 Corollary \[cor:gradient\]). We also uncover similar relationships for subgradient descent methods and Newton–Raphson method (Proposition \[prop:NewtonRaphson\]). This discovery is important for two reasons. *Firstly*, Theorem \[thm:gradientdescent\] is an explicit bridge between CRM and the state-of-the-art approach to analysis of DR for nonconvex problems, and so future works can now study CRM methods by using Lyapunov functions for DR operators. *Secondly*, the proximity operator of a function returns a step of gradient descent applied to its Moreau envelope (see [@BC Proposition 12.26]), and proximal splitting algorithms like Douglas–Rachford method have been variously shown to be describable as gradient descent methods applied to envelope functions; in turn, these envelopes have served as the basis for designing new algorithms. For example, see the works of Bemporad, Patrinos, Stella, and Themelis [@themelis2018douglas; @patrinos2014douglas]. Theorem \[thm:gradientdescent\] allows us to design new operators that share this relationship to Lyapunov functions.

We introduce such a new operator (Definition \[def:LT\]) that also satisfies the property that it may be viewed in many cases as gradient descent applied to a Lyapunov function (Theorem \[thm:LT\]), but with the additional advantage that it depends only on the governing sequence. This means it may be implemented for a *general algorithm* when signs of spiraling are apparent, and not merely for feasibility problems with reflection substeps. This includes black box applications when only the governing sequence is known and subproblem solutions (e.g. proximal points, reflections) are not available.

We then introduce a framework for primal/dual implementation, and we use our new operator to center the dual of ADMM for the basis pursuit problem. This is the *first* primal/dual framework and implementation for a centering method, and it opens many new avenues of investigation. A similar primal/dual approach based on a generalization of CRM does *not* appear to work, and we explain why we would not expect it to work. This showcases the value of our Lyapunov function approach and the advantages of the new operator we have obtained through it.

Primal/dual centering methods are likely to be of importance for on-line optimization problems. For many warm-started applications, one might
Corollary   \[cor: gradient\ ]). We also uncover similar relationships for subgradient descent method and Newton – Raphson method acting (Proposition   \[prop: NewtonRaphson\ ]). This discovery is important for two reasons. * first *, Theorem   \[thm: gradientdescent\ ] is an explicit bridge between CRM and the country - of - the - art access to analysis of DR for nonconvex problems, and thus future works can now learn CRM methods by using Lyapunov affair for DR hustler. * Secondly *, the proximity hustler of a function return a measure of gradient descent applied to its Moreau envelope (see [ @BC Proposition   12.26 ]), and proximal splitting algorithm like Douglas – Rachford method have been variously shown to be describable as gradient origin methods use to envelope functions; in turn, these envelopes have served as the basis for design new algorithms. For example, see the works of Bemporad, Patrinos, Stella, and Themelis [ @themelis2018douglas; @patrinos2014douglas ]. Theorem   \[thm: gradientdescent\ ] allows us to design new operators that share this relationship to Lyapunov functions. 

 We introduce such a new operator (Definition   \[def: LT\ ]) that also satisfies the place that it may be see in many cases as gradient lineage apply to a Lyapunov function (Theorem   \[thm: LT\ ]), but with the additional advantage that it depends merely on the governing sequence. This means it may be implemented for a * cosmopolitan algorithm * when signs of spiraling are apparent, and not merely for feasibility problems with reflection substeps. This includes black box applications when only the governing sequence is known and subproblem solution (for example proximal point, reflections) are not available. 

 We then introduce a framework for cardinal / dual implementation, and we use our newfangled operator to center the dual of ADMM for the basis pursuit trouble. This is the * first * primal / dual framework and implementation for a focus on method, and it open many new avenue of investigation. A exchangeable primal / dual overture establish on a generalization of CRM does * not * look to work, and we explain why we would not expect it to work. This showcases the value of our Lyapunov routine access and the advantages of the new hustler we have obtained through it. 

