Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 25 references

Emergency-Brake Simplex: Toward A Verifiably Safe Control-CPS Architecture for Abrupt Runtime Reachability Constraint Changes

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Shifting the reference state, not the controller, restores safety after runtime constraint changes.

desk verdict The reference-state-change idea is worth a look, but ORSOP constraint (22) is geometrically wrong, so the verifiable safety guarantee is false and the paper should not go to review in this form. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01831 v3 pith:FTKIYHIB submitted 2025-01-03 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Henghua Shen , Qixin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY MSC 93C0593D0590C30
keywords reachabilitysafetyruntimeconstraintchangereferencestateoptimizationLyapunovellipsoidKKTconditionsinteriorpointmethodSimplexarchitecturecontrolcyber-physicalsystems
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 takes on a gap in the Simplex safety architecture: when reachability constraints change abruptly at runtime, a controller designed for the old constraints may steer the plant into a newly forbidden region. The authors propose to leave the controller matrix $K$ unchanged and instead move the reference state $\vec{x}'_o$ to a new location that makes the Lyapunov ellipsoid of the closed-loop system disjoint from the new forbidden region. They formulate this as an optimization problem (ORSOP), solve it analytically via KKT conditions when possible, and use an IPM-based Newton method as a fallback. If the method finds a feasible reference state, the future trajectory is provably confined to a safe ellipsoid; on their testbed it runs $10^2$-$10^4$ times faster than online controller redesign and keeps a $49.44\%$ success rate under a $1.5$-second deadline, where the redesign baseline drops to $0\%$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lyapunov ellipsoid $E(\vec{x}_p, \vec{x}'_o, P) = \{\vec{\xi} \mid (\vec{\xi}-\vec{x}'_o)^T P (\vec{\xi}-\vec{x}'_o) \leq (\vec{x}_p-\vec{x}'_o)^T P (\vec{x}_p-\vec{x}'_o)\}$, which bounds the reachable set of the closed-loop linear system. Because $A-BK$ is fixed, $P$ and $Q$ from the original Lyapunov equation remain valid, so only the ellipsoid's center moves. The paper's main technical device is the orthogonal-plus-scaling transformation $T_{1\to 2} = \Lambda^{1/2} U^T$, where $P = U\Lambda U^T$, which maps the $P$-ellipsoid to a unit sphere and makes the disjointness condition checkable as a distance between the new reference and each operational-constraint hyperplane. KKT conditions give candidate reference states analytically; the log-barrier numerical Newton step is the fallback when the analytical conditions fail.

What would settle it

Run the method on a case where the analytical KKT step is skipped or known to fail, pick an initial reference that violates one of the barrier inequalities, impose a tight deadline, and observe whether the IPM-based Newton solver returns a feasible $\vec{x}'_o$; a concrete pass/fail test is to generate many random constraint-change scenarios, measure the fraction where both the KKT step and the IPM fallback fail within $1.5$ seconds, and check whether any such failure leaves the trajectory entering the new forbidden region in simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reachability safety after an abrupt constraint change can be re-established in real time by re-pointing the controller's reference state rather than re-designing the controller. For the new system $\dot{\vec{x}} = A(\vec{x}-\vec{x}'_o) + B\vec{u}$, $\vec{u} = -K(\vec{x}-\vec{x}'_o)$, the same Lyapunov matrix $P$ used for the original controller still works, because the closed-loop matrix $A-BK$ is unchanged. The new Lyapunov ellipsoid $E'' = E(\vec{x}_p, \vec{x}'_o, P)$ contains the future trajectory, so if $E''$ is disjoint from the new forbidden region $F'$, safety is restored. The ORSOP solves for $\vec{x}'_o$ by minimizing $\|\vec{x}'_o - \vec{x}_p\|_2^2$ subject to reference-state constraints and the constraint that the ellipsoid does not cut through any hyperplane bounding the operational region. A linear transformation $T_{1\to 2} = \Lambda^{1/2}U^T$ based on the eigenvalue decomposition of $P$ turns the general ellipsoid into a sphere, so the safe-disjointness condition becomes a simple distance inequality.

