Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 84 references

A Geometric Perspective on Polynomially Solvable Convex Maximization

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-05-07 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Comonotonicity of the feasible region makes fixed-rank convex maximization polynomially solvable.

desk verdict The paper defines comonotonicity as a geometric property on feasible regions and uses it to give one enumerative algorithm that solves fixed-rank convex maximization in polynomial time while recovering SPCA and matroid cases as special instances. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.27427 v1 submitted 2026-04-30 math.OC

Shaoning Han , Liangju Li , Yongchun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC
keywords convexmaximizationcomonotonicitypolynomialsolvabilityfixed-rankoptimizationmatroidsparsePCAgeometric
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

Convex maximization problems are generally NP-hard, even for objectives of fixed low rank. The paper introduces comonotonicity, a geometric structural property of the feasible region, and shows it is the key condition that changes the complexity. Mathematical characterizations of the property are given, followed by a unified enumerative framework that solves the problems in polynomial time under comonotonicity plus mild assumptions. The same framework recovers several earlier tractability results that had required separate proofs, such as fixed-rank convex matroid maximization and sparse principal component analysis. For the subclass of standard comonotone regions, a lifting technique improves the running-time bound by a square-root factor.

What carries the argument

comonotonicity, a structural property of the feasible region that enables an enumerative polynomial-time algorithm for fixed-rank convex objectives

What would settle it

A concrete feasible region that meets the comonotonicity definition but for which no polynomial-time algorithm exists for some fixed-rank convex maximization instance would disprove the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the comonotonicity property of the feasible region together with mild additional assumptions, fixed-rank convex maximization admits a unified enumerative algorithm that runs in polynomial time. This framework recovers known results such as fixed-rank convex matroid maximization and sparse principal component analysis without needing separate proofs. For standard comonotone regions, a lifting technique yields a square-root improvement in the running time.

Load-bearing premise

The feasible region must satisfy the comonotonicity property in addition to the mild assumptions needed for the enumerative framework to run in polynomial time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fixed-rank convex maximization becomes polynomially solvable over any comonotone feasible region.
  • A single enumerative framework recovers and unifies prior separate proofs for matroid maximization and SPCA.
  • A lifting technique gives a square-root improvement in complexity for standard comonotone regions.
  • The framework applies directly to SPCA and its variants with demonstrated effectiveness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Comonotonicity may identify tractable cases in other families of nonconvex optimization beyond convex maximization.
  • Algorithms for real-world problems could first test for comonotonicity to decide whether the enumerative method is guaranteed to succeed.
  • Similar geometric properties on feasible sets might extend polynomial solvability results to objectives of higher rank.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that convex maximization, generally NP-hard even for low-rank objectives, becomes polynomially solvable under a newly introduced geometric property called comonotonicity of the feasible region, along with mild additional assumptions. It provides mathematical characterizations of comonotonicity and develops a unified enumerative framework for fixed-rank convex maximization. This framework recovers known tractable cases such as fixed-rank convex matroid maximization and sparse principal component analysis (SPCA). For standard comonotone feasible regions, a lifting technique achieves a square-root improvement in the complexity bound. Applications to SPCA and its variants are presented to illustrate the framework.

Significance. If the characterizations and enumerative framework hold, this work offers a significant unified geometric perspective on polynomially solvable convex maximization problems. The recovery of disparate known results (matroid maximization, SPCA) as special instances within a single framework is a notable strength, as is the explicit complexity analysis of the enumeration and the lifting technique for improved bounds. The paper provides mathematical characterizations, a complexity analysis, and a falsifiable structural property (comonotonicity) that could guide further research in optimization.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction refer to 'mild additional assumptions' without a concise summary or pointer to their precise statement in the main theorems; adding this would improve accessibility for readers.
  2. [Section on characterizations of comonotonicity] The characterizations of comonotonicity would benefit from an illustrative low-dimensional example or diagram showing how the geometric property manifests in a simple feasible region.
  3. [Applications section] In the applications to SPCA, the discussion of effectiveness would be strengthened by including a brief complexity comparison between the proposed enumerative framework and existing specialized SPCA solvers.
  4. [Throughout the manuscript] Notation for the rank parameter and the enumeration size should be consistently defined early and used uniformly across theorems and complexity statements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and constructive report, including the favorable assessment of the significance of the comonotonicity framework and its ability to unify results on matroid maximization and SPCA. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments were provided in the report, so we have no points requiring rebuttal or substantive revision at this time. Any minor editorial or typographical issues will be addressed in the revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines a new geometric property (comonotonicity) of the feasible region, supplies explicit mathematical characterizations of it, and then proves that fixed-rank convex maximization is polynomially solvable via an enumerative procedure under this property together with mild additional assumptions. The framework is shown to subsume known tractable cases (fixed-rank convex matroid maximization, SPCA) as special instances rather than using those cases to justify the general claim. No parameter fitting, self-definitional loops, load-bearing self-citations, or renaming of prior results as new derivations appear; the derivation chain consists of independent definitions followed by complexity analysis and recovery of special cases.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; the paper relies on standard convex optimization axioms and the newly defined comonotonicity property whose independent justification is not visible.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of convex optimization (convex objective, convex feasible set) hold.
    Invoked implicitly as background for the maximization problem class.
invented entities (1)
  • comonotonicity
    purpose: Structural property of the feasible region that enables polynomial-time enumeration for fixed-rank convex maximization.
    Newly introduced geometric property whose definition and characterizations form the core of the tractability result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Geometric Perspective on Polynomially Solvable Convex Maximization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.27427

