated matrix lemmas; self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 3.1) is an equivalence between weak second-order necessary conditions for (NSDP) and (SSV). The proof does not assume the target result. Direction (NSDP-2NC) => (SSV-2NC): after deriving Lambda F = 0 from Lambda C(x) = 0, the paper writes D2Lssv = D2L + T1 + T2, with T1 >= 0 from (NSDP-2NC) and T2 >= 0 from Lemma 2.1, whose proof is a direct pseudoinverse trace computation. Direction (SSV-2NC) => (NSDP-2NC): Lambda >= 0 is obtained by choosing z = 0 and Delta = w v^T with F v = 0, and the remaining curvature inequality is supplied by Lemma 2.2, which constructs Delta explicitly via SVD and verifies tr(S(W X^dagger W - Delta Delta^T)) = 0. No fitted parameters are introduced and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The paper's earlier work [DW23] is cited only as a scalar analog ('Our result can be regarded as a matrix analog ... [DW23, Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 3.3]'), not as a premise of any theorem. The eigenvalue-condition caveats in Theorems 2.2 and 3.2, Example 3.1, and Appendix C are explicit scope limitations rather than hidden assumptions. Hence there is no circular step; the honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

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

No free parameters or invented entities appear. The central claim rests on standard smoothness assumptions, the adopted weak 2NC from prior optimality theory, and standard linear algebra perturbation facts.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The functions f, C, and h are twice continuously differentiable.
    Definitions 1-6 use first and second directional derivatives; Theorem 2.1 requires D2h and the applications require C^2 smoothness.
  • domain assumption The weak 2NC in Definitions 1 and 4 are necessary conditions for local optimality of (BC) and (NSDP).
    The equivalence theorems are relative to these conditions; necessity is inherited from the optimality theory in [For00] and [Sha97], and is assumed without reproof.
  • standard math Pseudoinverse facts: (F F^T)^dagger = (F^dagger)^T F^dagger and I - F^T (F F^T)^dagger F is the orthogonal projector onto the null space of F^T, hence PSD.
    Used in Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2; standard linear algebra.
  • standard math Davis-Kahan and Weyl inequalities for eigenvalue perturbation.
    Used in Lemma B.1 to construct nearby square roots under the eigenvalue condition (EC).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Squared-Variable Formulations for Nonlinear Semidefinite programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJUWQQUY

@misc{pith2026250202099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Squared-Variable Formulations for Nonlinear Semidefinite programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJUWQQUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02099}
}
abstract

In optimization problems involving smooth functions and real and matrix variables, that contain matrix semidefiniteness constraints, consider the following change of variables: Replace the positive semidefinite matrix $X \in \mathbb{S}^d$, where $\mathbb{S}^d$ is the set of symmetric matrices in $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$, by a matrix product $FF^\top$, where $F \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ or $F \in \mathbb{S}^d$. The formulation obtained in this way is termed ``squared variable," by analogy with a similar idea that has been proposed for real (scalar) variables. It is well known that points satisfying first-order conditions for the squared-variable reformulation do not necessarily yield first-order points for the original problem. There are closer correspondences between second-order points for the squared-variable reformulation and the original formulation. These are explored in this paper, along with correspondences between local minimizers of the two formulations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barvinok

    Alexander I. Barvinok. Problems of distance geometry and convex properties of quadratic maps. Discrete & Computational Geometry , 13:189--202, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Smoothed analysis for low-rank solutions to semidefinite programs in quadratic penalty form

    Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Nicolas Boumal, Prateek Jain, and Praneeth Netrapalli. Smoothed analysis for low-rank solutions to semidefinite programs in quadratic penalty form. In Conference On Learning Theory , pages 3243--3270. PMLR, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    On the low-rank approach for semidefinite programs arising in synchronization and community detection

    Afonso S Bandeira, Nicolas Boumal, and Vladislav Voroninski. On the low-rank approach for semidefinite programs arising in synchronization and community detection. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 361--382. PMLR, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    D. P. Bertsekas. Nonlinear Programming . Athena Scientific, second edition, 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization

    Samuel Burer and Renato DC Monteiro. A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization. Mathematical programming , 95(2):329--357, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Local minima and convergence in low-rank semidefinite programming

    Samuel Burer and Renato DC Monteiro. Local minima and convergence in low-rank semidefinite programming. Mathematical programming , 103(3):427--444, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    The non-convex Burer-Monteiro approach works on smooth semidefinite programs

    Nicolas Boumal, Vlad Voroninski, and Afonso Bandeira. The non-convex Burer-Monteiro approach works on smooth semidefinite programs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 29, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Deterministic guarantees for Burer-Monteiro factorizations of smooth semidefinite programs

    Nicolas Boumal, Vladislav Voroninski, and Afonso S Bandeira. Deterministic guarantees for Burer-Monteiro factorizations of smooth semidefinite programs. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 73(3):581--608, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Harnessing structures in big data via guaranteed low-rank matrix estimation: Recent theory and fast algorithms via convex and nonconvex optimization

    Yudong Chen and Yuejie Chi. Harnessing structures in big data via guaranteed low-rank matrix estimation: Recent theory and fast algorithms via convex and nonconvex optimization. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 35(4):14--31, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Noisy matrix completion: Understanding statistical guarantees for convex relaxation via nonconvex optimization

    Yuxin Chen, Yuejie Chi, Jianqing Fan, Cong Ma, and Yuling Yan. Noisy matrix completion: Understanding statistical guarantees for convex relaxation via nonconvex optimization. SIAM journal on optimization , 30(4):3098--3121, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Nonconvex optimization meets low-rank matrix factorization: An overview

    Yuejie Chi, Yue M Lu, and Yuxin Chen. Nonconvex optimization meets low-rank matrix factorization: An overview. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 67(20):5239--5269, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Polynomial time guarantees for the Burer-Monteiro method

    Diego Cifuentes and Ankur Moitra. Polynomial time guarantees for the Burer-Monteiro method. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:23923--23935, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Metric regularity, tangent sets, and second-order optimality conditions

    Roberto Cominetti. Metric regularity, tangent sets, and second-order optimality conditions. Applied Mathematics and Optimization , 21:265--287, 1990

    1990

  6. [14]

    Tight oracle inequalities for low-rank matrix recovery from a minimal number of noisy random measurements

    Emmanuel J Candes and Yaniv Plan. Tight oracle inequalities for low-rank matrix recovery from a minimal number of noisy random measurements. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 57(4):2342--2359, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    On the simplicity and conditioning of low rank semidefinite programs

    Lijun Ding and Madeleine Udell. On the simplicity and conditioning of low rank semidefinite programs. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 31(4):2614--2637, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    On squared-variable formulations

    Lijun Ding and Stephen J Wright. On squared-variable formulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01784 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Analysis on symmetric cones

    Jacques Faraut and Adam Kor \'a nyi. Analysis on symmetric cones . Oxford university press, 1994

    1994

  10. [18]

    Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques

    Anthony V Fiacco and Garth P McCormick. Nonlinear Programming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques . SIAM, 1990

    1990

  11. [19]

    Optimality conditions for nonconvex semidefinite programming

    Anders Forsgren. Optimality conditions for nonconvex semidefinite programming. Mathematical Programming , 88:105--128, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    No spurious local minima in nonconvex low rank problems: A unified geometric analysis

    Rong Ge, Chi Jin, and Yi Zheng. No spurious local minima in nonconvex low rank problems: A unified geometric analysis. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1233--1242. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    How to escape saddle points efficiently

    Chi Jin, Rong Ge, Praneeth Netrapalli, Sham M Kakade, and Michael I Jordan. How to escape saddle points efficiently. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1724--1732. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Optimality conditions for nonlinear semidefinite programming via squared slack variables