Load-bearing premise

The whole safety claim depends on the fallback interior-point solver actually returning a feasible reference state before the deadline; the paper gives no runtime or convergence guarantee for that fallback, and its default starting point (the original reference) can violate the barrier constraints and fail immediately.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a feasible reference state is found, the safety guarantee is immediate: the trajectory stays inside $E''$ and $E''$ never meets $F'$, so the plant never enters the forbidden region even though $K$ is unchanged.
  • The computation reduces to solving a small analytical optimization in the sphere-mapped coordinates, which is what drives the reported $10^2$-$10^4\times$ speedup over controller redesign.
  • Because the method reuses the existing $K$, $P$, and $Q$, it fits directly into the Simplex architecture as an emergency-brake layer that can respond to runtime constraint changes without halting the system.
  • Minimizing the ellipsoid's radius leaves more slack for future constraint changes, so each rescue also increases the system's tolerance to subsequent changes.
  • Under a $1.5$-second hard deadline, the proposed method keeps a $49.44\%$ success rate where online controller redesign achieves $0\%$, so the method is viable for real-time recovery on the tested scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to give the fallback solver a guaranteed-feasible initialization strategy; the paper leaves that as an open problem, but a feasible warm start would likely close the gap between the $49.44\%$ deadline success rate and the no-deadline success rate.
  • The same reference-state shifting idea could be tested against other fast reconfiguration schemes, such as reference governors or model-predictive safety filters, where the comparison would be about computation time and conservatism rather than only controller redesign.
  • Because the safety proof only needs the Lyapunov matrix $P$ and the linear structure, the method should extend to output-feedback or observer-based controllers as long as the error dynamics preserve the same invariant ellipsoid property.
  • A testable extension would be to evaluate whether the feasible set remains convex under the sphere map for non-spherical original ellipsoids, which would determine when the KKT analytical step is guaranteed to find the global optimum.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes the "Emergency-Brake Simplex" architecture for handling abrupt runtime changes of reachability constraints in linear control systems. Instead of redesigning the controller online (OCR), the authors propose to keep the controller matrix K fixed and switch the reference state to a new value x'_o obtained by solving an optimization problem (ORSOP, Problem 1), so that the new Lyapunov ellipsoid E'' = E(x_p, x'_o, P) is disjoint from the new forbidden region F'. The proposed solution pipeline first solves a KKT-based projection problem (Problem 2, without the q_k constraints) and falls back to an IPM-based Newton method when the KKT candidate violates constraint (22). An SVD-based coordinate transformation (Section V-E) is introduced to reduce general Lyapunov ellipsoids to spheres. The abstract claims that the approach is 10^2--10^4 times faster than OCR and achieves a 49.44% success rate versus 0% for OCR under a 1.5-second deadline.

