Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 15 results · all verified · 14 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 1 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Subgradient bundle and derivative free optimization

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Objective

This page develops projected subgradient, proximal bundle, direct-search, and Nelder–Mead procedures while keeping finite-budget statuses separate from convergence guarantees. For a convex objective on a nonempty closed convex set, valid oracle calls, bounded returned subgradients, an attained minimum, and a bound on the initial distance to a minimizer give a best-iterate and weighted-average gap bound; the fixed-step O(N−1/2) rate applies when the distance and subgradient bounds are positive. The full-memory proximal bundle procedure uses serious and null steps. Its accumulation theorem applies to a proper closed convex extended-real objective with nonempty closed convex domain and continuous finite restriction, along an infinite exact continuation whose finite underestimating models touch their centers. It also assumes a fixed positive stabilizer and serious fraction in (0,1), compact initial sublevel set, positive predicted decreases, the stated serious/null acceptance test, and aggregate-model errors tending to zero. The untruncated infinite continuation of direct search, under a fixed positive-spanning poll list and forcing ratio ρ(Δ)/Δ→0, proves stationarity only for accumulation points of unsuccessful polls with vanishing mesh and compact centers in an open region where the gradient is Lipschitz. A finite-budget return is not a stationarity certificate. Nelder–Mead specifies its comparisons, ties, both stopping tolerances, and failure statuses, with no general convergence claim.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

AlgorithmAlgorithm: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Finite-budget Nelder–Mead simplex procedure

Definition

Finite sums of vectors in Rn use the additive finite-list sum of Linear combination of a finite list, and the span span⁡(S) as the smallest linear subspace containing S; sums of real coefficients use Finite sums and finite products, by recursion.

Fix n≥1, an objective oracle f:Rn→R∪{nonfinite}, a finite integer call budget B≥0, positive tolerances εx,εf, and an ordered initial simplex (v0,…,vn). Call the ordered tuple nondegenerate when, for real coefficients λ1,…,λn, ∑i=1nλi(vi−v0)=0 implies every λi=0. Use reflection α=1, expansion γ=2, contraction ρ=1/2, and shrink σ=1/2. Ties in sorting objective values are broken by current vertex slot, lower slot first. When recording the best point seen, replace it only on a strict objective improvement, so ties retain the earliest evaluation; initial vertices are evaluated in slot order.

If the initial simplex is degenerate, return degenerate-simplex. If B<n+1, return budget-exhausted with zero calls and no best point. Otherwise evaluate initial vertices in slot order, counting every call. A nonfinite result returns nonfinite-objective and the best finite point seen, if any. For each committed simplex, let xb be its sorted best vertex, xw its worst, let x2 denote the second-worst (the best when n=1), and set c:=n−1∑i=0n−1xi using the sorted vertices x0,…,xn. Define the diameter D=max⁡0≤i,j≤n∥xi−xj∥2, and spread S=f(xw)−f(xb). Stop with tolerance-met exactly when both D≤εx and S≤εf.

Otherwise evaluate reflection xr=c+(c−xw). If f(xr)<f(xb), evaluate expansion xe=c+2(xr−c) and replace xw by xe iff f(xe)<f(xr); a tie keeps reflection. If f(xb)≤f(xr)<f(x2), where x2 is the second-worst vertex, replace xw by reflection. If f(x2)≤f(xr)<f(xw), evaluate outside contraction xoc=c+(xr−c)/2 and accept iff f(xoc)≤f(xr); equality accepts. If f(xr)≥f(xw), evaluate inside contraction xic=c+(xw−c)/2 and accept iff f(xic)<f(xw); equality fails. A failed contraction proposes si=xb+(xi−xb)/2 for each sorted nonbest vertex xi, 1≤i≤n, retaining xb. Evaluate f(si) in increasing i, making a new call even if si was evaluated earlier. Apply the budget and nonfinite-result rules below to every such call. Commit the shrunk simplex, in these sorted slots, only after all n values are finite and the complete update passes the nondegeneracy check.

Count every objective call, including rejected trials. Before a needed call, if the budget is exhausted, return budget-exhausted with the last committed simplex and best finite point seen; do not partially commit an update. A nonfinite trial returns nonfinite-objective with the same committed simplex. If a proposed complete update is degenerate, return degenerate-simplex without committing it. After a valid update, recheck both tolerances. No general convergence guarantee is asserted.

AlgorithmAlgorithm: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Projected subgradient method with finite budget

Definition

Finite sums of vectors in Rn use the additive finite-list sum of Linear combination of a finite list, and the span span⁡(S) as the smallest linear subspace containing S; sums of real coefficients use Finite sums and finite products, by recursion.

Let n≥1, let C⊆Rn be nonempty, closed, and convex, and let f:C→R be convex. The finite-budget projected subgradient procedure takes x0∈C, an integer budget N≥1, and positive stepsizes α0,…,αN−1. At iteration k, an oracle returns either failure or a pair (f(xk),gk) with gk∈∂f(xk), where subgradient has the meaning in Subgradients and the subdifferential of a convex function. On a valid response set xk+1=PC(xk−αkgk), where PC(u) is the unique nearest point in C to u. On an oracle failure at iteration k, return status oracle-failure, the feasible current iterate, the completed update count, and the least-index best among values observed so far if any (otherwise report none); a full-horizon average is not returned. If all N calls succeed, return status budget-exhausted, the final iterate, the weighted average xˉN=(∑k<Nαkxk)/(∑k<Nαk), and a least-index minimizer of observed values among x0,…,xN−1. Report status and completed update count. This finite procedure makes no convergence claim.