@misc{pith2026260427427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Geometric Perspective on Polynomially Solvable Convex Maximization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.27427}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.27427}
}
read the original abstract

Convex maximization encompasses a broad class of optimization problems and is generally NP-hard, even for low-rank objectives. This paper investigates structural conditions under which convex maximization becomes polynomially solvable. From a geometric perspective, we introduce comonotonicity, a structural property of the feasible region crucial for problem tractability, and establish mathematical characterizations of this property. Under comonotonicity and mild additional assumptions, we develop a unified enumerative framework showing that fixed-rank convex maximization is polynomially solvable. This viewpoint recovers several known tractability results that previously required separate analyses, such as fixed-rank convex matroid maximization and sparse principal component analysis (SPCA). Furthermore, for the more structured class of standard comonotone feasible regions, we refine the analysis via a lifting technique to achieve a square-root improvement in the complexity bound. Finally, applications to SPCA and its variants illustrate the broad applicability and effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of comonotone sets in R 2 2.1. Properties of standard comonotone sets In this subsection, we study properties of standard comonotone sets. We begin with the planar case to build geometric intuition. While restricted to 𝑛 = 2, it provides a clear lens for understanding the restrictions imposed by standard comonotonicity, or equivalently, the structural information it carries. As shown below, standard comonot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of standard comonotone sets in R 2 In R 2 , ordering information is encoded by only two directions (𝑥1 +𝑥2 or −𝑥1 −𝑥2) as indicated by Proposition 1. Unfortunately, the simplification does not directly extend to high dimensions. To see this, consider the distributed lat￾tice X = {𝑥 ∈ {0,1} 3 : 𝑥1 ≥ 𝑥2 ≥ 𝑥3}. On the one hand, 0 ∈ argmax{−𝑒 ⊤𝑥 : 𝑥 ∈ X} and 𝑒 ∈ argmax{𝑒 ⊤𝑥 : 𝑥 ∈ X}, and moreover {0, 𝑒} ⊆ Z(𝜋) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A theoretical framework of complexity analysis. Beyond its broad applicability, the proposed framework is also highly adaptable. When additional problem structure is available (e.g., standard comonotonicity), each step can be tailored accordingly to tighten the complexity bounds. To avoid redundancy, we do not repeat the full framework for special families of X in the subsequent sections; instead, we highlight only … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of hyperplane arrangements (𝑟 = 3, 𝑛 = 4, slice 𝑐3 = 1) DEFINITION 2. For any vector 𝑐 ∈ R 𝑟 and parameters 𝜆 ≤𝜆, define the set Q  𝑐,𝜆, 𝜆 ≜ {𝑥 ∈ R 𝑛 : (a) sign constraints, (b) ordering constraints} , where (a) Sign constraints: For all 𝑖 ∈ [𝑛], 𝑥𝑖 > 0 if…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optimal solution cannot be exposed in X. 5.2. Affine restriction of binary comonotone sets In this subsection, we relax the assumption that X is a comonotone set. Instead, we study the case where X =S ∩ P satisfying Assumption 3 below. ASSUMPTION 3. conv(S∩P) = con…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bioinformatics27(21):3029–3035

    Allen GI, Maleti´c-Savati´c M (2011) Sparse non-negative generalized PCA with applications to metabolomics. Bioinformatics27(21):3029–3035

