Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Treasure Search 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 Treasure Search Optimization splits a swarm into explorers and a hunter and proves the hunter's steady state reaches the global minimum within O(1/α), under a variance-matching condition.

desk verdict Genuinely new two-agent swarm architecture with a real mean-field theorem, but the abstract overclaims: Theorem 3.1 proves an equilibrium exists near xmin, not that the dynamics converge to it, and the numerics run outside the variance-matched regime the theory assumes. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16863 v1 pith:X227NG3I submitted 2026-07-18 math.OC math.PR

A. Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCmath.PR MSC 90C2660H1065K1065C3065C3560J76
keywords TreasureSearchOptimizationinteractingparticlesystemsglobalconditionalMcKean-VlasovSDEcommonnoisejump-diffusionLaplaceapproximationuncertaintyquantification
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

The paper tries to establish that a derivative-free, two-agent swarm method—a diffuse cloud of explorers plus a single treasure hunter—has a provable steady-state guarantee: as the weighting parameter α grows, the hunter's position lands within O(1/α) of the global minimizer. This matters because most swarm methods balance exploration and exploitation inside one population, usually by annealing or degenerating noise, which forces a trade-off between premature collapse and slow escape from local minima. TSO removes that trade-off by design and supplies a theorem rather than only a heuristic. The proof passes through a conditional McKean-Vlasov mean-field limit with common Poissonian noise, an explicit Gaussian steady state under a variance-matching condition, and a self-consistent Laplace evaluation of the consensus map. A secondary contribution links the swarm's drift to a smoothed free energy, explaining why the swarm ignores small spurious traps and enabling a post-processing Kalman step for Bayesian uncertainty quantification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the self-consistent consensus map Tα(m) = (∫ x e^{−αf(x)} e^{−c0|x−m|²} dx) / (∫ e^{−αf(x)} e^{−c0|x−m|²} dx), with c0 = 1/(2σ⋆²). It encodes the explorers' Gibbs-weighted average once the swarm is treated as a Gaussian cloud centered at m with variance σ⋆². The variance-matching condition σ²/(2(η1+η2)) = σJ² makes that Gaussian ansatz an actual stationary solution of the jump-diffusion mean-field equation; when the condition fails, the steady-state covariance is no longer Gaussian and is instead governed by the non-Gaussian formula (3.12). The proof pairs the inward-pointing estimate (3.23) with Brouwer's fixed-point theorem to obtain mα = Tα(mα), then uses Laplac

What would settle it

Run the TSO particle system on a one-dimensional double-well objective f with parameters satisfying the variance-matching condition, and separately with the same parameters except σJ changed so the condition fails by a factor of ten; for several values of α, measure the long-run mean of |hunter − xmin|. If the O(1/α) decay appears only in the matching case, the theorem's domain is exactly as stated; if it appears in both, the theory is narrower than the method; if it appears in neither after finite-N and discretization effects are controlled, the fixed-point Laplace mechanism is not the operat

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: under the variance-matching condition σ²/(2(η1+η2)) = σJ² and Assumption 1 (f is C⁴ near a unique global minimizer with positive-definite Hessian and quadratic growth), the mean-field TSO system has a stationary regime in which the explorer law is Gaussian N(m⋆, σ⋆²I), the hunter sits at m⋆, and any self-consistent consensus point mα solving mα = Tα(mα) satisfies |mα − xmin| ≤ C/α for all sufficiently large α. This is the result that turns TSO from a plausible algorithm into one with a proximity guarantee: no gradient information and no annealing schedule, only a tunable weight. The proof is a fixed-point Laplace argument: an inward-pointing estimate gives a