AlgorithmAlgorithm: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Finite-memory-free proximal bundle method with serious and null steps

Definition

Let C⊆Rn be nonempty, closed, and convex; let f:C→R be convex; fix t>0, a serious-step fraction ms∈(0,1), a center x0∈C, and an integer outer budget N≥1. A valid oracle call at y∈C returns (f(y),gy) with gy∈∂f(y); otherwise it fails. Store every cut my(z)=f(y)+⟨gy,z−y⟩ from every successful call, with no memory cap, and set Mk to the maximum of the stored cuts. If no cut exists, call the oracle at the current center. If this initialization call fails, return status oracle-failure with the current center, zero completed trials, and no candidate or model residual; otherwise store its cut. Find the unique minimizer zk=arg⁡min⁡z∈C(Mk(z)+∥z−xk∥222t),Pk=f(xk)−Mk(zk). If Pk≤0, return status stationary-or-model-failure with xk,zk,Pk. Otherwise evaluate at zk. An oracle failure returns oracle-failure. Declare a serious step exactly when f(xk)−f(zk)≥msPk, set xk+1=zk then, and otherwise take a null step and set xk+1=xk. Append the valid trial cut after either step. Return budget-exhausted after N trials. This finite algorithm makes no generic convergence claim.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Positive-spanning poll sets

Definition

Let n≥1 and let D=(d1,…,dm) be a nonempty finite ordered list in Rn. For coefficients λ1,…,λm, the finite vector sum ∑i=1mλidi means the vector whose kth coordinate is ∑j<mλj+1(dj+1)k for each k<n; this is the finite real sum of Finite sums and finite products, by recursion. The list is positive spanning if every w∈Rn has such a representation with λi≥0. Keep the order to make a deterministic poll. Define the directional score ψD(v)=max⁡1≤i≤m(−⟨v,di⟩) for unit v, and the largest poll norm Dmax⁡=max⁡1≤i≤m∥di∥2. These maxima exist because their indexing sets are nonempty and finite (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set). A positive uniform lower bound for ψD is a separate theorem, not part of this definition.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

A compact set inside an open set has a uniform neighborhood radius

Statement

Let K be compact in Euclidean Rn and let V⊆Rn be open with K⊆V. There is δ>0 such that for every x∈K, if ∥y−x∥2<δ, then y∈V. If K=∅, any positive δ works.

Facts & Assumptions

[F3]

A nonempty finite set of real numbers has a minimum that belongs to the set (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set).

Proof

1.1givenF1F2constructalgebra

If K=∅, take δ=1. Otherwise form the family of all balls B(x,r) with x∈K, r>0, and B(x,2r)⊆V. Each such ball is open: if z∈B(x,r), then s=r−∥z−x∥2>0 and B(z,s)⊆B(x,r) by the triangle inequality. By [F1] this family covers K; [F2] supplies a finite subcover B(xi,ri), 1≤i≤q.

2.1step 1.1F3givenalgebra∎

Since K≠∅, the finite subcover has at least one ball. The minimum δ=min⁡1≤i≤qri belongs to the nonempty finite set of positive radii, so δ>0 by [F3]. Given x∈K and ∥y−x∥2<δ, choose a covering ball containing x. Then for its index i, ∥y−xi∥2≤∥y−x∥2+∥x−xi∥2<δ+ri≤2ri, so y∈B(xi,2ri)⊆V.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Local descent inequality for a Lipschitz gradient on an open segment

Statement

Let U⊆Rn be open, let f:U→R be totally differentiable at every point, and suppose its gradient is L-Lipschitz on U for some L≥0. If x,y∈U and the whole segment [x,y] lies in U, then f(y)≤f(x)+⟨∇f(x),y−x⟩+L2∥y−x∥22.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Total derivatives and gradients The total (Fréchet) derivative Df(a) as the linear first-order approximation with o(∥h∥2) remainder, The Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives and the gradient in the scalar-valued case, Directional derivatives and partial derivatives of a map U⊆Rm→Rn, For a differentiable scalar field, Dvf(a)=⟨∇f(a),v⟩ and the unit direction of steepest ascent is the normalized gradient, the Lipschitz definition and Euclidean metric Lipschitz map, α-Hölder map for rational 0<α≤1, and contraction, Rn as the set of functions n→R, and d1, d2, d∞ are metrics on it, local continuity of totally differentiable maps Total differentiability gives a local O(∥h∥2) increment bound and therefore continuity, Cauchy–Schwarz Cauchy-Schwarz ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥2∥y∥2 with its equality case, the triangle inequality for ∥⋅∥2, the parallelogram law and polarisation, derivative rules The derivative f′(c)=lim⁡x→cf(x)−f(c)x−c of f:A→R at a point c∈A that is a limit point of A, and differentiability on a set, Sums, scalar multiples, products and quotients: (f+g)′(c)=f′(c)+g′(c), (αf)′(c)=αf′(c), (fg)′(c)=f′(c)g(c)+f(c)g′(c), and (f/g)′(c)=(f′(c)g(c)−f(c)g′(c))/g(c)2 when g(c)≠0, and the mean-value theorem The mean value theorem, as the case g(x)=x of Cauchy's: for f continuous on [a,b] with a<b and differentiable on (a,b) there is c∈(a,b) with f(b)−f(a)=f′(c)(b−a).

