Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

CADMM-Prox: A Bi-level Consensus ADMM for Non-smooth Non-convex Distributed Consensus Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces CADMM-Prox, a bi-level consensus ADMM that solves distributed consensus optimization with non-smooth, non-convex local objectives, claiming global convergence to a neighborhood of a generalized stationary point under a

desk verdict New algorithm, unsupported main theorem: CADMM-Prox is a clever bi-level construction, but the paper proves only vanishing increments, not convergence to a Clarke stationary point. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17495 v1 pith:K27GZ2PR submitted 2026-07-20 math.OC

Xu Du , Shuting Wu , Karl H. Johansson , Apostolos I. Rikos This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C2690C30
keywords distributedoptimizationconsensusADMMnon-smoothnon-convexsemi-convex(weaklyconvex)functionsproximalmethodbi-levelphaseretrievalsimultaneousupdates
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 proposes CADMM-Prox, a bi-level consensus ADMM for distributed optimization problems in which each agent's local objective is non-smooth and non-convex. The algorithm's central idea is to add a large quadratic proximal term centered at an outer variable z, which converts each alpha-semi-convex (weakly convex) local function into a strongly convex surrogate; a standard inner consensus ADMM solves the surrogate, and the outer variable is updated only when a strict decrease in a merit function is observed. The paper claims that under mild assumptions—closed, proper, alpha-semi-convex objectives bounded below, with gamma > alpha—the iterates converge globally to a neighborhood of a generalized stationary point, without smoothing, line search, or serial agent updates, and with the same per-iteration cost as classical consensus ADMM. This combination matters because existing ADMM analyses for non-smooth non-convex problems typically require a smooth component, serial agent updates, or parameter choices based on Lipschitz constants.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the proximal surrogate F_i^z(x) = f_i(x) + (gamma/2)||x - z||^2 and the merit function Phi(z, y) = sum_i F_i^z(y). Adding the prox term with gamma > alpha restores strong convexity, making the inner consensus ADMM subproblem convex while preserving the identity Phi(z, z) = sum_i f_i(z), so decreases in Phi track decreases in the original objective. The stopping criterion (10)—the inner solver must find y with Phi(z[k], y) < Phi(z[k], z[k])—turns Lemma 2 into a descent inequality whose right-hand side contains the positive term (gamma N / 2)||y - z[k]||^2; summing these gives lim ||z[k+1] - z[k]|| = 0. The O(1/t) convergence rate of inner ADMM is invoked to justify that t

What would settle it

Run CADMM-Prox on a one-dimensional weakly convex problem, e.g., f(x) = |x^2 - 1|, starting at z = 1; if the inner loop never satisfies the strict inequality (10) because the surrogate minimum already attains the current merit value, the algorithm stalls. Alternatively, construct or search for a generated sequence with ||z[k+1] - z[k]|| tending to zero but whose limit has a subdifferential not containing 0; evaluating the subdifferential at the output of a phase-retrieval run is a concrete numerical test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that non-smoothness and non-convexity in consensus ADMM can be handled by proximal convexification: for gamma > alpha, each F_i^z(x) = f_i(x) + (gamma/2)||x - z||^2 is (gamma - alpha)-strongly convex, so the inner subproblem is a convex consensus problem solvable by classical ADMM with O(1/t) convergence. The outer level updates z[k+1] to the inner iterate y[t+1] only when Phi(z[k], y[t+1]) < Phi(z[k], z[k]); Lemma 2 then shows the unregularized objective drops by at least (gamma N / 2) ||z[k+1] - z[k]||^2, so the squared outer increments telescope to a finite sum. The formal theorem proves lim_{k -> infinity} ||z[k+1] - z[k]|| = 0, and Remark 2 dra

