pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.15093 · v4 · submitted 2025-03-19 · 🧮 math.OC · cs.SY· eess.SY

Proximal Gradient Dynamics and Feedback Control for Equality-Constrained Composite Optimization

Veronica Centorrino , Francesca Rossi , Francesco Bullo , Giovanni Russo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 23:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY
keywords proximal gradient dynamicsequality constraintscomposite optimizationproportional-integral controlcontraction theoryconvergence analysisLagrange multipliersfeedback control
0
0 comments X

The pith

The proportional-integral proximal gradient dynamics have equilibria matching the stationary points of equality-constrained composite optimization problems and converge linearly-exponentially when constraints are affine.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces proportional-integral proximal gradient dynamics for solving equality-constrained composite minimization problems that arise in engineering and machine learning. It establishes that the equilibria of these dynamics correspond to the stationary points of the minimization problem. For affine constraints, contraction theory shows linear-exponential convergence to the equilibrium, where distance decreases linearly then exponentially. The approach models the problem as a closed-loop feedback system with Lagrange multipliers as control inputs. Numerical examples illustrate the results for affine cases and explore nonlinear constraints.

Core claim

The stationary points of the equality-constrained composite minimization problem are equivalent to the equilibria of the PI-PGD. For affine constraints, the dynamics exhibit linear-exponential convergence to the equilibrium, with the distance to equilibrium bounded by a function that decreases linearly initially and then exponentially.

What carries the argument

The proportional-integral proximal gradient dynamics (PI-PGD), a closed-loop feedback system treating Lagrange multipliers as control inputs and decision variables as states.

If this is right

  • Equivalence holds between optimization stationary points and dynamical system equilibria for any equality constraints.
  • Linear-exponential convergence is guaranteed for affine equality constraints using contraction theory.
  • The dynamics handle composite objectives that include regularization terms.
  • Numerical results confirm the behavior on representative affine problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The feedback control perspective could enable real-time implementations in dynamic environments.
  • Further analysis might extend the contraction guarantees to certain classes of nonlinear constraints.
  • The proportional and integral gains offer tunable parameters that could improve practical convergence speed.

Load-bearing premise

The comprehensive convergence analysis holds only for affine equality constraints rather than general nonlinear ones.

What would settle it

A numerical simulation of an affine-constrained problem where the observed convergence deviates from the predicted linear-exponential rate would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.15093 by Francesca Rossi, Francesco Bullo, Giovanni Russo, Veronica Centorrino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Closed-loop system for equality-constrained OPs: ˙x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: PI–PGD: Closed-loop dynamics composed by system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Trajectories of the dynamics (16) solving the constrained minimization problem (15). The figure shows the trajectories of the primal variables x(t) (top) and two dual variables λ(t) (middle), starting from z 1 0 and z 2 0 as solid and dashed curves, respectively. The cvxpy optimal values are shown as dots. The bottom panel displays the constraint residual Ax(t) − b over time. with sign: R → {−1, 0, 1} bein… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean and standard deviation of log(∥z(t)−z ⋆∥P ) across 150 simulations. Consistent with Theorem 3, convergence is linearly-exponentially bounded. Since the rows of Dh(x) are linearly independent for all x ∈ R 3 (the third column of Dh(x) is [0, 1]⊤), the constraint function h(x) satisfies the LICQ globally. The corresponding PI–PGD dynamics for problem (17) are    x˙ 1 = −x1 + softγα(x1 − γ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectories of (18) solving LASSO with nonlinear equality constraints (17). The panel shows the trajectories of the primal variables x(t) (top) and two dual variables λ(t) (middle), starting from random initial conditions. The SLSQP optimal values are shown as cross. The bottom panel displays the constraint h(x) over time. The trajectories effectively converge to z ⋆ , and constraints are satisfied after … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the cost function over time. The blue curve shows the PI–PGD cost, and the red dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distance to the optimal solution ∥z(t) − z ⋆∥ (log scale) for different PI gain pairs (kp, ki). The plot illustrates the effect of gain choice on convergence speed and transient behavior. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Optimal Transport plan obtained using the PI-PGD ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the norm of the constraint Ap − b over the iterations. Finally, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Image morphing via PI-PGD (a) and Sinkhorn (b). Columns show initial, middle and final frames from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper studies equality-constrained composite minimization problems. This class of problems, capturing regularization terms and inequality constraints, naturally arises in a wide range of engineering and machine learning applications. To tackle these optimization problems, inspired by recent results, we introduce the \emph{proportional--integral proximal gradient dynamics} (PI--PGD): a closed-loop system where the Lagrange multipliers are control inputs and states are the problem decision variables. First, we establish the equivalence between the stationary points of the minimization problem and the equilibria of the PI--PGD. Then for the case of affine constraints, by leveraging tools from contraction theory we give a comprehensive convergence analysis for the dynamics, showing linear--exponential convergence towards the equilibrium. That is, the distance between each solution and the equilibrium is upper bounded by a function that first decreases linearly and then exponentially. Our findings are illustrated numerically on a set of representative examples, which include an exploratory application to nonlinear equality constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces proportional-integral proximal gradient dynamics (PI-PGD) for equality-constrained composite minimization problems. It proves equivalence between the stationary points of the optimization problem and the equilibria of the PI-PGD system. For the special case of affine equality constraints, contraction theory is used to establish linear-exponential convergence of the trajectories to equilibrium. Numerical examples are provided for both affine and (exploratory) nonlinear cases.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work supplies a control-theoretic dynamical-systems treatment of composite optimization with explicit rate guarantees under affine constraints. The explicit scoping of the convergence result to affine constraints and the use of standard contraction-theory tools are positive features; the equivalence result for the general (possibly nonlinear) case is also cleanly stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Convergence analysis section] Convergence analysis (affine case): the linear-exponential rate is obtained via contraction theory, yet the theorem statement does not list the required Lipschitz constants on the proximal operator or the strong-convexity modulus of the objective that are needed for the contraction mapping to apply. These conditions are standard in the field but must be stated explicitly for the claim to be verifiable.
  2. [Equivalence theorem] Equivalence result: while the stationary-point / equilibrium equivalence is asserted for general nonlinear equality constraints, the subsequent convergence analysis is restricted to affine constraints; the manuscript should clarify whether any intermediate steps in the equivalence proof rely on affinity or remain valid without it.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction should explicitly flag that the linear-exponential rate holds only for affine constraints, to avoid any misreading of the scope.
  2. [Problem formulation] Notation for the integral action and the projection onto the constraint manifold could be clarified with a short table or diagram in the problem formulation section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Convergence analysis section] Convergence analysis (affine case): the linear-exponential rate is obtained via contraction theory, yet the theorem statement does not list the required Lipschitz constants on the proximal operator or the strong-convexity modulus of the objective that are needed for the contraction mapping to apply. These conditions are standard in the field but must be stated explicitly for the claim to be verifiable.