[F1]

The Lipschitz condition is d2(∇f(u),∇f(v))≤Ld2(u,v); for n≥1, d2(a,b)=∥a−b∥2 (Lipschitz map, α-Hölder map for rational 0<α≤1, and contraction, Rn as the set of functions n→R, and d1, d2, d∞ are metrics on it).

[F5]

Cauchy–Schwarz and norm homogeneity give ∣⟨u,v⟩∣≤∥u∥2∥v∥2 and ∥sv∥2=∣s∣∥v∥2 (Cauchy-Schwarz ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥2∥y∥2 with its equality case, the triangle inequality for ∥⋅∥2, the parallelogram law and polarisation).

Proof

1.1givenF3F5construct

Put d=y−x. If d=0, both sides are equal. For d≠0, necessarily n≥1. Define γ(s)=x+sd and I={s∈R:γ(s)∈U}. Since ∥γ(s+h)−γ(s)∥2=∣h∣∥d∥2, the affine path is continuous; openness of U then makes I open, and the segment assumption gives [0,1]⊆I. Put ϕ=f∘γ on I. Total differentiability makes f continuous at every point of γ([0,1]), so ϕ is continuous on [0,1]. For each s∈(0,1), its difference quotient is the directional difference quotient of f at x+sd in direction d, so ϕ′(s)=⟨∇f(x+sd),d⟩.

2.1F1F3F4F5step 1.1algebra

Put a=⟨∇f(x),d⟩, g(s)=ϕ(s)−ϕ(0)−sa, and q(s)=g(s)−L2s2∥d∥22. By [F3] and [F6], q is continuous on [0,1]; by [F4], it is differentiable on (0,1) and q′(s)=⟨∇f(x+sd)−∇f(x),d⟩−Ls∥d∥22. By [F1] and [F5], the inner-product term is at most L∥sd∥2∥d∥2=Ls∥d∥22 for s∈(0,1). Hence q′(s)≤0.

3.1F2step 2.1algebra∎

Apply [F2] to q on [0,1]: for some s∈(0,1), q(1)−q(0)=q′(s)≤0. Since q(0)=0, this says f(y)−f(x)−⟨∇f(x),d⟩≤L2∥d∥22, as required.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Finite-budget Nelder–Mead always returns a status

Statement

Every invocation of Finite-budget Nelder–Mead simplex procedure with finite call budget B returns a status after at most B objective calls. If it returns tolerance-met, both the simplex diameter and objective spread satisfy their stated tolerances. The status is a finite-budget result only and does not certify global or local optimality.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The exact branch rules, stopping test, call accounting, and return statuses in Finite-budget Nelder–Mead simplex procedure.

[F1]

Every continuing outer iteration performs a reflection evaluation, while each additional branch evaluates finitely many trials and checks the budget before each call (Finite-budget Nelder–Mead simplex procedure).

[F2]

The procedure returns tolerance-met only after testing both diameter and spread against their tolerances (Finite-budget Nelder–Mead simplex procedure).

Proof

1.1F1givenconstruct

Each continuing iteration consumes at least one call for reflection. Every further expansion, contraction, or shrink evaluation also consumes a call, and the counter is bounded by B; before any call that cannot fit in the remaining budget, the procedure returns budget-exhausted. It therefore cannot continue indefinitely and returns a listed status after at most B calls.

2.1F2givenstep 1.1∎

The only tolerance-met branch is the explicit test D≤εx and S≤εf on a committed simplex, so that status implies both inequalities. None of the algorithm's finite statuses asserts a minimizer without an additional theorem.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A finite positive-spanning poll set has a positive uniform angle

Statement

For every finite positive-spanning list D=(d1,…,dm) in Rn, n≥1, the score ψD(v)=max⁡i(−⟨v,di⟩) on the unit sphere attains a strictly positive minimum. Write this minimum as κD>0. Thus for every v∈Rn there is di∈D with −⟨v,di⟩≥κD∥v∥2.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

For every unit vector u, positive spanning writes −u=∑iλidi with λi≥0 (Positive-spanning poll sets).

[F3]

By the coordinatewise vector-sum convention, ⟨u,∑iλidi⟩=∑k<nuk∑j<mλj+1(dj+1)k. Finite distributivity and reordering the two finite sums, using finite-sum additivity/scaling and induction on their lengths, gives ∑iλi⟨u,di⟩. A finite sum of nonnegative real terms is nonnegative (Positive-spanning poll sets, The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn, Laws of finite sums and finite products).

[F4]

If M=max⁡i∣ai−bi∣ for two nonempty finite lists, then ai≤bi+M≤max⁡jbj+M for each i; taking maxima and reversing the lists gives ∣max⁡iai−max⁡ibi∣≤M (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set).