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the inner ADMM solve will always terminate after finitely many iterations with a strict drop in the merit function, and that the limit of the outer iterates, whose increments are shown to vanish, actually lies near a generalized stationary point—the latter is asserted in a remark rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-smooth, non-convex distributed consensus problems can now be approached with an ADMM-style method that admits simultaneous agent updates and needs no smoothing, line search, trust regions, or projections.
  • The convergence guarantee rests only on alpha-semi-convexity plus boundedness below, so it covers weakly convex losses such as absolute-value phase retrieval without requiring any Lipschitz-smooth component.
  • The bi-level design does not add per-iteration cost: the inner loop is classical consensus ADMM and the outer step is a simple assignment.
  • If the claimed stationarity conclusion holds, the user-set tolerance epsilon on ||z[k+1] - z[k]|| gives a practical stopping rule with a neighborhood-of-stationarity interpretation.
  • Empirically, on phase retrieval, the method trades the faster-but-oscillatory behavior of the baseline consensus ADMM for more stable convergence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof as written establishes lim ||z[k+1] - z[k]|| = 0; the step to 'near a generalized stationary point' is asserted in Remark 2 rather than derived. A fully rigorous version would need to bound the distance from the limit point to the stationary set in terms of epsilon and the problem data.
  • The strict inequality in the stopping criterion (10) may be unreachable when z[k] is already a minimizer of the surrogate (or near one), since then Phi(z[k], y) >= Phi(z[k], z[k]) for all y; practical implementations may need a relaxed or alternative termination check.
  • The same construction should extend to other weakly convex non-smooth problems—robust regression, compressed sensing with absolute-value losses, or phase retrieval with different measurement models—because only alpha-semi-convexity and boundedness below are used.
  • A directly testable extension: track Phi(z[k], z[k]) across outer iterations; the lemma predicts a strict monotone decrease bounded below by a quadratic in ||z[k+1] - z[k]||, which can be verified on any run and would distinguish the mechanism from mere step-size decay.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CADMM-Prox, a bi-level consensus ADMM for distributed consensus optimization with non-smooth, non-convex (α-semi-convex) local objectives. An outer proximal term with parameter γ > α convexifies each local cost, yielding a strongly convex surrogate that is solved by classical consensus ADMM in an inner loop. The outer variable is updated to the inner solution whenever a strict-decrease criterion (10) is satisfied. The paper claims global convergence to a neighborhood of a Clarke/generalized stationary point, and reports numerical experiments on a distributed phase retrieval problem. The actual proved result (Theorem 1, Appendix II) is only lim_{k→∞} ||z[k+1]−z[k]|| = 0, obtained from the sufficient-decrease inequality in Lemma 2.