Significance. The idea of recovering reachability safety at runtime by moving only the reference state is conceptually attractive, and the manuscript has genuine strengths: Theorem 1 is a standard and correct Lyapunov confinement argument; Lemma 3 and Lemma 4 correctly show that a P1-ellipsoid maps to a sphere under the transformation Lambda^{1/2}U^T and that P2 = I solves the transformed Lyapunov equation; and the optimization formulation is clearly stated. However, the central safety claim is wrong: constraint (22) in Problem 1 does not encode E'' cap F' = empty, so Corollary 1 is false as stated. Because the verifiable-safety guarantee is the paper's core contribution, this error is load-bearing and cannot be repaired by a local edit; additionally, the empirical claims in the abstract are unsupported by any experimental section in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Problem 1 Eq. (22); Corollary 1] Constraint (22) does not encode the containment E'' cap F' = empty, so Corollary 1 is false as stated. The distance from x'_o to the hyperplane v_k . x + beta_k = 0 is |v_k . x'_o + beta_k| / ||v_k||, not sqrt((v_k . x'_o + beta_k)^2); Eq. (22) is therefore missing the factor ||v_k||^{-2}, and the paper never assumes unit normals (after the SVD transformation of Section V-E, the transformed normals Lambda^{-1/2}U^T v_{k,1} are generally not unit even if the original ones were). More importantly, (22) bounds only the absolute value of the signed distance and therefore admits v_k . x'_o + beta_k >= 0, i.e., a reference state lying on the forbidden side of the constraint. The required containment condition is v_k . x'_o + beta_k <= -||v_k|| * ||x'_o - x_p||. A concrete counterexample refutes the theorem: take A = -1, B = 0, K = 0 (so A_cl = -1), P = 1, Q = 2, new operational region \bar{F}' = [-1,0] given by v_1 = (1), beta_1 = 0 and v_2 = (-1), beta_2 = -1, x_p = 0 in \bar{F}', and R_o = [1, inf) via g_1 = 1 - x'_o <= 0. The ORSOP solution is x'_o = 1 (f = 1, q_1 = 0, q_2 = -3 <= 0), but E'' = {xi : (xi - 1)^2 <= 1} = [0,2] intersects F' = (-inf,-1) union (0,inf), and the closed-loop trajectory x(t) = 1 - e^{-t} leaves \bar{F}' immediately. Thus the safety guarantee asserted in Corollary 1 fails even when the optimization succeeds.
  2. [Section V-B, Step 3; Section V-D, Eqs. (49)-(50)] The IPM-based Newton fallback has no feasibility guarantee, no convergence guarantee, and no runtime bound. Its initialization x'^(0)_o = x_o may violate the barrier constraints (49)-(50), in which case the method fails immediately at iteration 0; the authors explicitly state that "How to best choose x'^(0)_o remains as an open problem" in Section V-D. Moreover, Problem 1 is nonconvex (each q_k defines a reverse-convex constraint, and (22) is a complement of a convex set), so the barrier objective (41) is not convex and the Newton iterates need not reach a global minimum or even a feasible point. Since the Step-2 KKT candidate is checked against (22) only after solving the convex Problem 2, and Step 3 may fail, the safety conclusion of Corollary 1 is conditional on an unproven numerical step; the paper must either provide a guaranteed-feasible initialization with convergence and runtime analysis or state explicitly that the safety guarantee is void when the fallback fails.
  3. [Abstract and Section I, Contribution 4] The paper's central empirical claims -- a 10^2 to 10^4 times speedup over OCR, a 40.81% success-rate improvement, and a 49.44% versus 0% success rate under a 1.5-second deadline -- are stated in the abstract as demonstrated by "numerical simulations", and Contribution 4 in Section I refers to "our testbed", but the manuscript contains no experimental section, no testbed description, no benchmark configuration, and no tables or figures reporting these numbers. These claims are therefore unverifiable as submitted; either a complete reproducible experimental section must be added or the claims must be removed from the abstract.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section III-A, Definition 1] "Globally Asymptopitcally Stable" should read "Globally Asymptotically Stable".
  2. [Assumption 3 vs. Eq. (22)] The notation for the operational constraint normals is inconsistent: Assumption 3 and Eq. (19) use \vec{v}_k, while Problem 1, Eq. (22), and Sections V-D and V-E use \vec{nu}_k; the same symbol should be used throughout.
  3. [Section V-B, Case 2] "Case 2: \vec{x}_p < R_o" uses the symbol '<' for set non-membership; replace it with 'not in'.
  4. [Section V-E, S2-R2] S2-R2 states "i.e. \vec{x}'_{o,1} in R_{o,2}", which mixes subscripts; it should read "\vec{x}'_{o,2} in R_{o,2}".
  5. [Section V-E, Eq. (74)] The transformed matrices B_2 = Lambda^{1/2}U^T B_1 U Lambda^{-1/2} and K_2 = Lambda^{1/2}U^T K_1 U Lambda^{-1/2} are not the standard input and feedback transformations (which would be B_2 = Lambda^{1/2}U^T B_1 and K_2 = K_1 U Lambda^{-1/2}) and are dimensionally ill-defined when m != n; the closed-loop identity (82) still holds because the extra factors cancel in the product B_2K_2, but the formulas as written are misleading.
  6. [Theorem 3 proof] The proof contains the typo "Beause"; also, the final line "Combining (star)(dagger)(double-dagger)" uses the symbols without a formal statement of the implication chain they abbreviate.
  7. [References] References [3] and [12] are the same paper (L. Sha, "Using simplicity to control complexity"), and references [4] and [20] are the same book (Brogan, Modern Control Theory); the duplicates should be merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the safety property is explicitly imposed as an ORSOP constraint, and the independent content is the fast reference-state search; the main defects are soundness and reliability gaps, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Requirement R1 (E''∩F'=∅) is not obtained by fitting or by self-citation: it is explicitly encoded as the ORSOP constraint (22), and Corollary 1 is the verification of that encoding. Even though the conclusion of Corollary 1 is, in substance, a restatement of constraint (22), this is an ordinary safe-by-construction formulation: the solver must still find a feasible reference state, and the trajectory-confinement step (Theorem 1) invokes the external Lyapunov equation A_cl^T P + P A_cl = -Q with no parameter tuned to force the claimed result. The paper's numerical speed and success-rate comparisons to OCR are empirical measurements, not predictions derived from the constraints. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the Simplex references [3],[12],[13] are background only. The significant problems are correctness and reliability, not circularity: the proof of Corollary 1 states that 'the distance between x'*_o to hyper plane v_k·x+β_k=0 is sqrt((v_k·x'*_o+β_k)^2)', which is only the unsigned numerator and omits 1/||v_k||, and constraint (22) does not force the center of the Lyapunov sphere onto the safe side of the hyperplane; hence the printed Corollary 1 does not establish R1. Also, Section V-D explicitly leaves 'How to best choose x'_o^(0) remains as an open problem' and the proposed naive initialization x'_o^(0)=x_o may violate (49)-(50), so the fallback has no guarantee; these are acknowledged limitations that affect the success-rate claims but are not circular inputs.