[F5]

The unit sphere is nonempty, closed, and bounded. For n≥1, the standard vector e0 has Euclidean norm 1 (The standard list e:n→Fn with ei(i)=1F and ei(j)=0F for j≠i is an ordered basis of Fn; hence dim⁡FFn=n, and F0 is the zero space with basis ∅ and dimension 0, The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn). If ∥x∥2≠1, choose ε=∣∥x∥2−1∣/2; the reverse triangle inequality shows every y with d2(x,y)<ε also has ∥y∥2≠1, so the complement is open. Every unit vector lies in B2(0,2), so the sphere is bounded. Hence it is compact by Heine–Borel (Cauchy-Schwarz ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥2∥y∥2 with its equality case, the triangle inequality for ∥⋅∥2, the parallelogram law and polarisation, Metric space: d(x,y)=0 iff x=y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric, The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement, Open ball, closed ball and sphere in a metric space, Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space, Heine-Borel in Rn: with the Euclidean metric a subset of Rn is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line).

[F6]

The reals form a totally ordered field makes R a totally ordered field, in particular the product of two strictly positive reals is positive; Multiplication by zero: 0⋅a=0 gives multiplication by zero. Hence if a,b≥0, either one is zero and ab=0 (using field commutativity if needed), or both are strictly positive and ab>0. Thus ab≥0.

Proof

1.1F1F3F6givenalgebra

Taking inner products of [F1] with u and using [F3] gives −1=∑iλi⟨u,di⟩. Since all λi≥0, at least one index with positive coefficient has ⟨u,di⟩<0; otherwise every summand is nonnegative by [F6] and [F3] makes the sum nonnegative, a contradiction. Hence ψD(u)>0 for every unit u.

2.1F2F4F5step 1.1givenalgebra∎

By [F4], ∣ψD(u)−ψD(w)∣≤max⁡i∣⟨u−w,di⟩∣, and [F2] bounds the right side by Dmax⁡∥u−w∥2, so the score is continuous. By [F5], the unit sphere is nonempty and compact. The extreme-value theorem gives a minimum attained at some unit u0; step 1.1 makes that attained value strictly positive. For nonzero v, apply this bound to u=v/∥v∥2 and multiply by ∥v∥2; for v=0 the inequality is immediate.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

The projected subgradient method returns within its finite budget

Statement

Let N≥1 be an integer and run Projected subgradient method with finite budget with all stated inputs. Every execution returns after at most N oracle calls. On failure it returns the feasible current iterate and a best observed point if one has been observed, or none otherwise; it does not return a full-horizon average. If all calls succeed, the weighted average is defined and feasible, a best observed iterate exists, and the status is budget-exhausted after exactly N updates.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nonempty closed convex feasible set, a finite budget, positive stepsizes, and the oracle/failure rules of Projected subgradient method with finite budget.

[F1]

Every point has a unique nearest-point projection onto a nonempty closed convex set (Every point has a unique nearest point in a nonempty closed Euclidean convex set).

[F2]

A convex combination of feasible points remains feasible (Finite Jensen inequality for convex functions on Rn).

[F3]

A nonempty finite list of real values has a minimum attained at one of its members (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set); scanning the list in increasing index order and replacing the record only on a strict decrease yields the least-index minimizer, by induction on the finite list length.

[F4]

A finite sum of nonnegative terms is nonnegative, and a zero sum forces every term to be zero; therefore a nonempty finite sum of strictly positive terms is strictly positive (Laws of finite sums and finite products).

Proof

1.1givenF1induction

Initially x0∈C. At each successful oracle call, if xk∈C, [F1] gives a unique projected point xk+1∈C. Induction over the successful calls proves feasibility and unique definition of each iterate through at most N calls.

2.1givenF2F3F4step 1.1algebra∎

A failed call returns immediately; if no earlier value was observed, the optional best field is none, and otherwise [F3] supplies a least-index best among the finite observed list. If all calls succeed, N≥1 and every αk>0, so AN=∑k<Nαk>0 by [F4]. The weights αk/AN are positive and sum to one by the scaling law for finite sums; [F2] makes the weighted average feasible, and [F3] gives a least-index best observed point. The finite loop completes exactly N updates and returns budget-exhausted.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

One-step estimate for projected subgradient descent

Statement

Under the projected-subgradient update of Projected subgradient method with finite budget, let x∗∈C and suppose the kth oracle call returns gk∈∂f(xk). Then ∥xk+1−x∗∥22≤∥xk−x∗∥22−2αk(f(xk)−f(x∗))+αk2∥gk∥22.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

For p=PC(u) and every z∈C, ⟨u−p,z−p⟩≤0 (Metric projection onto a closed convex set satisfies the variational inequality).

[F2]

gk∈∂f(xk) implies f(x∗)≥f(xk)+⟨gk,x∗−xk⟩ (Subgradients and the subdifferential of a convex function).