Significance. If the claimed convergence result were established, the paper would be a useful contribution: it targets non-smooth, non-convex consensus optimization with Jacobi-type updates, without damping or smooth surrogates, and the algorithmic construction is natural. The algebraic sufficient-decrease lemma is correct as far as it goes, and the phase-retrieval experiments give a practical illustration. However, the central theoretical claim — convergence to a neighborhood of a generalized stationary point — is not proven and, as shown below, the proved descent inequality is too weak to imply it. The paper therefore does not currently deliver its main advertised contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B, Theorem 1 and Remark 2] The abstract and Contribution A claim convergence to a neighborhood of a generalized (Clarke) stationary point. The only proved statement is (12), lim_k ||z[k+1]-z[k]||=0, derived from the sufficient-decrease inequality (11). Vanishing successive differences do not imply stationarity of cluster points. For instance, with N=1 and f(x)=x^4-x^2, γ=3, the sequence z_k=0.5+1/k^2 satisfies f(z_{k+1}) ≤ f(z_k) - (γ/2)(z_{k+1}-z_k)^2 for large k, yet z_k→0.5 and f'(0.5)=-0.5≠0. Thus (11) is compatible with non-stationary accumulation. Remark 2 cites [33] (a PALM convergence theorem) without verifying its conditions for these iterates, and no quantitative bound such as dist(0, ∂Σ_i f_i(z[k])) ≤ C||z[k+1]-z[k]|| is provided. This is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Section IV-B, Theorem 1] Equation (12) is insufficient to assert that the sequence z[k] admits a limit point. Boundedness of {z[k]} is never established; the monotonic decrease of the merit function Φ and its boundedness below do not imply boundedness of the argument. Without boundedness, or an additional coercivity assumption, the statement in Remark 2 that 'Algorithm 1 admits a limit point z*' is unjustified. Vanishing increments are compatible with unbounded sequences (e.g., z_k = log k).
  3. [Section IV-A, Algorithm 1 and Lemma 1] The paper states that the O(1/t) convergence rate of the inner consensus ADMM guarantees the stopping criterion (10) is satisfied in finite time. This is not demonstrated. The inner iterates converge from above to min_y Φ(z[k],y). If Φ(z[k], z[k]) equals that minimum — for example, when z[k] is already a stationary point of (4) — the strict inequality in (10) is never satisfied at any finite t, and the inner loop never terminates. The rate only gives |Φ(z[k], y[t+1]) - min_y Φ(z[k],y)| ≤ C/t, which does not force a strict decrease relative to Φ(z[k], z[k]) unless a positive gap is known. Without a proof of finite termination, Algorithm 1 is not well-defined for all inputs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II-A, Eq. (1)] The symbol γ is used both for the semi-convexity constant in inequality (1) and for the proximal regularization parameter in (2). Since Assumption 1 states that each f_i is α-semi-convex and γ > α, inequality (1) should presumably involve α/2 rather than γ/2. This notational ambiguity should be fixed.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The outer loop performs 'k ← k+1' at the start of each repeat, so the first outer update corresponds to k=2 even though initialization sets k=1. This off-by-one indexing is confusing and should be corrected or clarified.
  3. [Theorem 1 and Section IV-B] The phrase 'global convergence' is used for the result lim_k ||z[k+1]-z[k]||=0. This is not convergence of the sequence z[k] itself, so the terminology is misleading; 'consecutive-difference convergence' or 'vanishing increments' would be more accurate.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 1] The figure caption and text do not specify which curve corresponds to which algorithm in the two panels, nor the number of independent runs. Adding a legend and a description of the experimental setup (e.g., averaging over random instances) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the descent/convergence proof is self-contained algebraically; the stationarity claim is an unproved inference, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: α-semi-convexity (Assumption 1) makes the prox-regularized objective F_i^z strongly convex (Lemma 1); the inner Consensus ADMM converges for this convex surrogate by standard theory [25,29]; the stopping criterion (10) enforces Φ(z[k], y[t+1]) < Φ(z[k], z[k]); Lemma 2 rewrites this strict decrease into the quadratic descent inequality (11); Theorem 1 telescopes (11) over outer iterations to obtain Σ ||z[k+1]−z[k]||^2 < ∞ and hence lim ||z[k+1]−z[k]|| = 0. Each of these steps uses the previous one in the direction claimed, and Appendix I is an algebraic expansion, not a disguised restatement of the conclusion. The stopping criterion does define a decrease, but the paper does not hide that: it explicitly uses (10) as the trigger and derives the quantitative bound from it. The abstract's stronger claim about convergence to a neighborhood of a generalized stationary point is not actually proved by Theorem 1; Remark 2 asserts it via [33] without a quantitative neighborhood bound or a stationarity measure linked to ||z[k+1]−z[k]||. That is a genuine soundness/proof-strength gap, but it is not circularity: the asserted stationarity is not an input to the proof, nor is any fitted parameter or self-citation chain used to force it. The self-citations ([10], [20], [21], [23]) appear in the literature review and are not load-bearing for the main theorem. The numerical section fixes γ from the data's Lipschitz/weak-convexity constants, but nothing is fitted to the reported output to manufacture the convergence claim. Overall, the paper's central algebraic derivation is self-contained; no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. Score 0 for circularity, with the caveat that the stationarity claim is unsupported as written.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the semi-convexity modeling assumption and on two unproven bridges: finite triggering of the inner stopping criterion, and the inference from vanishing increments to stationarity proximity. The algorithm's own free parameters (γ, ρ) are not fitted to data but chosen heuristically in the experiments.