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

The central theoretical claim relies on standard Lyapunov theory, KKT conditions, and an SVD linear transformation. The numerical fallback introduces unproved assumptions about solver success and initialization, which are essential for the claimed safety and performance results.

free parameters (3)
  • Barrier parameter lambda = 1e6 (suggested in text)
    Controls the log-barrier approximation accuracy in the IPM-based Newton method; chosen by hand, affects numerical accuracy and runtime but not the safety condition itself.
  • Newton step size eta = not specified (fixed in paper)
    Used in iteration (48); no value or adaptation rule is given, so the numerical results are not reproducible from the text.
  • Stopping tolerance epsilon and max iterations n_max = not specified
    Conditions E1 and E2 in Section III-C determine when the solver accepts a solution; these values are absent, affecting both success rate and runtime claims.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The standard Lyapunov stability lemma (Lemma 1) holds for the given linear controller and P, Q solving (3).
    Invoked in Theorem 1 to confine trajectories inside the Lyapunov ellipsoid; sourced from Brogan's control theory textbook.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 1-4 hold: linear LTI plant, closed linear reference constraints, compact convex linear operational region, and current plant state inside the new operational region.
    These define the problem class and are needed for the ORSOP formulation and for Corollary 1 to guarantee safety.
  • ad hoc to paper The IPM-based Newton fallback in Step 3 finds a feasible solution when the analytical KKT step fails.
    No convergence or global optimality proof is provided; the feasible set from constraints (22) is nonconvex, and the paper notes that the initial point choice is open.
  • standard math The transformation T_{1 to 2} maps the new linear control system into coordinates where P2 = I, while preserving constraints and objectives up to the Mahalanobis metric.
    Used in Lemma 4 and Theorem 3; the algebra is standard SVD but relies on exact arithmetic and no numerical conditioning issues.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergency-Brake Simplex: Toward A Verifiably Safe Control-CPS Architecture for Abrupt Runtime Reachability Constraint Changes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTKIYHIB

@misc{pith2026250101831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergency-Brake Simplex: Toward A Verifiably Safe Control-CPS Architecture for Abrupt Runtime Reachability Constraint Changes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTKIYHIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01831}
}
abstract

When a system's constraints change abruptly, the system's reachability safety does no longer sustain. Thus, the system can reach a forbidden/dangerous value. Conventional remedy practically involves online controller redesign (OCR) to re-establish the reachability's compliance with the new constraints, which, however, is usually too slow. There is a need for an online strategy capable of managing runtime changes in reachability constraints. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, this topic has not been addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we propose a fast fault tolerance strategy to recover the system's reachability safety in runtime. Instead of redesigning the system's controller, we propose to change the system's reference state to modify the system's reachability to comply with the new constraints. We frame the reference state search as an optimization problem and employ the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) method as well as the Interior Point Method (IPM) based Newton's method (as a fallback for the KKT method) for fast solution derivation. The optimization also allows more future fault tolerance. Numerical simulations demonstrate that our method outperforms the conventional OCR method in terms of computational efficiency and success rate. Specifically, the results show that the proposed method finds a solution $10^{2}$ (with the IPM based Newton's method) $\sim 10^{4}$ (with the KKT method) times faster than the OCR method. Additionally, the improvement rate of the success rate of our method over the OCR method is $40.81\%$ without considering the deadline of run time. The success rate remains at $49.44\%$ for the proposed method, while it becomes $0\%$ for the OCR method when a deadline of $1.5 \; seconds$ is imposed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of Lyapunov ellipsoid, forbidden region, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of an original Lyapunov ellipsoid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cyber-physical systems: A new frontier,

    L. Sha, S. Gopalakrishnan, X. Liu, and Q. Wang, “Cyber-physical systems: A new frontier,” in 2008 IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing (sutc 2008) , 2008, pp. 1–9

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Sommerville, Software Engineering

    I. Sommerville, Software Engineering. Pearson, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [4]

    W. L. Brogan, Modern control theory (3rd Ed.) . Prentice Hall, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [5]

    Reachable set estimation for neural network control systems: A simulation-guided ap- proach,

    W. Xiang, H.-D. Tran, X. Yang, and T. T. Johnson, “Reachable set estimation for neural network control systems: A simulation-guided ap- proach,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1821–1830, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [6]

    Reachability analysis and safety verification for neural network control systems,

    W. Xiang and T. T. Johnson, “Reachability analysis and safety verification for neural network control systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09944, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [7]