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the variance-matching equality σ²/(2(η1+η2)) = σJ², which forces the explorer cloud's steady state to be Gaussian; the paper itself calls the condition restrictive, and its numerical demonstrations run far outside this regime, so if that equality is not a natural operating point, the proven O(1/α) guarantee and the tested algorithm are not about the same parameter settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 3.1 is correct, TSO offers a derivative-free optimization method with a tunable steady-state proximity guarantee to the global minimum, without gradient evaluations or noise annealing.
  • The well-posedness result for the smoothed conditional McKean-Vlasov jump-diffusion mean-field limit gives the finite-particle algorithm a firm mathematical base.
  • The free-energy and Stein-kernel analysis indicates that the swarm's macroscopic center descends a smoothed landscape, explaining why the collective cloud can be insensitive to small spurious local traps.
  • In inverse problems, the equilibrium explorer cloud has an explicit Gaussian form with known algorithmic covariance, so an affine or Kalman post-processing step can convert it into a geometry-aware uncertainty estimate while the optimization itself remains derivative-free.
  • The common-noise conditional McKean-Vlasov framework with finite-activity Poisson jumps is a new setting in which existence and uniqueness are obtained by a pathwise fixed-point plus measurable-selection argument.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The numerical sections choose parameters that violate the variance-matching condition, so on the paper's own definitions those experiments do not directly test Theorem 3.1; a direct numerical check of the C/α scaling under condition (3.1) would complete the loop.
  • The self-consistent Laplace argument suggests the 1/α rate is controlled by the Gaussian smoothing scale σ⋆; varying σ⋆ with α rather than fixing it might yield a different, possibly dimension-dependent, rate, though the paper does not claim this.
  • The hunter's monotone-improvement jumps give it a global memory, so the full system behaves like gradient flow on a time-dependent smoothed potential; replacing the deterministic accept rule with a probabilistic one is a testable variant.
  • The paper lists quantitative conditional propagation of chaos as future work; a finite-N convergence bound would translate the mean-field O(1/α) guarantee into a statement about the actual particle system, which the theorems so far do not provide.
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 introduces Treasure Search Optimization (TSO), a two-species interacting particle method for global optimization. A swarm of explorers performs exploration via jump-diffusions, while a single treasure hunter performs exploitation by drifting toward an objective-weighted consensus and teleporting when this improves the objective. The mean-field limit is formulated as a conditional McKean–Vlasov jump-diffusion SDE with common noise. The paper proves well-posedness for a smoothed version of the teleportation rule (Theorem 2.1), characterizes a Gaussian stationary state under a variance-matching condition (Section 3.1), and proves existence of a self-consistent steady-state consensus point within O(1/α) of the global minimizer (Theorem 3.1). It also gives a formal free-energy gradient interpretation of the consensus drift, proposes a post-processing Kalman calibration for uncertainty quantification, and reports numerical experiments on ODE-constrained problems and a Bayesian inverse problem.