free parameters (2)
  • γ (proximal regularization parameter) = γ = 3 max_i ||a_i||^2 in experiments; theory requires only γ > α
    Chosen by hand to enforce strong convexity of the surrogate; the specific factor 3 is a heuristic for the phase retrieval objective.
  • ρ (augmented Lagrangian penalty) = ρ = 10^3 in experiments
    Chosen by hand; no tuning rule or sensitivity analysis provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each local objective fi is closed, proper, α-semi-convex, and bounded below (Assumption 1).
    Core modeling assumption that bounds the class of problems; enables the convex surrogate via a proximal term.
  • standard math The inner Consensus ADMM on the strongly convex surrogate converges globally at O(1/t) (Lemma 1).
    Imported from standard convex ADMM theory [25], [29]; not re-proved.
  • ad hoc to paper The stopping criterion (10) is satisfied after finitely many inner iterations at every outer iteration.
    Asserted after Lemma 1 without proof; not guaranteed when the surrogate minimum equals Φ(z[k], z[k]).
  • ad hoc to paper Vanishing outer increments imply the limit point is near a generalized stationary point (Remark 2).
    This is the load-bearing inference from Theorem 1 to the paper's headline claim; no proof or bound is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CADMM-Prox: A Bi-level Consensus ADMM for Non-smooth Non-convex Distributed Consensus Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K27GZ2PR

@misc{pith2026260717495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CADMM-Prox: A Bi-level Consensus ADMM for Non-smooth Non-convex Distributed Consensus Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K27GZ2PR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17495}
}
read the original abstract

Non-smooth and non-convex optimization problems are pervasive in machine learning, control, and signal processing, due to the need for sparse solutions and the inherently non-convex nature of many objective functions. In this paper, we study non-smooth and non-convex distributed optimization problems. We propose a novel bi-level Consensus Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) algorithm, termed CADMM-Prox. The proposed algorithm integrates classical Consensus ADMM with a proximal mechanism by introducing a sufficiently large proximal term associated with an outer-level variable. Under the mild assumption that the local objective functions are semi-convex, CADMM-Prox is guaranteed to converge globally to a neighborhood of a Clarke stationary point. Numerical experiments on a phase retrieval problem demonstrate that our proposed method exhibits more stable convergence behavior compared with baseline algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Algorithm 1 and Consensus ADMM [17, Sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [33]

    Proximal alterna ting linearized minimization for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems,

    J. Bolte, S. Sabach, and M. Teboulle, “Proximal alterna ting linearized minimization for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 459–494, 2014

    2014

  2. [1]

    Decen- tralized real-time iterations for distributed NMPC,

    G. Stomberg, A. Engelmann, M. Diehl, and T. Faulwasser, “ Decen- tralized real-time iterations for distributed NMPC,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 2025

    2025

  3. [2]

    Distributed convex second-or der optimization for ac/dc hybrid distribution systems within process orchestration framework,

    X. Dai, Y . Jiang, J. Zhai, J. Liu, T. Schlachter, C. N. Jone s, X.- P . Zhang, and V . Hagenmeyer, “Distributed convex second-or der optimization for ac/dc hybrid distribution systems within process orchestration framework,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2026

    2026

  4. [3]

    Preconditio ned inex- act stochastic ADMM for deep models,

    S. Zhou, O. Wang, Z. Luo, Y . Zhu, and G. Y . Li, “Preconditio ned inex- act stochastic ADMM for deep models,” Nature Machine Intelligence, pp. 1–12, 2026

    2026

  5. [4]

    Survey of distr ibuted algorithms for resource allocation over multi-agent syste ms,

    M. Doostmohammadian, A. Aghasi, M. Pirani, E. Nekouei, H . Zarrabi, R. Keypour, A. I. Rikos, and K. H. Johansson, “Survey of distr ibuted algorithms for resource allocation over multi-agent syste ms,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 59, p. 100983, 2025

    2025

  6. [5]

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, and E. Chu, Distributed optimization and statisti- cal learning via the alternating direction method of multip liers. Now Publishers Inc, 2011

    2011

  7. [6]

    DLM: Decentralize d linearized alternating direction method of multipliers,

    Q. Ling, W. Shi, G. Wu, and A. Ribeiro, “DLM: Decentralize d linearized alternating direction method of multipliers,” IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing , vol. 63, no. 15, pp. 4051–4064, 2015