    Authors: We agree that the assumptions on the proximal operator's Lipschitz constant and the objective's strong-convexity modulus must be stated explicitly in the theorem for verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will update the convergence theorem statement to list these conditions explicitly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Equivalence theorem] Equivalence result: while the stationary-point / equilibrium equivalence is asserted for general nonlinear equality constraints, the subsequent convergence analysis is restricted to affine constraints; the manuscript should clarify whether any intermediate steps in the equivalence proof rely on affinity or remain valid without it.

    Authors: The equivalence proof (Theorem 1) relies only on the proximal operator definition and KKT stationarity conditions; no step uses affinity of the constraints. The result holds for general nonlinear equalities. We will add an explicit clarifying sentence in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The derivation establishes equivalence between KKT stationary points and PI-PGD equilibria via standard proximal-operator and Lagrange-multiplier definitions drawn from prior literature, then applies contraction-theory contraction metrics to obtain linear-exponential rates exclusively for affine constraints. No step reduces a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a fitted parameter, self-citation loop, or ansatz smuggled from the authors' own prior work; the nonlinear-constraint case is explicitly labeled exploratory and does not support the central claim. The argument is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond standard assumptions required for proximal operators and contraction theory (e.g., Lipschitz continuity of gradients and strong convexity or monotonicity properties).

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5703 in / 1107 out tokens · 25832 ms · 2026-05-22T23:50:53.281129+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Unified Control-Theoretic Framework for Saddle-Point Dynamics in Constrained Optimization

    math.OC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A PID feedback law on dual variables induces a unified family of saddle-point flows for constrained optimization, with explicit global exponential convergence guarantees under convexity and affine constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Allibhoy and J

    A. Allibhoy and J. Cort´ es. Control barrier function-based design of gradient flows for constrained nonlinear program- ming. 69(6), 2024.doi:10.1109/TAC.2023.3306492

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2023.3306492 2024

  2. [2]

    K. J. Arrow, L. Hurwicz, and H. Uzawa, editors.Studies in Linear and Nonlinear Programming. Stanford University Press, 1958

    work page 1958

  3. [3]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes.Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces. 2 edition, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-48310-8

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Beck.First-Order Methods in Optimization

    A. Beck.First-Order Methods in Optimization. 2017, ISBN 978-1-61197-498-0

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bianchin, J

    G. Bianchin, J. Cort´ es, J. I. Poveda, and E. Dall’Anese. Time-varying optimization of LTI systems via projected primal-dual gradient flows.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 9(1):474–486, 2022.doi:10.1109/ TCNS.2021.3112762

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Bonneel, M

    N. Bonneel, M. Van De Panne, S. Paris, and W. Heidrich. Displacement interpolation using Lagrangian mass transport. InSIGGRAPH Asia conference, number 158, pages 1–12, 2011.doi:10.1145/2024156.2024192

    work page doi:10.1145/2024156.2024192 2011

  7. [7]