    From o ffline toward real time: A hybrid systems model checking and cps codesign approach for medical device plug-and-play collaborations,

    T. Li, F. Tan, Q. Wang, L. Bu, J.-N. Cao, and X. Liu, “From o ffline toward real time: A hybrid systems model checking and cps codesign approach for medical device plug-and-play collaborations,” IEEE Trans- actions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 642–652, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [8]

    Reachability under state constraints-the ellipsoidal technique,

    A. Kurzhanski and P. Varaiya, “Reachability under state constraints-the ellipsoidal technique,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 353–358, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [9]

    Safety verification of cyber-physical systems with reinforce- ment learning control,

    H.-D. Tran, F. Cai, M. L. Diego, P. Musau, T. T. Johnson, and X. Kout- soukos, “Safety verification of cyber-physical systems with reinforce- ment learning control,” ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), vol. 18, no. 5s, pp. 1–22, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 25 references
  1. [10]

    Reachability of linear time- invariant systems via ellipsoidal approximations,

    V . Liu, C. Manzie, and P. M. Dower, “Reachability of linear time- invariant systems via ellipsoidal approximations,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 126–131, 2023

    2023

  2. [11]

    Safety verification for probabilistic hybrid systems,

    L. Zhang, Z. She, S. Ratschan, H. Hermanns, and E. M. Hahn, “Safety verification for probabilistic hybrid systems,” European Journal of Control, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 572–587, 2012

    2012

  3. [12]

    Using simplicity to control complexity,

    L. Sha, “Using simplicity to control complexity,” IEEE Software, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 20–28, 2001

    2001

  4. [13]

    Real-time reachability for verified simplex design,

    S. Bak, T. T. Johnson, M. Caccamo, and L. Sha, “Real-time reachability for verified simplex design,” in 2014 IEEE Real-Time Systems Sympo- sium. IEEE, 2014, pp. 138–148

    2014

  5. [14]

    A safe, secure, and predictable software architecture for deep learning in safety- critical systems,

    A. Biondi, F. Nesti, G. Cicero, D. Casini, and G. Buttazzo, “A safe, secure, and predictable software architecture for deep learning in safety- critical systems,” IEEE Embedded Systems Letters , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 78–82, 2019

    2019

  6. [15]

    An optimal control problem for a di fferential inclusion with state constraints. smooth approximations and necessary optimality conditions,

    S. Aseev, “An optimal control problem for a di fferential inclusion with state constraints. smooth approximations and necessary optimality conditions,” Journal of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 670– 685, 2001

    2001

  7. [16]

    On reachability analysis for nonlinear control systems with state constraints,

    M. Gusev, “On reachability analysis for nonlinear control systems with state constraints,” pp. 579–587, 2015

    2015

  8. [17]

    Online verification of automated road vehicles using reachability analysis,

    M. Altho ff and J. M. Dolan, “Online verification of automated road vehicles using reachability analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 903–918, 2014

    2014

  9. [18]

    Ensuring drivability of planned motions using formal methods,

    B. Sch ¨urmann, D. Heß, J. Eilbrecht, O. Stursberg, F. K ¨oster, and M. Altho ff, “Ensuring drivability of planned motions using formal methods,” in 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  10. [19]

    Online safety verification of trajectories for unmanned flight with o ffline computed robust invariant sets,

    D. Altho ff, M. Altho ff, and S. Scherer, “Online safety verification of trajectories for unmanned flight with o ffline computed robust invariant sets,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 3470–3477

    2015

  11. [20]

    W. L. Brogan, Modern control theory . Pearson education india, 1985

    1985

  12. [21]

    Nonlinear programming,

    H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, “Nonlinear programming,” in Traces and emergence of nonlinear programming . Springer, 2013, pp. 247–258

    2013

  13. [22]

    New versions of newton method: step- size choice, convergence domain and under-determined equations,

    B. Polyak and A. Tremba, “New versions of newton method: step- size choice, convergence domain and under-determined equations,” Optimization Methods and Software , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1272–1303, 2020

    2020

  14. [23]

    On the convergence of the newton /log-barrier method,

    S. J. Wright, “On the convergence of the newton /log-barrier method,” Mathematical programming, vol. 90, pp. 71–100, 2001

    2001

  15. [24]

    Kkt conditions, first-order and second-order optimization, and distributed optimization: tutorial and survey,

    B. Ghojogh, A. Ghodsi, F. Karray, and M. Crowley, “Kkt conditions, first-order and second-order optimization, and distributed optimization: tutorial and survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01858 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization . Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  17. [26]

    S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V . Balakrishnan, Linear matrix inequalities in system and control theory . SIAM, 1994

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.