Significance. If the main theorem and its assumptions are taken at face value, the paper contributes a derivative-free swarm optimizer with a provable proximity guarantee for an equilibrium of the mean-field dynamics, and it develops a quantitative self-consistent Laplace method that is more subtle than a direct application of the Laplace principle. The well-posedness result for conditional McKean–Vlasov jump-diffusions with common noise, built via pathwise Leray–Schauder and measurable selection, is also of independent interest. However, the advertised headline — that 'the hunter settles near the global minimum with error of order 1/α' — is not established: the theorem proves existence of a fixed point of the stationary-map Tα, not convergence of the dynamics to that fixed point. Moreover, the numerical experiments run in a parameter regime where the variance-matching condition (3.1) is violated, so Theorem 3.1 does not apply to the demonstrated algorithm. These gaps substantially weaken the contribution as presented, though they are potentially repairable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 7; Theorem 3.1 (Eqs. (3.14)–(3.16))] The abstract and concluding remarks claim the hunter 'settles near the global minimum with error of order 1/α'. Theorem 3.1 only proves the existence of a self-consistent fixed point mα = Tα(mα) with |mα − xmin| ≤ C/α. It does not show that the time-dependent conditional McKean–Vlasov dynamics (2.10)–(2.11), or the finite-particle system, converge to this equilibrium. Section 7 explicitly states that 'convergence to the equilibrium, is the subject of ongoing work.' Thus the central value proposition — a provable guarantee that TSO locates the global minimum — is not supported by the theorem. The claim should be reframed as an equilibrium existence result, or a Lyapunov/ergodicity analysis should be added.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 6 (numerical experiments)] Theorem 3.1 depends crucially on the variance-matching condition σ²/(2(η1+η2)) = σJ² (Eq. (3.1)), which makes the stationary explorer law Gaussian with variance σJ². The numerical demonstrations do not satisfy this condition. In §6.2.3, η=1, σ=0.25, so σ²/(2η)=0.03125, while Eq. (6.15) gives σJ² ≈ 4.55. In §6.3, σ=0.8, σJ=2, so σ²/(2η)=0.32 but σJ²=4. In both cases the steady state is non-Gaussian and governed by the covariance formula (3.12), for which no O(1/α) proximity theorem is proven. The theory and the numerical evidence therefore concern two different regimes. Either the experiments should be rerun in the variance-matched regime, or the theory should be extended to the unmatched case, or the mismatch should be explicitly acknowledged.
  3. [Theorem 2.1 and Section 6.1 (implementation)] Theorem 2.1 establishes well-posedness only for the smoothed jump-size Gε(m,y) = (m−y)Ψε(m,y) with Ψε satisfying (2.22). The algorithm actually implemented uses the hard teleportation rule (6.3), where the indicator 1{f(mk+1)<f(Ŷk+1)} is discontinuous. No existence or uniqueness result is provided for this hard-indicator mean-field SDE. Since contribution (i) claims well-posedness of the TSO system, the current result covers only an auxiliary smoothed variant. Please clarify whether the well-posedness extends to the hard rule, or restrict the claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1] The horizontal axis labels appear as '4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4' with no minus signs; likely a rendering issue. Please verify the final PDF displays negative values correctly.
  2. [Eq. (6.15)] The formula for σJ contains a square root that may be negative for some parameter choices; the text does not discuss feasibility constraints. A brief comment on when the matching condition admits a real solution would improve the reproducibility.
  3. [Section 5 and Figure 2] The Laplace calibration map TLap in Eq. (5.7) assumes ΣLap^{1/2} commutes implicitly with the identity; since both are symmetric and share eigenvectors, this is fine, but the notation (σ⋆²Id)^{−1/2} could be simplified. Also, the caption says σ⋆=1 while the text says the steady-state covariance is σ⋆²I; please keep the notation consistent.