 Primal / dual centering methods are likely to be of importance for on - line optimization trouble. For many warm - started applications, one might
 Cogollary \[cor:gradient\]). We alro uncover similar reletionshjps for rubgradient descent methods end Bewtob–Raphson method (Proposktion \[prop:JewtonRaphsoi\]). This discovery is impovcant rlr tco reasons. *Firstky*, Theorem \[dhm:gradientdeswevt\] is an explicit bridge between CRM wnd the shate-of-the-art akproabh to znalysis of DR for nonconvex problsms, and so future wotks can now study CRM methlds hy using Lyapunov vunctions fir DW operators. *Sdcondly*, tht 'roximity okerator of a function returns a rtep pf gradienj sedwent appliev to ins Moreau envckope (sae [@BC Ptoposition 12.26]), and prmxinal splitting algoritims like Douglas–Rachsord methmd have been variouwlt shofn tm be eeszrigaule as grwdixnt descent methods applied to envelope finsnoons; in turn, these egvelopes have served as the basis for dtsignjng new algorithms. For wxample, see the works of Bempowad, Patrinos, Stella, and Themelis [@themelis2018douglas; @[atriior2014dobnjxw]. Hheorem \[thm:gradientdescent\] allows us to design hee pperators that share this rflsjionship to Lyxpunov fuhctions.

We introducf such w new operator (Defonition \[def:LT\]) that also satiwfies the prjperty that it may ye viewed in mani casex as gradient descent a'plied to a Lyapujov functjun (Theorem \[thm:LT\]), cut whth the additional advantade that iv depznds onlh on the gjverning sfquenga. This means it maj be nmplekented for a *general algorithm* when signs of spiraling sra aiparent, aud not merely for fqasibility proylems wich refuection sugsteps. Vhis includef black box a[klications whxn only tre giverbing sedjence is known and subpgoylem solurions (e.g. proximal iointr, reflections) arz bot available.

We thdn ynnrovuce w framework fmr pfimxk/dual implemtutabiov, anc we use our new opesatod to center the dusl of ADMM for the basis pursuiy problem. This is uhe *ficst* prmmal/dusl sramework and implementation fkr a centfrikg method, and it ipens many nzw avenues of investigation. A similar prmmal/dual approach based on a generalizatiou pf CRM does *not* wppear to work, and we explain why we would not expect it to work. Thjs shofcased the value of our Lyapunov function approach and the advantages of the nww opecaeor we have obtsined tkrobgh it.

Pwimap/vual centering menhods are likely to be of importence for ot-lnne optimization problems. For mxny warm-startgd applications, one might
Corollary \[cor:gradient\]). We also uncover similar relationships descent and Newton–Raphson (Proposition \[prop:NewtonRaphson\]). This reasons. Theorem \[thm:gradientdescent\] is explicit bridge between and the state-of-the-art approach to analysis DR for nonconvex problems, and so future works can now study CRM methods using Lyapunov functions for DR operators. *Secondly*, the proximity operator of a function a of descent to its Moreau envelope (see [@BC Proposition 12.26]), and proximal splitting algorithms like Douglas–Rachford method have variously shown to be describable as gradient descent applied to envelope functions; turn, these envelopes have served the for designing algorithms. example, the works of Patrinos, Stella, and Themelis [@themelis2018douglas; @patrinos2014douglas]. Theorem \[thm:gradientdescent\] allows us to design new operators that share this to Lyapunov introduce such new (Definition that also satisfies that it may be viewed in gradient descent applied to a Lyapunov function (Theorem but with additional advantage that it depends only the governing sequence. This means it may be for a *general algorithm* when signs of spiraling are apparent, and not merely for feasibility reflection substeps. This includes box applications when the sequence known subproblem solutions proximal points, reflections) are not available. We then introduce a framework primal/dual implementation, and we use our new operator to center of for the basis problem. This is the primal/dual and implementation for a and opens of A primal/dual approach based on generalization of CRM does *not* to work, and we expect it to work. This showcases the value our Lyapunov function approach and the advantages the new operator we have obtained through it. Primal/dual centering methods are to be for on-line optimization problems. For many warm-started applications, might
 Corollary \[cor:gradient\]). We alsO uncover siMilar RelAtiOnShipS for Subgradient desCEnt mEthods and Newton–Raphson MethoD (PROposITiOn \[proP:NewtonrApHSOn\]). THiS dIscOvERy Is impOrtAnt for tWo reasons. *FIrsTlY*, Theorem \[thm:gRAdIentdescenT\] is An explicit brIdgE betweEn cRM ANd the StaTe-of-tHe-art aPProach To analysiS oF dR for nONconvex PRObLems, And so future works cAN nOW study CRM methoDs by usInG lyAPUnoV fuNctions for dR OperaTOrs. *SecoNDlY*, THE prOXimity operatoR of a functioN RetUrns a sTeP of GRadienT descEnT AppLied to its MoReau Envelope (sEe [@BC PrOPositioN 12.26]), And proxImal spLitTinG algORiThMs lIkE douGLaS–RaCHfoRd method HaVe Been vArioUSLY ShowN to Be deScribAble as gradienT deScenT MetHods aPplieD to eNvElope FunctiOns; in TuRn, these envelopeS havE served as The BaSis FoR desiGNing neW alGorIthms. FoR examplE, See ThE WORkS of Bemporad, PatrinoS, STELlA, and ThemElis [@thEMeLiS2018Douglas; @pAtRinOs2014doUGLas]. ThEoreM \[ThM:gradienTdesceNT\] aLlOws us to DeSign neW oPerAtoRs thaT SharE this rElationsHip to lYapunov functioNS.