    2015

  8. [7]

    A dual algorithm for the solution of nonlinear variational problems via finite eleme nt approximation,

    D. Gabay and B. Mercier, “A dual algorithm for the solution of nonlinear variational problems via finite eleme nt approximation,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17 – 40, 1976. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0898122176900031

    arXiv 1976

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Sur l’approximation, par ´ el´ ements finis d’ordre un, et la r´ esolution, par p´ enalisation-dualit´ e d’une classe de probl` emes de dirichlet non lin´ eaires,

    R. Glowinski and A. Marroco, “Sur l’approximation, par ´ el´ ements finis d’ordre un, et la r´ esolution, par p´ enalisation-dualit´ e d’une classe de probl` emes de dirichlet non lin´ eaires,”Revue franc ¸aise d’automatique, informatique, recherche op´ erationnelle. Analyse nu...

    1975

  2. [9]

    On the o(1/n) convergence rate of the do uglas– rachford alternating direction method,

    B. He and X. Y uan, “On the o(1/n) convergence rate of the do uglas– rachford alternating direction method,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 700–709, 2012

    2012

  3. [10]

    Affine-coupled distributed optimization via distributed proximal Jaco- bian ADMM with quantized communication,

    X. Du, B. Han, I. Notarnicola, K. H. Johansson, and A. I. R ikos, “Affine-coupled distributed optimization via distributed proximal Jaco- bian ADMM with quantized communication,” IF AC W orld Congress, 2026 (accepted for publication)

    2026

  4. [11]

    Convergence ana lysis of alternating direction method of multipliers for a family of nonconvex problems,

    M. Hong, Z.-Q. Luo, and M. Razaviyayn, “Convergence ana lysis of alternating direction method of multipliers for a family of nonconvex problems,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 337–364, 2016

    2016

  5. [12]

    A proximal alternating directi on method of multiplier for linearly constrained nonconvex minimiza tion,

    J. Zhang and Z.-Q. Luo, “A proximal alternating directi on method of multiplier for linearly constrained nonconvex minimiza tion,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 2272–2302, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Non- linear perturbation-based non-convex optimization over t ime-varying networks,

    M. Doostmohammadian, Z. R. Gabidullina, and H. R. Rabie e, “Non- linear perturbation-based non-convex optimization over t ime-varying networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 6461–6469, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Global convergence of ADMM in nonconvex nonsmooth optimization,

    Y . Wang, W. Yin, and J. Zeng, “Global convergence of ADMM in nonconvex nonsmooth optimization,” Journal of Scientific Computing , vol. 78, pp. 29–63, 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    Com- plexity of linearized perturbed augmented lagrangian meth ods for non- smooth nonconvex optimization with nonlinear equality con straints,

    L. El Bourkhissi, I. Necoara, P . Patrinos, and Q. Tran-D inh, “Com- plexity of linearized perturbed augmented lagrangian meth ods for non- smooth nonconvex optimization with nonlinear equality con straints,” arXiv e-prints , pp. arXiv–2503, 2025

    2025

  9. [16]

    Moreau envelope augmen ted lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with linear c onstraints,

    J. Zeng, W. Yin, and D.-X. Zhou, “Moreau envelope augmen ted lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with linear c onstraints,” Journal of Scientific Computing , vol. 91, no. 2, p. 61, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Moreau envelope augmented lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with linear con- straints,

    ——, “Moreau envelope augmented lagrangian method for nonconvex optimization with linear con- straints,” Jan 2021, preprint. [Online]. Available: https://www.cityu.edu.hk/rcms/pdf/XDZhou/dxZhou2022c.pdf

    2021

  11. [18]

    A survey of ADMM variants for distributed optimization: Problems, a lgorithms and features,

    Y . Y ang, X. Guan, Q.-S. Jia, L. Y u, B. Xu, and C. J. Spanos, “A survey of ADMM variants for distributed optimization: Problems, a lgorithms and features,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03700 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Alia: Adaptive lin earized ADMM,