    Bruno F Louren c o, Ellen H Fukuda, and Masao Fukushima. Optimality conditions for nonlinear semidefinite programming via squared slack variables. Mathematical Programming, Series B , 168:177--200, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    The effect of smooth parametrizations on nonconvex optimization landscapes

    Eitan Levin, Joe Kileel, and Nicolas Boumal. The effect of smooth parametrizations on nonconvex optimization landscapes. Mathematical Programming , pages 1--49, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    From the simplex to the sphere: Faster constrained optimization using the hadamard parametrization

    Qiuwei Li, Daniel McKenzie, and Wotao Yin. From the simplex to the sphere: Faster constrained optimization using the hadamard parametrization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05273 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gradient descent only converges to minimizers

    Jason D Lee, Max Simchowitz, Michael I Jordan, and Benjamin Recht. Gradient descent only converges to minimizers. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 1246--1257. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Linear and nonlinear programming second edition

    David G Luenberger. Linear and nonlinear programming second edition. Columbus, Ohio: Addison-Wesley , 1984

    1984

  19. [27]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright. Numerical Optimization . Springer, New York, second edition, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    The Burer-Monteiro sdp method can fail even above the Barvinok-Pataki bound

    Liam O'Carroll, Vaidehi Srinivas, and Aravindan Vijayaraghavan. The Burer-Monteiro sdp method can fail even above the Barvinok-Pataki bound. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:31254--31264, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    On the rank of extreme matrices in semidefinite programs and the multiplicity of optimal eigenvalues

    G \'a bor Pataki. On the rank of extreme matrices in semidefinite programs and the multiplicity of optimal eigenvalues. Mathematics of Operations Research , 23(2):339--358, 1998

    1998

  22. [30]

    An inexact augmented lagrangian framework for nonconvex optimization with nonlinear constraints

    Mehmet Fatih Sahin, Ahmet Alacaoglu, Fabian Latorre, Volkan Cevher, et al. An inexact augmented lagrangian framework for nonconvex optimization with nonlinear constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    First and second order analysis of nonlinear semidefinite programs

    Alexander Shapiro. First and second order analysis of nonlinear semidefinite programs. Mathematical programming , 77:301--320, 1997

    1997

  24. [32]

    Similarity and other spectral relations for symmetric cones

    Jos F Sturm. Similarity and other spectral relations for symmetric cones. Linear Algebra and its applications , 312(1-3):135--154, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    High-dimensional statistics: A non-asymptotic viewpoint , volume 48

    Martin J Wainwright. High-dimensional statistics: A non-asymptotic viewpoint , volume 48. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Characterization of the subdifferential of some matrix norms

    G Alistair Watson. Characterization of the subdifferential of some matrix norms. Linear Algebra Appl , 170(1):33--45, 1992

    1992

  27. [35]

    Rank optimality for the Burer-Monteiro factorization

    Irene Waldspurger and Alden Waters. Rank optimality for the Burer-Monteiro factorization. SIAM journal on Optimization , 30(3):2577--2602, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Complexity of proximal augmented lagrangian for nonconvex optimization with nonlinear equality constraints

    Yue Xie and Stephen J Wright. Complexity of proximal augmented lagrangian for nonconvex optimization with nonlinear equality constraints. Journal of Scientific Computing , 86(3):1--30, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    A useful variant of the davis--kahan theorem for statisticians

    Yi Yu, Tengyao Wang, and Richard J Samworth. A useful variant of the davis--kahan theorem for statisticians. Biometrika , 102(2):315--323, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Improved global guarantees for the nonconvex Burer-Monteiro factorization via rank overparameterization

    Richard Y Zhang. Improved global guarantees for the nonconvex Burer-Monteiro factorization via rank overparameterization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01789 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Global optimality in low-rank matrix optimization

    Zhihui Zhu, Qiuwei Li, Gongguo Tang, and Michael B Wakin. Global optimality in low-rank matrix optimization. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 66(13):3614--3628, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.