We introduce sUCh A NEw OPeraTor (definition \[dEf:LT\]) THat aLso sATiSfiES the pRoperTy THaT It may be viewed in many CaSes as gRadieNt descent applIed to a LyapUNOV functioN (TheOReM \[Thm:LT\]), but with thE addiTional advaNTage that It depEnds only On the goveRNIng sequeNce. thiS meAns IT MaY be implementeD FOr a *gEnEral algOriThm* when SigNs oF spIraLiNg are appaRent, and nOt MeReLy For FeasiBIlity proBlEms WiTh rEflecTIon subSteps. this InClUDes Black boX ApPLIcatIoNs When OnlY tHe govErniNG seQuence iS known and SubPRoblEm SoLutions (E.g. proximal poiNtS, reflectioNs) Are Not avaILAble.

We thEn introduce a framework foR Primal/dUal ImpleMentAtion, and wE usE our neW opERator tO centeR the dUaL of admM for THE bAsiS pUrsuit probLEM. ThIs is tHe *FirsT* primal/Dual framework and imPLemEntation for a cEntErinG MEtHod, ANd IT opEnS ManY NEw avenues of inveStigation. A SiMIlAr primal/duAL apPrOach basEd on a geNeralIZation oF CRM does *nOt* appear tO wOrk, aND We eXplain why wE would noT expect it TO work. tHiS showCasEs the vAlUe oF our LYapunoV FunCtion ApproaCh And the AdvanTaGes of the New operator we have obtainEd throUgh it.

priMal/dual ceNteRIng Methods arE likEly to be of iMpoRtaNce foR on-LIne opTimiZAtIon PRobleMs. FoR Many warm-sTArTed APPlIcations, one MIGHt
 Corollary \[cor:gradient\ ]). We als o unc ove r s im ilar  rel ationships for subg radient descent method s and  N e wton – Ra phson  method (P r o pos it io n \ [p r op :Newt onR aphson\ ]). This d isc ov ery is impor t an t for tworea sons. *First ly* , Theo re m \ [ thm:g rad ientd escent \ ] is a n explici tb ridgeb etweenC R Mandthe state-of-the- a rt approach to an alysis  o f  D R for  no nconvex pr ob lems, and sof ut u r e  wo r ks can now st udy CRM met h ods  by us in g L y apunov  func ti o nsfor DR oper ator s. *Secon dly*,t he prox i mity op erator  of  afunc t io nret ur n s a st epo f g radientde sc ent a ppli e d t o it s M orea u env elope (see [@ BCProp o sit ion 1 2.26] ), a nd  prox imal s plitt in g algorithms li ke D ouglas–Ra chf or d m et hod h a ve bee n v ari ously s hown to bede s c r ib able as gradient d es c e nt  methods  appli e dto envelope  f unc tion s ;  in t urn, th ese enve lopesh av eservedas  the b as isfor  desi g ning  new a lgorithm s. Fo r  example, seet he works of B e mp o r ad ,  Pat rin os, Stella,  and Them elis [@ the m elis2 018do ug l as ;  @patrinos2014dougl as ]. The orem\[thm:gradien tdescent\] a l lows usto d e si g n new operator s tha t share th i s relati onshi p to Lya punov fun c t ions.

W e i ntr odu ces u ch  a new operat o r  (De fi nition\[d ef:LT\] ) t hat  al sosa tisfies t he prope rt yth at  it  mayb e viewed  i n m an y c asesa s grad ientdesc en ta ppl ied toa  L y a puno vfu ncti on(T heore m \[ t hm: LT\]),but withthe addi ti on al adva ntage that it  d epends onl yonthe go v e rning se quence. This means it m a y be im ple mente d fo r a *gene ral  algor ith m * when  signs  of s pi ral i n g are a pp are nt , and notm e rel y for  f easi bilityproblems with refl e cti on substeps.Thi s in c l ud esb la c k b ox app l i cations when on ly the gov er n in g sequence iskn own and  subpro blems olution s (e.g. p roximal p oi nts, r efl ections) a re not a vailable. 
We t h en  intr odu ce a f ra mew ork f or pri m al/ dualimplem en tation , and  w e use ou r new operator to cente r thedualofADMM forthe bas is pursui t pr oblem. Thi s i s t he *f irs t * pri mal/ d ua l f r amewo rk a n d impleme n ta tio n fo r a centeri n g met hod,and it ope ns m any new avenues o f  investigation . As i mil arp rima l/ dual approachbas ed o n a gene ra lization of  CRM doe s* not*appear  to wo rk, and w ee xplain  why  we  would no t e xp e ct it t owo r k. Thi s sh ow casesthe va l ue o f our Lyapunov fun ction a pproa c h a nd th eadvanta g es o f the newoperator we  haveobta inedthrough  i t.

Pr ima l/ dual cente r ing metho ds ar e likel yto b e o f impo rtan c e  foron-l in e o ptimizati o n  p r ob le m s.Formanywa rm-s tarted ap p lication s,o ne migh t
 Corollary \[cor:gradient\])._We also_uncover similar relationships for_subgradient descent_methods_and Newton–Raphson_method_(Proposition \[prop:NewtonRaphson\]). This discovery_is important for_two reasons. *Firstly*, Theorem \[thm:gradientdescent\]_is an explicit_bridge_between CRM and the state-of-the-art approach to analysis of DR for nonconvex problems, and_so_future works_can_now_study CRM methods by using_Lyapunov functions for DR operators._*Secondly*, the_proximity operator of a function returns a step_of_gradient descent applied_to its Moreau envelope (see [@BC Proposition 12.26]), and proximal_splitting algorithms like Douglas–Rachford method have_been variously shown_to_be_describable as gradient descent_methods applied to envelope functions; in_turn, these envelopes have served as_the basis for designing new algorithms. For_example, see the works of Bemporad,_Patrinos, Stella, and Themelis [@themelis2018douglas;_@patrinos2014douglas]. Theorem \[thm:gradientdescent\]_allows us to design new_operators that share_this relationship_to Lyapunov functions.

We_introduce such a new operator (Definition \[def:LT\])_that also satisfies_the property that it may be_viewed_in many cases_as_gradient_descent applied_to a Lyapunov_function_(Theorem \[thm:LT\]), but_with_the additional advantage that it depends_only_on the governing sequence. This means it_may be implemented for_a_*general algorithm* when signs_of spiraling are apparent, and_not merely for feasibility problems with_reflection substeps._This includes_black box applications when only the governing sequence is known and_subproblem solutions (e.g. proximal points, reflections)_are not available.

We then_introduce a_framework_for primal/dual implementation,_and_we use_our new operator to center the dual_of ADMM_for the basis pursuit problem. This_is the *first* primal/dual_framework_and implementation for a centering method,_and it opens many new avenues_of investigation. A similar primal/dual_approach_based_on a generalization of CRM_does *not* appear to work, and_we explain why_we would not expect it to work._This_showcases the value of our Lyapunov_function_approach and the advantages of the_new_operator_we have obtained through it.

Primal/dual_centering methods are likely to be_of importance for on-line optimization problems. For many warm-started_applications, one might