    U. Jang, K. Sun, W. Yin, and E. K. Ryu, “Alia: Adaptive lin earized ADMM,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15000 , 2026

    2026

  13. [20]

    Decentralized o ptimization via RC-ALADIN with efficient quantized communication,

    X. Du, K. H. Johansson, and A. I. Rikos, “Decentralized o ptimization via RC-ALADIN with efficient quantized communication,” in 2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2025, p. 4357–4363

    2025

  14. [21]

    Convergence theo ry of flexible ALADIN for distributed optimization,

    X. Du, X. Zhou, S. Zhu, and I. Rikos, A, “Convergence theo ry of flexible ALADIN for distributed optimization,” in 2025 European Control Conference (ECC) , 2025, pp. 1907–1912

    2025

  15. [22]

    Parallel multi- block ADMM with o (1/k) convergence,

    W. Deng, M.-J. Lai, Z. Peng, and W. Yin, “Parallel multi- block ADMM with o (1/k) convergence,” Journal of Scientific Computing , vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 712–736, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Asynchronous distributed optimization via ADMM with effic ient communication,

    A. I. Rikos, W. Jiang, T. Charalambous, and K. H. Johanss on, “Asynchronous distributed optimization via ADMM with effic ient communication,” 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    An asynchronous approximate distributed alternating direct ion method of multipliers in digraphs,

    W. Jiang, A. Grammenos, E. Kalyvianaki, and T. Charalam bous, “An asynchronous approximate distributed alternating direct ion method of multipliers in digraphs,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 3406–3413

    2021

  18. [25]

    Distributed alternating direc tion method of multipliers,

    E. Wei and A. Ozdaglar, “Distributed alternating direc tion method of multipliers,” in 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC). IEEE, 2012, pp. 5445–5450

    2012

  19. [26]

    A two-level distributed algorithm for non- convex constrained optimization,

    K. Sun and X. A. Sun, “A two-level distributed algorithm for non- convex constrained optimization,” Computational Optimization and Applications, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 609–649, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Characte rizations of łojasiewicz inequalities: subgradient flows, talweg, conv exity,

    J. Bolte, A. Daniilidis, O. Ley, and L. Mazet, “Characte rizations of łojasiewicz inequalities: subgradient flows, talweg, conv exity,” Trans- actions of the American Mathematical Society , vol. 362, no. 6, pp. 3319–3363, 2010

    2010

  21. [28]

    V ariable smoothing for weakl y convex composite functions,

    A. B¨ ohm and S. J. Wright, “V ariable smoothing for weakl y convex composite functions,” Journal of optimization theory and applications , vol. 188, no. 3, pp. 628–649, 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    D-DistADMM: Ao (1/k) dis tributed ADMM for distributed optimization in directed graph topolo gies,

    V . Khatana and M. V . Salapaka, “D-DistADMM: Ao (1/k) dis tributed ADMM for distributed optimization in directed graph topolo gies,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 2992–2997

    2020

  23. [30]

    Combining ADMM and the Augmented Lagrangian Method for efficiently handling many constraint s

    J. Giesen and S. Laue, “Combining ADMM and the Augmented Lagrangian Method for efficiently handling many constraint s.” in IJCAI, 2019, pp. 4525–4531

    2019

  24. [31]

    A maximall y split and adaptive relaxed alternating direction method of multi pliers for regularized extreme learning machines,

    Z. Wang, S. Huo, X. Xiong, K. Wang, and B. Liu, “A maximall y split and adaptive relaxed alternating direction method of multi pliers for regularized extreme learning machines,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 14, p. 3198, 2023

    2023

  25. [32]

    An augmented Lagran gian based algorithm for distributed nonconvex optimization,

    B. Houska, J. Frasch, and M. Diehl, “An augmented Lagran gian based algorithm for distributed nonconvex optimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1101–1127, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Stochastic model-based minimization of weakly convex functions,

    D. Davis and D. Drusvyatskiy, “Stochastic model-based minimization of weakly convex functions,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 207–239, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.