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

Put u=xk−αkgk and p=xk+1=PC(u). Applying [F1] with z=x∗ gives ⟨u−p,x∗−p⟩≤0, hence ⟨u−p,p−x∗⟩≥0. Expanding ∥u−x∗∥22=∥u−p∥22+∥p−x∗∥22+2⟨u−p,p−x∗⟩ yields ∥p−x∗∥22≤∥u−x∗∥22.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra∎

Expand the right side as ∥xk−x∗∥22−2αk⟨gk,xk−x∗⟩+αk2∥gk∥22. By [F2], ⟨gk,xk−x∗⟩≥f(xk)−f(x∗); substituting proves the estimate.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

The proximal bundle model subproblem has a unique minimizer

Statement

Let C⊆Rn be nonempty, closed, and convex; let t>0, v∈Rn, and let mi(y)=bi+⟨ai,y⟩ be a nonempty finite list of affine functions. Then Φ(y)=max⁡imi(y)+∥y−v∥222t,y∈C, has a unique global minimizer on C.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

A finite maximum of affine maps obeys ∣max⁡imi(y)−max⁡imi(z)∣≤max⁡i∣mi(y)−mi(z)∣; each difference is ∣⟨ai,y−z⟩∣≤∥ai∥2∥y−z∥2 by Cauchy–Schwarz (Cauchy-Schwarz ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥2∥y∥2 with its equality case, the triangle inequality for ∥⋅∥2, the parallelogram law and polarisation).

[F2]

The quadratic difference obeys ∣∥y−v∥22−∥z−v∥22∣≤(∥y−v∥2+∥z−v∥2)∥y−z∥2, by expansion and Cauchy–Schwarz (Cauchy-Schwarz ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥2∥y∥2 with its equality case, the triangle inequality for ∥⋅∥2, the parallelogram law and polarisation).

[F3]

Continuity in a metric space is the epsilon-delta property at every point (Continuity of a map between metric spaces, at a point and globally, in the ε-δ form).

Proof

1.1F4givenalgebra

If n=0, [F4] says R0 is a singleton, so the nonempty feasible set C is that singleton. The finite maximum and quadratic objective have one feasible value, and its sole feasible point is the unique global minimizer. For the remainder assume n≥1.

1.2F1F2F3givenchoose

By [F1] and [F2], Φ has a finite local Lipschitz bound on C around each point: the finitely many ∥ai∥2 are bounded, and the quadratic difference in [F2] has a bounded factor on a sufficiently small ball. Hence Φ is continuous on C by [F3]. Choose y0∈C and let c=Φ(y0). The sublevel set S={y∈C:Φ(y)≤c} is nonempty. If y∈C∖S, continuity supplies an ambient ball around y whose intersection with C lies in C∖S; if y∉C, closedness of C supplies a ball disjoint from C. Thus every point outside S has a ball disjoint from S, so S is closed in Rn.

2.1givenstep 1.2algebra

The first affine cut gives Φ(y)≥b1+⟨a1,y⟩+∥y−v∥22/(2t)=β+∥y−(v−ta1)∥22/(2t), where β=b1+⟨a1,v⟩−t∥a1∥22/2. Since c=Φ(y0)≥β, every y∈S satisfies ∥y−(v−ta1)∥22≤2t(c−β) and thus lies in the open ball of radius 1+2t(c−β) about v−ta1. So S is bounded (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space) and compact by Heine–Borel. The continuous real-valued restriction Φ∣S attains its minimum by the extreme-value theorem; points outside S have value greater than c, while the minimum on S is at most c, so this is a global minimizer.

3.1givenstep 2.1algebra∎

For every index i, affinity gives mi((p+q)/2)=(mi(p)+mi(q))/2≤(max⁡jmj(p)+max⁡jmj(q))/2; taking the finite maximum over i proves the model midpoint value is at most the average endpoint values. For distinct p,q∈C, the quadratic term satisfies ∥(p+q)/2−v∥22=(∥p−v∥22+∥q−v∥22)/2−∥p−q∥22/4. After multiplication by 1/(2t) the quadratic term is strictly below the endpoint average. If both p,q minimized Φ, their midpoint would therefore have smaller value, a contradiction. The minimizer is unique.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A quadratic regularization has quadratic growth from its minimizer

Statement

Let F:Rn→(−∞,+∞] be convex, let t>0, v∈Rn, and suppose p minimizes Q(y)=F(y)+∥y−v∥22/(2t) with Q(p)<+∞. Then for every z with F(z)<+∞, Q(z)≥Q(p)+∥z−p∥224t.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Convexity gives F((p+z)/2)≤(F(p)+F(z))/2 for finite-valued endpoints (Proper closed convex extended-real functions on Rn).

[F2]

The midpoint identity is ∥(p+z)/2−v∥22=(∥p−v∥22+∥z−v∥22)/2−∥p−z∥22/4 (The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn).

[F3]

Since Q(p)<+∞ and the quadratic term is finite, F(p)<+∞; together with the stated F(z)<+∞, both endpoints are in the finite domain required for [F1].

Proof

1.1F1F2F3algebra

[F3] puts both endpoints in the finite domain. Apply [F1] to p,z and combine with [F2], after multiplying the latter by 1/(2t), to obtain Q((p+z)/2)≤(Q(p)+Q(z))/2−∥z−p∥22/(8t).