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Asteris M, Papailiopoulos D, Dimakis A (2014) Nonnegative sparse PCA with provable guarantees.International Conference on Machine Learning, 1728–1736 (PMLR)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Asteris M, Papailiopoulos D, Kyrillidis A, Dimakis AG (2015) Sparse PCA via bipartite matchings.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems28

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Asteris M, Papailiopoulos DS, Karystinos GN (2014) The sparse principal component of a constant-rank matrix.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60(4):2281–2290

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Atamt¨ urk A, Narayanan V (2009) The submodular knapsack polytope.Discrete Optimization6(4):333–344

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Balas E (2018)Disjunctive programming(Springer)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Bector C (1970) Some aspects of quasi-convex programming.ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift f¨ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik50(7-9):495–497

    work page 1970

  8. [8]

    Benson HP (1985) A finite algorithm for concave minimization over a polyhedron.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 32(1):165–177

    work page 1985

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Benson HP (1995) Concave minimization: theory, applications and algorithms.Handbook of global optimization, 43–148 (Springer)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Revue franc ¸aise d’automatique informatique recherche op´erationnelle

    Bereanu B (1972) Quasi-convexity, strictly quasi-convexity and pseudo-convexity of composite objective functions. Revue franc ¸aise d’automatique informatique recherche op´erationnelle. Math´ematique6(R1):15–26

    1972

  3. [11]

    Calinescu G, Chekuri C, Pal M, Vondr´ak J (2011) Maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a matroid constraint.SIAM Journal on Computing40(6):1740–1766

    2011

  4. [12]

    Chandrasekaran R, Aneja Y, Nair K (1981) Minimal cost-reliability ratio spanning tree.North-Holland Mathematics Studies, volume 59, 53–60 (Elsevier)

    1981

  5. [13]

    Conforti M, Cornu´ejols G, Zambelli G (2010) Extended formulations in combinatorial optimization.4OR8(1):1–48

    2010

  6. [14]

    Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra213(8):1569–1577

    De Loera JA, Hemmecke R, Onn S, Rothblum U, Weismantel R (2009) Convex integer maximization via graver bases. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra213(8):1569–1577

    2009

  7. [15]

    De Loera JA, Hemmecke R, Onn S, Weismantel R (2008) N-fold integer programming.Discrete Optimization 5(2):231–241

    2008

  8. [16]

    Del Pia A (2023) Sparse PCA on fixed-rank matrices.Mathematical Programming198(1):139–157. 32

    2023

  9. [17]

    Dey SS, Molinaro M, Wang G (2023) Solving sparse principal component analysis with global support.Mathematical Programming199(1):421–459

    2023

  10. [18]

    Deza A, Manoussakis G, Onn S (2018) Primitive zonotopes.Discrete & Computational Geometry60(1):27–39

    2018

  11. [19]

    Deza A, Pournin L, Rakotonarivo R (2021) The vertices of primitive zonotopes.Contemporary Mathematics764:71–81

    2021

  12. [20]

    Edelman PH, Jamison RE (1985) The theory of convex geometries.Geometriae Dedicata19(3):247–270

    1985

  13. [21]

    Edelsbrunner H (1987)Algorithms in combinatorial geometry, volume 10 (Springer Science & Business Media)

    1987

  14. [22]

    SIAM Journal on Computing15(2):341–363

    Edelsbrunner H, O’Rourke J, Seidel R (1986) Constructing arrangements of lines and hyperplanes with applications. SIAM Journal on Computing15(2):341–363

    1986

  15. [23]

    Edelsbrunner H, Seidel R, Sharir M (1993) On the zone theorem for hyperplane arrangements.SIAM Journal on Computing22(2):418–429

    1993

  16. [24]

    Edmonds J (1970) Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra.Combinatorial Structures and Their Applications, 69–87 (Gordon and Breach)

    1970

  17. [25]

    Edmonds J (1971) Matroids and the greedy algorithm.Mathematical programming1(1):127–136

    1971

  18. [26]

    Giannessi F, Niccolucci F (1976) Connections between nonlinear and integer programming problems.Symposia Mathematica, volume 19, 161–176 (Academic Press New Y ork)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Goemans MX (2015) Smallest compact formulation for the permutahedron.Mathematical Programming153(1):5–11

    2015

  20. [28]

    G´omez A, Neto J (2025) Outlier detection in regression: conic quadratic formulations.INFORMS Journal on Computing

    2025

  21. [29]

    Operations Research Letters41(2):191–196

    Goyal V , Ravi R (2013) An FPTAS for minimizing a class of low-rank quasi-concave functions over a convex set. Operations Research Letters41(2):191–196