    Bullo.Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems

    F. Bullo.Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems. Kindle Direct Publishing, 1.2 edition, 2024, ISBN 979- 8836646806. URL: https://fbullo.github.io/ctds

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Centorrino, A

    V. Centorrino, A. Davydov, A. Gokhale, G. Russo, and F. Bullo. On weakly contracting dynamics for convex optimization. 8:1745–1750, 2024.doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2024.3414348

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2024.3414348 2024

  9. [9]

    Centorrino, A

    V. Centorrino, A. Gokhale, A. Davydov, G. Russo, and F. Bullo. Euclidean contractivity of neural networks with symmetric weights. 7:1724–1729, 2023.doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2023.3278250

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2023.3278250 2023

  10. [10]

    Cerone, S

    V. Cerone, S. M. Fosson, S. Pirrera, and D. Regruto. A feedback control approach to convex optimization with inequality constraints. In2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2538–2543, 2024. doi:10.1109/CDC56724.2024.10885825

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc56724.2024.10885825 2024

  11. [11]

    Cerone, S

    V. Cerone, S. M. Fosson, S. Pirrera, and D. Regruto. A new framework for constrained optimization via feedback control of lagrange multipliers.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, page 1–16, 2025.doi:10.1109/tac.2025. 3568651

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2025 2025

  12. [12]

    S. Coogan. A contractive approach to separable Lyapunov functions for monotone systems. 106:349–357, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2019.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2019.05.001 2019

  13. [13]

    M. Cuturi. Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed Computation of Optimal Transport. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26, pages 2292–2300, 2013

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Davydov, V

    A. Davydov, V. Centorrino, A. Gokhale, G. Russo, and F. Bullo. Time-varying convex optimization: A contraction and equilibrium tracking approach. 70:7446–7460, 2025.doi:10.1109/tac.2025.3576043

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2025.3576043 2025

  15. [15]

    Davydov, A

    A. Davydov, A. V. Proskurnikov, and F. Bullo. Non-Euclidean contraction analysis of continuous-time neural net- works. 70(1), 2025.doi:10.1109/TAC.2024.3422217

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2024.3422217 2025

  16. [16]

    N. K. Dhingra, S. Z. Khong, and M. R. Jovanovi´ c. The proximal augmented Lagrangian method for nonsmooth composite optimization. 64(7):2861–2868, 2019.doi:10.1109/TAC.2018.2867589

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2018.2867589 2019

  17. [17]

    Flamary, N

    R. Flamary, N. Courty, A. Gramfort, M. Z. Alaya, et al. POT: Python optimal transport.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(78):1–8, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Hauswirth, Z

    A. Hauswirth, Z. He, S. Bolognani, G. Hug, and F. D¨ orfler. Optimization algorithms as robust feedback controllers. Annual Reviews in Control, 57:100941, 2024.doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2024.100941

    work page doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2024.100941 2024

  19. [19]

    H. D. Nguyen, T. L. Vu, K. Turitsyn, and J.-J. E. Slotine. Contraction and robustness of continuous time primal-dual dynamics. 2(4):755–760, 2018.doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2018.2847408

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2018.2847408 2018

  20. [20]

    I. K. Ozaslan and M. R. Jovanovi´ c. On the global exponential stability of primal-dual dynamics for convex problems with linear equality constraints. pages 210–215, San Diego, USA, 2023.doi:10.23919/ACC55779.2023.10156504

    work page doi:10.23919/acc55779.2023.10156504 2023

  21. [21]

    , author Boyd, S

    N. Parikh and S. Boyd. Proximal algorithms.Foundations and Trends in Optimization, 1(3):127–239, 2014.doi: 10.1561/2400000003. 17

    work page doi:10.1561/2400000003 2014

  22. [22]

    Computational Optimal Transport: With Ap- plications to Data Science

    G. Peyr´ e and M. Cuturi. Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 11(5-6):355–607, 2019.doi:10.1561/2200000073

    work page doi:10.1561/2200000073 2019

  23. [23]

    Qu and N

    G. Qu and N. Li. On the exponential stability of primal-dual gradient dynamics. 3(1):43–48, 2019.doi:10.1109/ LCSYS.2018.2851375

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Tyrrell Rockafellar.Convex Analysis

    R. Tyrrell Rockafellar.Convex Analysis. 1970

    work page 1970

  25. [25]

    Russo, M

    G. Russo, M. Di Bernardo, and E. D. Sontag. Global entrainment of transcriptional systems to periodic inputs. 6(4):e1000739, 2010.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000739

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000739 2010

  26. [26]

    T. Str¨ om. On logarithmic norms.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 12(5):741–753, 1975.doi:10.1137/0712055

    work page doi:10.1137/0712055 1975

  27. [27]

    Zhang, A

    R. Zhang, A. Raghunathan, J. Shamma, and N. Li. Constrained optimization from a control perspective via feedback linearization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12665, 2025. 18

    work page arXiv 2025