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra∎

Minimality gives Q(p)≤Q((p+z)/2). Combining with step 1.1 and rearranging yields Q(z)≥Q(p)+∥z−p∥22/(4t), including z=p with equality.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Deterministic direct search returns within its finite poll budget

Statement

For every integer poll budget N≥0, each invocation of Finite-budget deterministic direct search with positive-spanning polling returns after at most N polls with a feasible current center and a best evaluated point.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An open domain U, finite-valued objective on U, feasible initial point, finite ordered poll list, and the mesh/forcing inputs of Finite-budget deterministic direct search with positive-spanning polling.

[F1]

The initial point is evaluated before polling; each poll scans a finite ordered list, accepts only in-domain points, and otherwise retains its current center (Finite-budget deterministic direct search with positive-spanning polling).

Proof

1.1givenF1induction

The initial center lies in U and has a finite objective value, so the best-point record is initially nonempty. In a poll, each checked direction is either skipped outside U or evaluated at a point in U; a success moves to that point and an unsuccessful poll keeps the old feasible center. Thus feasibility and a nonempty best record persist.

2.1F1step 1.1induction∎

Each completed poll consumes one unit of the integer budget. After at most N polls the loop returns budget-exhausted; when N=0 it returns immediately after recording the initial point.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

The proximal bundle method returns within its finite trial budget

Statement

For a finite integer budget N≥1, every invocation of Finite-memory-free proximal bundle method with serious and null steps returns one of its specified statuses after at most N trials. Every trial point used by the procedure is uniquely defined unless an earlier oracle-failure or stationary-or-model-failure status has already returned.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The nonempty closed convex feasible set, positive quadratic parameter, serious-step fraction, oracle rule, and finite trial budget of Finite-memory-free proximal bundle method with serious and null steps.

[F1]

A finite nonempty maximum-affine model plus the positive quadratic has a unique minimizer on the closed convex feasible set (The proximal bundle model subproblem has a unique minimizer).

[F2]

The initialization and trial oracle calls return immediately on failure, and each trial returns on nonpositive predicted decrease or otherwise completes one serious/null branch and increments its finite trial counter (Finite-memory-free proximal bundle method with serious and null steps).

Proof

1.1givenF1F2construct

If no cut is stored, the initialization oracle either fails and returns with zero completed trials or supplies one valid cut. Thereafter the bundle is finite and nonempty; at each trial [F1] supplies a unique candidate unless an earlier status has returned.

2.1F2step 1.1induction∎

Each trial either returns on oracle failure or Pk≤0, or evaluates one candidate and completes exactly one serious/null branch, appends its cut, and advances the counter by one. Thus there are at most N completed trials; if none returns earlier, the procedure returns budget-exhausted after trial N.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Unsuccessful-poll accumulation points are stationary under shrinking mesh

Statement

Consider an infinite continuation of the polling and mesh-update rules of Finite-budget deterministic direct search with positive-spanning polling, using its admissible inputs and exact branch rules but with no finite poll-budget cap. Write its fixed finite positive-spanning poll list as D and its forcing function as ρ. Suppose a subsequence of unsuccessful polls indexed by kj has Δkj→0 and centers xkj in a compact set K⊆V, where V⊆U is open. Assume f:U→R is totally differentiable at every point of V and ∇f is L-Lipschitz there. Here an accumulation point means a limit of a subsequence in the Euclidean metric. Then every such point is stationary, meaning ∇f(xˉ)=0. Compactness ensures at least one such accumulation point. This asymptotic claim concerns the untruncated continuation; a finite-budget return is not a stationarity certificate.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

There is κD>0 with max⁡i(−⟨u,di⟩)≥κD for every unit vector u (A finite positive-spanning poll set has a positive uniform angle).

[F2]

For sufficiently short displacements from any center in compact K, the segment remains in V (A compact set inside an open set has a uniform neighborhood radius).

[F3]

If the segment [x,x+h] lies in V, then f(x+h)≤f(x)+⟨∇f(x),h⟩+L2∥h∥22 (Local descent inequality for a Lipschitz gradient on an open segment).

[F5]

On Rn with n≥1, the Euclidean metric is d2(x,y)=∥x−y∥2; thus the L-Lipschitz hypothesis gives ∥∇f(u)−∇f(v)∥2≤L∥u−v∥2 (Lipschitz map, α-Hölder map for rational 0<α≤1, and contraction, Rn as the set of functions n→R, and d1, d2, d∞ are metrics on it).

[F6]

The finite poll list has a largest norm Dmax⁡=max⁡i∥di∥2 (Positive-spanning poll sets).

Proof

1.1F2F6givenalgebra

Use the defined finite maximum Dmax⁡ from [F6], and choose the uniform radius δ>0 from [F2]. For all sufficiently large j, ΔkjDmax⁡<δ, so every segment from xkj to xkj+Δkjdi remains in V.

2.1F1F3step 1.1algebra

If ∇f(xkj)≠0, [F1] supplies a poll direction di with ⟨∇f(xkj),di⟩≤−κD∥∇f(xkj)∥2. The poll is unsuccessful, so its in-domain trial value is at least f(xkj)−ρ(Δkj). Apply [F3] to this direction and combine the two bounds to obtain κD∥∇f(xkj)∥2≤ρ(Δkj)/Δkj+(LΔkj/2)Dmax⁡2. If the gradient is zero, the same inequality holds.