  4. [Throughout] A few typos and minor notational inconsistencies remain (e.g., 'Mα(E_N_t, Y_t)' vs. 'Mk' in Section 6.1; 'λJ' vs. 'λ_Y' in some places). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the O(1/α) bound follows from a self-contained fixed-point Laplace argument under explicit assumptions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the mean-field SDEs (2.10)-(2.11) through the steady-state construction (3.1)-(3.8) and the fixed-point theorem 3.1. The variance-matching condition (3.1) is an explicit assumption, not a fitted parameter; it is used only to identify a Gaussian steady state by direct substitution (3.4)-(3.6). The target statement—proximity of the self-consistent consensus point mα to xmin—does not enter these assumptions: Assumption 1 concerns only f, and the mapping Tα in (3.14) is derived from the stationary explorer law. The proof of Theorem 3.1 is a standard inward-pointing estimate plus Brouwer fixed point plus Laplace asymptotics (3.17)-(3.35); the bounds Nα=O(α^{-(d+2)/2}) and Dα≥cα^{-d/2} are obtained from Taylor expansion around xmin under C^4 and ∇²f(xmin)>0, not from the desired inequality. No equation is restated as its own input. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [KST23] for a jump-diffusion moment estimate, [RS25] for Kalman-Langevin context) are ancillary: the moment estimate is sketched in the text and is not a self-referential uniqueness theorem. I also note two limitations that are not circularity but correctness/scope gaps: (i) Section 7 explicitly states 'A quantitative conditional propagation of chaos result ... together with convergence to the equilibrium, is the subject of ongoing work', so the abstract's word 'settles' overstates what Theorem 3.1 proves (existence of an equilibrium, not dynamical convergence to it); (ii) the numerical parameters in §6.2.3 and §6.3 do not satisfy the variance-matching condition (3.1) used in the theorem, so the experiments do not test the proven regime. These are gaps in support, not reductions of the derivation to its inputs. Hence no circularity score above 0 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The theorem payload rests on: coercivity + regularity of f (standard for CBO-type analysis), the smoothing of the indicator (Theorem 2.1 scope), the variance-matching condition (3.1) (the fragile one — violated in all reported experiments), and local C⁴ positivity (Laplace). The free-energy and Stein-kernel steps in Section 4 are explicitly formal. No new physical entities; the hunter is an algorithmic element with numerical evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • σJ (explorer jump amplitude) = ≈2.13 in §6.2 via (6.15); 2.0 in §6.3 by hand
    Fitted to match the frozen-consensus stationary spread of additive CBO (equation (6.15)), or hand-set; it controls the noise scale on which the steady-state Gaussian width σ⋆ (and thus c0 in Theorem 3.1) depends.
  • Variance-matching condition (3.1): σ²/(2(η1+η2)) = σJ² = Not satisfied in either numerical run (σ²/(2η) = 0.03125 vs σJ² = 4.55; 0.32 vs 4)
    A hand-imposed parameter constraint introduced ad hoc to make the steady-state Gaussian and the O(1/α) theorem derivable; the paper's experiments violate it, so the theory applies to a regime the method is never run in.
  • TSO hyperparameters (η, σ, φ, λJ, β, λY, κ1, κ2, α, T, h, N, α schedule) = As listed in §6.2.3 and §6.3
    Chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis is reported, so the numerical comparisons are conditioned on these choices, and the §6.3 α-annealing is not fully specified.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption f bounded below, locally Lipschitz with |f(x)−f(y)| ≤ L_f(|x|+|y|)|x−y|, growth f(x)−fmin ≤ c_u(1+|x|²) (2.20)
    Hypotheses of Theorem 2.1 (well-posedness of the smoothed mean-field system).
  • domain assumption Coercivity: f(x) − fmin ≥ c_l|x|² for |x| ≥ M (2.21)
    Used to control mα (CCTT18 Lemmas 3.2–3.3) and to close the Leray-Schauder a priori bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Smooth approximation Ψε of the hard indicator with locally Lipschitz, linear-growth Gε (2.22)
    Theorem 2.1 is only for the smoothed hunter-teleport; well-posedness of the actual hard-indicator dynamics is not claimed.
  • ad hoc to paper Variance matching σ²/(2(η1+η2)) = σJ² (3.1)
    Makes the stationary explorer law Gaussian; Theorem 3.1's c0 uses σ⋆ = σJ. Violated in the numerical runs.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: f ∈ C⁴(B_r(xmin)), ∇²f(xmin) > 0, f(x) ≥ κ|x|² − ℓ (3.13)
    Required for the Laplace expansion of Tα in Theorem 3.1.
  • domain assumption Stein-kernel existence (4.7) and alignment condition κ1(mα−X̄)+κ2(Y−X̄)=0 (4.19)
    Section 4's gradient-flow reduction is formal; authors state it holds only transiently.
  • standard math Standard tools: Leray-Schauder fixed point, Arzelà–Ascoli, Kuratowski-Ryll-Nardzewski selection, [GK80] jump-diffusion well-posedness, classical Laplace asymptotics
    Background results invoked in §2.1 and §3.2.
invented entities (1)
  • Treasure hunter Y_t (single exploiter agent with Poisson teleport) independent evidence
    purpose: Exploitation half of the architecture; its jumps create the common noise that induces the conditional McKean-Vlasov structure
    It is an algorithmic construct, not a physical entity; it has a falsifiable handle — the numerical success rates and the O(1/α) bound depend on its dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Treasure Search Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X227NG3I

@misc{pith2026260716863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Treasure Search Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X227NG3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16863}
}
abstract

We introduce Treasure Search Optimization (TSO), an interacting particle method for global optimization. Most swarm methods balance exploration and exploitation within a single population, and typically switch between the two by degenerating the noise, annealing a temperature, or tuning a parameter. TSO instead splits these tasks across two kinds of agents. A swarm of explorers stays in exploration mode and a single treasure hunter performs exploitation. The hunter drifts toward an objective-weighted average of the explorers and may teleport to it when the move lowers the objective. The swarm then re-centers around the hunter, creating a feedback loop between search and capture. We model the dynamics as coupled jump-diffusion stochastic differential equations (SDEs). The hunter's jumps are shared by all explorers and act as a common noise. The mean-field limit is therefore a conditional McKean-Vlasov jump-diffusion SDE, whose well-posedness we prove. We also characterize the steady state and prove, via Laplace approximation techniques, that the hunter settles near the global minimum with error of order $1/\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the weight parameter. Linking the consensus drift to a smoothed free energy, we explain why the swarm ignores spurious local traps and demonstrate how to quantify uncertainty in inverse problems using post-processing Kalman steps after TSO iterations. Numerical experiments on ODE-constrained problems and a low dimensional Bayesian inverse problem demonstrate the effectiveness of the TSO method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From the eyes of swarm. Macroscopic potential induced by Gaussian swarm smoothing for the one-dimensional Ackley and Rastrigin objectives. Here, U(p) = σ 2 ⋆αFα,σ2 ⋆ (p) (see (4.15)) with σ⋆ = 0.1. The black curves show the original objective functions, while the colored curves show the corresponding smoothed potentials U depending on free energy Fα,σ2 ⋆ . The figure illustrates that the swarm evolves according to a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rosenbrock objective f(x1, x2) = (1 − x1) 2 + 100(x2 − x 2 1 ) 2 = |r(x)| 2 , with r(x) = (x1 − 1, 10(x2 − x 2 1 )), global minimizer x⋆ = (1, 1), N = 1000, steady-state TSO covariance σ 2 ⋆ I2 with σ⋆ = 1. The left plot shows the isotropic TSO reference cloud centered at x⋆. The middle panel shows Laplace calibration, where the cloud is affinely transformed to have covariance (∇2f(x⋆))−1 . The right plot shows deri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contour plots of the objective functions. Diamond denotes the global minimum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration depicting particles at 30-th (i.e. last) iteration for three methods : CBS, EKS and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginal posterior approximations for x1 and x2 with initial ensemble distribution N (0, 1) ⊗ U(90, 110). 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration depicting particles at 30-th (i.e. last) iteration for three methods : CBS, EKS and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginal posterior approximations for x1 and x2 with initial ensemble distribution N (0, 1) ⊗ U(60, 90). 7 Concluding Remarks We introduced Treasure Search Optimization, an interacting particle method that assigns exploration and exploitation to two distinct agents rat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Weissmann, S

    Reich, S. and Weissmann, S. , journal=. Fokker--Planck particle systems for. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  2. [2]

    Iglesias, M. A. and Law, K. J. H. and Stuart, A. M. , journal=. Ensemble. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  3. [3]

    and Hoffmann, F

    Garbuno-Inigo, A. and Hoffmann, F. and Li, W. and Stuart, A. M. , journal=. Interacting. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  4. [4]

    and Nusken, N

    Garbuno-Inigo, A. and Nusken, N. and Reich, S. , journal=. Affine invariant interacting. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18139 , year=

    Kalman-Langevin dynamics: exponential convergence, particle approximation and numerical approximation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18139 , year=

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    and Wang, D

    Liu, Q. and Wang, D. , year=. Stein Variational Gradient Descent: A General Purpose. 1608.04471 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    and Eberhart, R

    Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. , year =. Particle swarm optimization , volume =

  8. [8]

    Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=

    An analytical framework for consensus-based global optimization method , author=. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=

    A consensus-based model for global optimization and its mean-field limit , author=. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  2. [10]

    Studies in Applied Mathematics , volume=

    Consensus-based sampling , author=. Studies in Applied Mathematics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  3. [11]

    Mathematical Programming , volume=

    Swarm gradient dynamics for global optimization: the mean-field limit case , author=. Mathematical Programming , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  4. [12]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , volume=

    Swarm-based gradient descent meets simulated annealing , author=. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  5. [13]

    Active Particles, Volume 4: Theory, Models, Applications , pages=

    Bayesian sampling using interacting particles , author=. Active Particles, Volume 4: Theory, Models, Applications , pages=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  6. [14]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/cocv/2026005 , journal=

    Controlled stochastic processes for simulated annealing , author=. doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/cocv/2026005 , journal=

  7. [15]

    Communications in applied mathematics and computational science , volume=

    Ensemble samplers with affine invariance , author=. Communications in applied mathematics and computational science , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  8. [16]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume=

    Fast and robust consensus-based optimization via optimal feedback control , author=. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  9. [17]

    Carrillo, J. A. and Jin, S. and Li, L. and Zhu, Y. , title =. doi:10.1051/cocv/2020046

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19116 , year=

    A modified Consensus-Based Optimization model: consensus formation and uniform-in-time propagation of chaos , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19116 , year=

  11. [19]

    and Huang, H

    Fornasier, M. and Huang, H. and Pareschi, L. and Sünnen, P. , title =. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , volume =. 2020 , doi =. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202520500530 , abstract =

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=

    Constrained consensus-based optimization , author=. SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  13. [21]

    Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=

    A constrained consensus based optimization algorithm and its application to finance , author=. Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  14. [22]

    Carrillo, J. A. and Totzeck, C. and Vaes, U. , booktitle=. Consensus-based optimization and ensemble. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  15. [23]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=

    Consensus-based optimization methods converge globally , author=. SIAM Journal on Optimization , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  16. [24]

    Chada, N. K. and Tong, X. T. , journal=. Convergence acceleration of ensemble

  17. [25]

    Active Particles, Volume 3: Advances in Theory, Models, and Applications , pages=

    Trends in consensus-based optimization , author=. Active Particles, Volume 3: Advances in Theory, Models, and Applications , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  18. [26]

    Hinds, P. D. and Sharma, A. and Tretyakov, M. V. , journal=. Well-posedness and approximation of reflected. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  19. [27]

    2018 , publisher=

    Probabilistic theory of mean field games with applications II , author=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  20. [28]

    Conditional

    Hern\'. Conditional. Stochastics and Dynamics , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  21. [29]

    Nonlinearity , volume=

    Birth--death dynamics for sampling: global convergence, approximations and their asymptotics , author=. Nonlinearity , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  22. [30]

    SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , volume=

    Ensemble-based gradient inference for particle methods in optimization and sampling , author=. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  23. [31]

    Chada, N. K. and Stuart, A. M. and Tong, X. T. , journal=. Tikhonov regularization within ensemble. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  24. [32]

    Kinetic and Related Models , volume =

    Kinetic methods for inverse problems , author =. Kinetic and Related Models , volume =. 2019 , issn =. doi:10.3934/krm.2019042 , keywords =

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Journal of Global Optimization , volume=

    Consensus-based optimization for multi-objective problems: a multi-swarm approach , author=. Journal of Global Optimization , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  26. [34]

    Ernst, O. G. and Sprungk, B. and Starkloff, H.-J. , journal=. Analysis of the ensemble and polynomial chaos. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  27. [35]

    and Dos Reis, G

    Adams, D. and Dos Reis, G. and Ravaille, R. and Salkeld, W. and Tugaut, J. , journal=. Large deviations and exit-times for reflected. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  28. [36]

    Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=

    Consensus-based optimization via jump-diffusion stochastic differential equations , author=. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  29. [37]

    and Im, H

    Borghi, G. and Im, H. and Pareschi, L. , journal=. Swarm-based optimization with jumps: a kinetic

  30. [38]

    Journal of the

    Accurate approximations for posterior moments and marginal densities , author=. Journal of the. 1986 , publisher=

    1986

  31. [39]

    1967 , publisher=

    Probability measures on metric spaces , author=. 1967 , publisher=

    1967

  32. [40]

    The Annals of Probability , pages=

    Laplace's method for Gaussian integrals with an application to statistical mechanics , author=. The Annals of Probability , pages=. 1982 , publisher=

    1982

  33. [41]

    Asymptotic Approximations of Integrals , author=

  34. [42]

    and Shkolnikov, M

    Lacker, D. and Shkolnikov, M. and Zhang, J. , journal=. Superposition and mimicking theorems for conditional. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  35. [43]

    and Shim, W

    Santambrogio, F. and Shim, W. , journal=. A. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  36. [44]

    and Hoffmann, F

    Bungert, L. and Hoffmann, F. and Kim, D. and Roith, T. , journal=. Mirror

  37. [45]

    Lecture Notes in Mathematics , volume=

    Convex analysis and measurable multifunctions , author=. Lecture Notes in Mathematics , volume=

  38. [46]

    Applebaum, D. , isbn=. L. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  39. [47]

    Huang, D. Z. and Schneider, T. and Stuart, A. M. , journal=. Iterated. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  40. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12039 , year=