    2013

  22. [30]

    Gretton A, Borgwardt KM, Rasch MJ, Sch¨olkopf B, Smola A (2012) A kernel two-sample test.Journal of Machine Learning Research13(1):723–773

    2012

  23. [31]

    Han S, G ´omez A (2025) Compact extended formulations for low-rank functions with indicator variables.Mathematics of Operations Research50(3):1992–2016

    2025

  24. [32]

    Mathematical Programming202:95–134

    Han S, G´omez A, Atamt¨ urk A (2023) 2×2-convexifications for convex quadratic optimization with indicator variables. Mathematical Programming202:95–134

    2023

  25. [33]

    (1952)Inequalities(Cambridge University Press)

    Hardy GH, Littlewood JE, P´olya G, P´olya G, et al. (1952)Inequalities(Cambridge University Press)

    1952

  26. [34]

    Hare WL, Lewis AS (2004) Identifying active constraints via partial smoothness and prox-regularity.Journal of Convex Analysis11(2):251–266

    2004

  27. [35]

    Hashizume S, Fukushima M, Katoh N, Ibaraki T (1987) Approximation algorithms for combinatorial fractional programming problems.Mathematical programming37(3):255–267

    1987

  28. [36]

    Hassin R, Tamir A (1989) Maximizing classes of two-parameter objectives over matroids.Mathematics of Operations Research14(2):362–375

    1989

  29. [37]

    Helman P, Moret BM, Shapiro HD (1993) An exact characterization of greedy structures.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics6(2):274–283

    1993

  30. [38]

    Horst R, T uy H (2013)Global optimization: Deterministic approaches(Springer Science & Business Media)

    2013

  31. [39]

    H¨ossjer O (1995) Exact computation of the least trimmed squares estimate in simple linear regression.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis19(3):265–282

    1995

  32. [40]

    Hotelling H (1933) Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components.Journal of educational psychology24(6):417. 33

    1933

  33. [41]

    Jeffers JN (1967) T wo case studies in the application of principal component analysis.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics)16(3):225–236

    1967

  34. [42]

    Kalra S, Adnan M, Taylor G, Tizhoosh HR (2020) Learning permutation invariant representations using memory networks.European conference on computer vision, 677–693 (Springer)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Kim J, Tawarmalani M, Richard JPP (2022) Convexification of permutation-invariant sets and an application to sparse principal component analysis.Mathematics of Operations Research47(4):2547–2584

    2022

  36. [44]

    Klouda K (2015) An exact polynomial time algorithm for computing the least trimmed squares estimate.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis84:27–40

    2015

  37. [45]

    Korte B, Lov´asz L (1984) Greedoids-a structural framework for the greedy algorithm.Progress in combinatorial optimization, 221–243 (Elsevier)

    1984

  38. [46]

    Lee J, Lee Y, Kim J, Kosiorek A, Choi S, Teh YW (2019) Set transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks.International conference on machine learning, 3744–3753 (PMLR)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Li Y , Xie W (2024) Beyond symmetry: Best submatrix selection for the sparse truncated svd.Mathematical Programming 208(1):1–50

    2024

  40. [48]

    Li Y , Xie W (2025) Exact and approximation algorithms for sparse principal component analysis.INFORMS Journal on Computing37(3):582–602

    2025

  41. [49]

    Mathematical Programming1–58

    Li Y, Xie W (2025) On the partial convexification for low-rank spectral optimization: rank bounds and algorithms. Mathematical Programming1–58

    2025

  42. [50]

    Lov ´asz L (1980) Matroid matching and some applications.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B28(2):208–236

    1980

  43. [51]

    Magdon-Ismail M (2017) NP-hardness and inapproximability of sparse PCA.Information Processing Letters126:35–38

    2017

  44. [52]

    Mangasarian OL (1994)Nonlinear programming(SIAM)

    1994

  45. [53]

    Martin RK, Rardin RL, Campbell BA (1990) Polyhedral characterization of discrete dynamic programming.Operations research38(1):127–138

    1990

  46. [54]

    Megiddo N (1978) Combinatorial optimization with rational objective functions.Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1–12

    1978

  47. [55]

    Mittal S, Schulz AS (2013) An FPTAS for optimizing a class of low-rank functions over a polytope.Mathematical Programming141(1):103–120

    2013

  48. [56]

    Moghaddam B, Weiss Y , Avidan S (2005) Spectral bounds for sparse PCA: Exact and greedy algorithms.Advances in neural information processing systems18

    2005

  49. [57]

    Montanari A, Richard E (2015) Non-negative principal component analysis: Message passing algorithms and sharp asymptotics.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62(3):1458–1484

    2015

  50. [58]

    Mor´e JJ, Sorensen DC (1983) Computing a trust region step.SIAM Journal on scientific and statistical computing 4(3):553–572

    1983

  51. [59]

    Algorithmica69(1):148–183

    Mount DM, Netanyahu NS, Piatko CD, Silverman R, Wu AY (2014) On the least trimmed squares estimator. Algorithmica69(1):148–183

    2014

  52. [60]

    Murota K (2003)Discrete Convex Analysis(SIAM)

    2003

  53. [61]

    Murty KG, Kabadi SN (1987) Some NP-complete problems in quadratic and nonlinear programming.Mathematical programming39(2):117–129

    1987

  54. [62]

    Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006)Numerical Optimization(New Y ork: Springer), 2nd edition. 34

    2006

  55. [63]

    Oberlin C, Wright SJ (2006) Active set identification in nonlinear programming.SIAM Journal on Optimization 17(2):577–605

    2006

  56. [64]

    Onn S (2003) Convex matroid optimization.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics17(2):249–253

    2003

  57. [65]

    Onn S (2010) Nonlinear discrete optimization.Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics, European Mathematical Society75

    2010

  58. [66]

    Onn S, Rothblum UG (2004) Convex combinatorial optimization.Discrete & Computational Geometry32:549–566

    2004

  59. [67]

    Onn S, Schulman LJ (2001) The vector partition problem for convex objective functions.Mathematics of Operations Research26(3):583–590

    2001

  60. [68]

    Pardalos PM, Vavasis SA (1991) Quadratic programming with one negative eigenvalue is NP-hard.Journal of Global optimization1(1):15–22

    1991

  61. [69]

    Raghavachari M (1969) On connections between zero-one integer programming and concave programming under linear constraints.Operations Research17(4):680–684

    1969

  62. [70]

    Rockafellar RT (1970)Convex analysis(Princeton university press)

    1970

  63. [71]

    Rousseeuw PJ (1985) Multivariate estimation with high breakdown point.Mathematical statistics and applications 8(283-297):37

    1985

  64. [72]

    (2003)Combinatorial optimization: polyhedra and efficiency, volume 24 (Springer)

    Schrijver A, et al. (2003)Combinatorial optimization: polyhedra and efficiency, volume 24 (Springer)

    2003

  65. [73]

    Scott JR, Geunes J (2025) A normal fan projection algorithm for low-rank optimization.Mathematical Programming 209(1):681–702

    2025

  66. [74]

    Shigeno M, Saruwatari Y, Matsui T (1995) An algorithm for fractional assignment problems.Discrete Applied Mathematics56(2-3):333–343

    1995

  67. [75]

    Shishkin SL, Shalaginov A, Bopardikar SD (2019) Fast approximate truncated SVD.Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications26(4)

    2019

  68. [76]

    Sigg CD, Buhmann JM (2008) Expectation-maximization for sparse and non-negative PCA.Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, 960–967

    2008

  69. [77]

    Stein C (1945) A two-sample test for a linear hypothesis whose power is independent of the variance.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics16(3):243–258

    1945

  70. [78]

    Vu V , Lei J (2012) Minimax rates of estimation for sparse PCA in high dimensions.Artificial intelligence and statistics, 1278–1286 (PMLR)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Wang J, Dey SS, Xie Y (2023) Variable selection for kernel two-sample tests.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07415

    2023

  72. [80]

    White N (1992)Matroid applications(Cambridge University Press)

    1992

  73. [81]

    Whitney H (1935) On the abstract properties of linear dependence.American Journal of Mathematics57(3):509–533

    1935

  74. [82]

    Y annakakis M (1988) Expressing combinatorial optimization problems by linear programs.Proceedings of the twentieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 223–228

    1988

  75. [83]

    Yu Q, K¨ uc ¸¨ ukyavuz S (2023) Strong valid inequalities for a class of concave submodular minimization problems under cardinality constraints.Mathematical Programming201(1):803–861

    2023

  76. [84]

    Sch¨olkopf B, Platt J, Hoffman T, eds.,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 19 (MIT Press)

    Zass R, Shashua A (2006) Nonnegative sparse PCA. Sch¨olkopf B, Platt J, Hoffman T, eds.,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 19 (MIT Press)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed May 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.