3.1givenF4F5step 2.1algebra∎

The right side tends to zero by the forcing condition and Δkj→0, while κD>0; hence ∥∇f(xkj)∥2→0. For any accumulation subsequence converging to xˉ∈K, [F5] gives ∥∇f(xkj)−∇f(xˉ)∥2≤L∥xkj−xˉ∥2→0, so ∇f(xˉ)=0. By [F4] at least one accumulation subsequence exists.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Projected subgradient best-iterate and weighted-average bound

Statement

Let C⊆Rn be nonempty, closed, and convex, let f:C→R be convex, and run Projected subgradient method with finite budget for N≥1 steps with positive αk. Assume all N oracle calls return valid pairs. Suppose a global minimizer x∗∈C exists and the oracle vectors obey ∥gk∥2≤G; let R≥∥x0−x∗∥2. Set AN=∑k<Nαk>0 and xˉN=AN−1∑k<Nαkxk. Then max⁡{min⁡0≤k<N(f(xk)−f(x∗)), f(xˉN)−f(x∗)}≤R2+G2∑k<Nαk22AN.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

For each k, ∥xk+1−x∗∥22≤∥xk−x∗∥22−2αk(f(xk)−f(x∗))+αk2∥gk∥22 (One-step estimate for projected subgradient descent).

[F2]

For a convex function and nonnegative weights summing to one, its value at the weighted average is at most the weighted average of its values (Finite Jensen inequality for convex functions on Rn).

[F3]

Starting from x0∈C, each successful update is the unique projection onto C and remains feasible; the finite-budget result also establishes that the returned average is defined and feasible (Projected subgradient method with finite budget, Every point has a unique nearest point in a nonempty closed Euclidean convex set, The projected subgradient method returns within its finite budget).

[F4]

Since the stepsizes are positive, AN=∑k<Nαk>0, and the weights αk/AN are positive and sum to one by the scaling law for finite sums (Laws of finite sums and finite products).

[F5]

The nonempty finite list of objective gaps has a minimum attained by one of its indices (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set).

Proof

1.1F1F4givenalgebra

Rearrange [F1] and sum over k=0,…,N−1. The squared-distance terms telescope, giving 2∑k<Nαk(f(xk)−f(x∗))≤∥x0−x∗∥22−∥xN−x∗∥22+∑k<Nαk2∥gk∥22≤R2+G2∑k<Nαk2, since the last squared distance is nonnegative. Divide by 2AN>0 using [F4] to bound the weighted average of the objective gaps.

2.1F2F3F4F5step 1.1algebra∎

By [F3] the iterates lie in C, and by [F4] the normalized positive weights sum to one. Apply [F2] to get f(xˉN)−f(x∗)≤AN−1∑k<Nαk(f(xk)−f(x∗)). By [F5], the minimum gap is attained; since a positive weighted average with weights summing to one is at least the minimum term, both the minimum gap and the gap at xˉN are bounded above by the weighted average of the gaps. Step 1.1 therefore bounds their maximum as asserted.

CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

The fixed-step projected subgradient rate is O(1/√N)

Statement

Under the hypotheses of Projected subgradient best-iterate and weighted-average bound, let R>0 and G>0 and choose the constant stepsize αk=R/(GN) for all k<N. Then max⁡{min⁡k<N(f(xk)−f(x∗)), f(xˉN)−f(x∗)}≤RGN. Thus both reported gaps are O(N−1/2) with constants R,G fixed. The schedule is not used when R=0 or G=0; in those boundary cases the best-iterate gap is zero under the theorem's hypotheses and bounds below.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The best-iterate and weighted-average bound Projected subgradient best-iterate and weighted-average bound.

[F1]

The bound is [R2+G2∑k<Nαk2]/(2∑k<Nαk) (Projected subgradient best-iterate and weighted-average bound).

[F3]

The algorithm's best observed list includes x0, and g0∈∂f(x0) on a successful first call (Projected subgradient method with finite budget, The projected subgradient method returns within its finite budget, Subgradients and the subdifferential of a convex function).

[F4]

For a constant real a, ∑k<Na=Na by the scaling law for finite sums (Laws of finite sums and finite products).

Proof

1.1F1F4givenalgebra

For R,G>0, [F4] gives ∑k<Nαk=N R/(GN)=RN/G and G2∑k<Nαk2=N R2/N=R2. Substituting these values into [F1] gives (2R2)/(2RN/G)=RG/N.

1.2givenF2F3algebra

If R=0, then ∥x0−x∗∥2=0 and [F2] gives x0=x∗; by [F3] the best observed list includes this optimizer, so its gap is zero.