    Controlled Swarm Gradient Dynamics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12039 , year=

  41. [49]

    International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) Workshop on ‘Beyond First order methods in ML Systems , year=

    To interact or not? The convergence properties of interacting stochastic mirror descent , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) Workshop on ‘Beyond First order methods in ML Systems , year=

  42. [50]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume=

    Consensus-based rare event estimation , author=. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  43. [51]

    Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , volume=

    On stochastic mirror descent with interacting particles: convergence properties and variance reduction , author=. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  44. [52]

    Pavliotis, G. A. and Stuart, A. M. and Vaes, U. , journal=. Derivative-free. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  45. [53]

    SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , volume=

    A particle consensus approach to solving nonconvex-nonconcave min-max problems , author=. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  46. [54]

    Modeling and Simulation for Collective Dynamics , pages=

    Mean-field particle swarm optimization , author=. Modeling and Simulation for Collective Dynamics , pages=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  47. [55]

    and Kouhkouh, H

    Huang, H. and Kouhkouh, H. , journal=. A derivative-free particle method for optimization in

  48. [56]

    and Smale, S

    Cucker, F. and Smale, S. , year =. On the mathematics of emergence , volume =. Jpn. J. Math. , doi =

  49. [57]

    J. A. Carrillo and M. Fornasier and J. Rosado and G. Toscani , journal=. Asymptotic Flocking Dynamics for the Kinetic. 2010 , volume=

    2010

  50. [58]

    and Rosado, J

    Bertozzi, A. and Rosado, J. and Short, M. and Wang, L. , year =. Contagion Shocks in One Dimension , volume =. J. Stat. Phys. , doi =

  51. [59]

    and Fogel, D

    Back, T. and Fogel, D. B. and Michalewicz, Z. , title =. 1997 , isbn =

    1997

  52. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11677 , year=

    From consensus-based optimization to evolution strategies: Proof of global convergence , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11677 , year=

  53. [61]

    Dorigo and C

    M. Dorigo and C. Blum , keywords =. Ant colony optimization theory: A survey , journal =. 2005 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2005.05.020 , url =

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    Particle Swarm Optimization

    Kennedy, J. Particle Swarm Optimization. Encyclopedia of Machine Learning. 2010. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_630

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    Mathematical Programming , volume=

    Polarized consensus-based dynamics for optimization and sampling , author=. Mathematical Programming , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  56. [64]

    Inverse problems , volume=

    A-optimal encoding weights for nonlinear inverse problems, with application to the Helmholtz inverse problem , author=. Inverse problems , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  57. [65]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04074 , year=

    Multi-Dimensional Opinion Formation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04074 , year=

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    , journal=

    Reich, S. , journal=. A nonparametric ensemble transform method for. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  59. [67]

    Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=

    Vehicular traffic, crowds, and swarms: From kinetic theory and multiscale methods to applications and research perspectives , author=. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  60. [68]

    , author=

    On stochastic equations with respect to semimartingales I. , author=. Stochastics: An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes , volume=. 1980 , publisher=

    1980

  61. [69]

    2012 , publisher=

    Classical electrodynamics , author=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  62. [70]

    2015 , publisher=

    Introduction to plasma physics and controlled fusion , author=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  63. [71]

    2023 , publisher=

    Understanding molecular simulation: from algorithms to applications , author=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  64. [72]

    1998 , publisher=

    A course on Borel sets , author=. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

  65. [73]

    Ha and E

    S.-Y. Ha and E. Tadmor , keywords =. From particle to kinetic and hydrodynamic descriptions of flocking , journal =. 2008 , issn =. doi:10.3934/krm.2008.1.415 , url =

    2008 doi

  66. [74]

    and Tadmor, E

    Motsch, S. and Tadmor, E. , title =. SIAM Review , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  67. [75]

    Mathematical models and methods in applied sciences , volume=

    A quest toward a mathematical theory of the dynamics of swarms , author=. Mathematical models and methods in applied sciences , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  68. [76]

    1989 , issn =

    Asymptotics of the spectral gap with applications to the theory of simulated annealing , journal =. 1989 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(89)90023-2 , url =

    1989 doi

Pith tools

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