2.1givenF2F3algebra∎

If G=0, the successful first call satisfies ∥g0∥2≤0, so [F2] gives g0=0. Then g0∈∂f(x0) and the subgradient inequality gives f(y)≥f(x0) for every feasible y; hence x0 is a global minimizer and the best-iterate gap is zero. These boundary cases require no zero stepsize.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Vanishing aggregate-model error controls the proximal candidate

Statement

Let F:Rn→(−∞,+∞] be proper, closed, and convex, with nonempty closed convex domain C=dom⁡F. Fix t>0, a center x∈C, and a finite affine model M≤F on C. Let z minimize M(y)+∥y−x∥22/(2t) over C, set e=F(z)−M(z)≥0, and let p=prox⁡tF(x). Then ∥z−p∥22≤4te. In particular, a sequence of such model errors ek→0 forces the model candidates to approach their exact proximal points in norm.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

p is the unique minimizer of QF(y)=F(y)+∥y−x∥22/(2t) (Proximal mapping, Existence, resolvent characterization, and firm nonexpansiveness of the proximal map).

[F2]

The convex function QF obeys QF(z)≥QF(p)+∥z−p∥22/(4t) (A quadratic regularization has quadratic growth from its minimizer).

Proof

1.1givenF1algebra

Put QM(y)=M(y)+∥y−x∥22/(2t). Since z minimizes QM over C and p∈C, QM(z)≤QM(p). The pointwise underestimator gives QM(p)≤QF(p), while QF(z)=QM(z)+e. Hence QF(z)≤QF(p)+e.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra∎

Apply [F2] to z and combine with step 1.1: QF(p)+∥z−p∥22/(4t)≤QF(z)≤QF(p)+e. Subtracting the common finite value and multiplying by 4t>0 proves the inequality.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Proximal bundle accumulation under vanishing aggregate-model error

Statement

Let F:Rn→(−∞,+∞] be proper, closed, and convex. Suppose C=dom⁡F is nonempty, closed, and convex, and F∣C is continuous. Consider an infinite full-memory continuation of Finite-memory-free proximal bundle method with serious and null steps with fixed t>0 and ms∈(0,1), centers xk∈C, finite affine models Mk≤F on C touching their centers (Mk(xk)=F(xk)), and exact candidates zk=arg⁡min⁡y∈C(Mk(y)+∥y−xk∥222t). Assume every predicted decrease Pk=F(xk)−Mk(zk) is positive, each trial uses the stated serious/null acceptance test, the initial sublevel set K={x∈C:F(x)≤F(x0)} is compact, and the aggregate-model errors ek=F(zk)−Mk(zk) satisfy ek→0. Then every accumulation point, meaning a limit of a subsequence in the Euclidean metric, is a global minimizer of F. At least one accumulation point exists. The vanishing-error premise is an additional assumption; full-memory cutting planes alone are not asserted to imply it.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Each candidate is unique, and the exact proximal point pk=prox⁡tF(xk) exists, is unique, and the proximal map is nonexpansive (The proximal bundle model subproblem has a unique minimizer, Proximal mapping, Existence, resolvent characterization, and firm nonexpansiveness of the proximal map).

[F2]

The model error is nonnegative and ∥zk−pk∥22≤4tek (Vanishing aggregate-model error controls the proximal candidate).

[F3]

If 0∈∂F(x), then F(y)≥F(x) for every y by the extended-real subgradient definition (Subdifferentials of proper extended-real convex functions).

Proof

1.1givenF4algebra

A serious step has F(xk)−F(zk)≥msPk>0; a null step leaves the center fixed. Thus centers remain in the initial sublevel set K, and F(xk) is nonincreasing and bounded below there by [F4]. The decreases dk=F(xk)−F(xk+1)≥0 have bounded partial sums, since ∑k<qdk=F(x0)−F(xq). If dk failed to tend to zero, some positive ϵ would be exceeded by infinitely many terms, making these partial sums unbounded; hence dk→0.

1.2F1F2F4givenalgebra

Let xkj→xˉ be any accumulation subsequence, which exists for at least one subsequence by [F4]. For any chosen convergent subsequence, compactness gives a further subsequence converging to a point of K; the uniqueness-of-limits fact in [F4] identifies that point with xˉ, so xˉ∈K. Applying compactness to the whole center sequence also supplies at least one accumulation subsequence. By nonexpansiveness in [F1], pkj=prox⁡tF(xkj)→p=prox⁡tF(xˉ). By [F2] and ekj→0, ∥zkj−pkj∥2→0, so zkj→p. Since F∣C is continuous and all these points lie in C, F(xkj)→F(xˉ) and F(zkj)→F(p).

2.1F1F3step 1.2algebraassume-contra

Suppose for contradiction that xˉ is not a global minimizer. Then p≠xˉ: otherwise the resolvent equivalence in [F1] gives 0=(xˉ−p)/t∈∂F(xˉ), and [F3] would make xˉ globally minimizing. By proximal minimality, F(p)+∥p−xˉ∥22/(2t)≤F(xˉ); therefore δ:=F(xˉ)−F(p)>0.

3.1givenstep 1.1step 1.2step 2.1algebradischarge-contradiction∎

Along the chosen subsequence, Dj:=F(xkj)−F(zkj)→δ by step 1.2, while Pkj=F(xkj)−Mkj(zkj)=Dj+ekj. Hence Dj−msPkj=(1−ms)Dj−msekj→(1−ms)δ>0. For all sufficiently large j the step is serious and dkj=Dj≥δ/2, contradicting dk→0 from step 1.1. Thus every accumulation point is a global minimizer.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources