Both $\operatorname{Conv}(X)$ and $\operatorname{GradConv}(X)$ are characterized by a family of long range linear inequalities, with domain wide supports, and of cardinality growing *quadratically* with $N := \#(X)$, see §\[sec:Characterization\] and [@Ekeland:2010tl]. Despite rather general convergence results, these two methods are impractical due to their expensive numerical cost, in terms of both computation time and memory.

-   (Local constraints methods) Another cone $\operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ is introduced, usually satisfying neither $\operatorname{Conv}(X) {\subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ nor $\operatorname{Conv}'(X) {\subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}(X)$, but typically characterized by relatively few constraints, with short range supports. Obermann et al. [@Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy] use $\cO(N)$ linear constraints, with $N := \#(X)$. Merigot et al. [@MERIGOT:tr] use slightly more linear constraints, but provide an efficient optimization algorithm based on proximal operators. Aguilera et al. [@Aguilera:2008uq] consider $\cO(N)$ constraints of semi-definite type.

    Some of these methods benefit from convergence guarantees [@MERIGOT:tr; @Aguilera:2008uq] as $N \to \infty$. Our numerical experiments with [@Aguilera:2008uq; @Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy] show however that they suffer from accuracy issues, see §\[sec:Comparison\] and Figure \[fig:BadHessian\], which limits the usability of their results.

-   (Geometric methods) A polygonal convex set can be described as the convex hull of a finite set of points, or as an intersection of half-spaces. Geometric methods approximate a convex function $U$ by representing its epigraph $\{ (z,t); \, z \in \Omega, \, t \geq U(z)\}$ under one of these forms. Energy minimization is done by adjusting the points position, or the coefficients of the affine forms defining the half-spaces, see [@Wachsmuth:2013ta; @LachandRobert:2005bi].

    The main drawback of these methods lies in the optimization procedure, which is quite non-standard. Indeed the
Both $ \operatorname{Conv}(X)$ and $ \operatorname{GradConv}(X)$ are characterized by a family of long range linear inequality, with knowledge domain wide supports, and of cardinality grow * quadratically * with $ N: = \#(X)$, witness § \[sec: Characterization\ ] and [ @Ekeland:2010tl ]. Despite rather general overlap results, these two methods are impractical ascribable to their expensive numeric cost, in term of both computation time and memory. 

 -    (Local constraints methods) Another cone $ \operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ is introduced, usually satisfy neither $ \operatorname{Conv}(X) { \subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ nor $ \operatorname{Conv}'(X) { \subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}(X)$, but typically characterized by relatively few constraints, with short stove supports. Obermann et al.   [ @Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy ] use $ \cO(N)$ linear constraints, with $ N: = \#(X)$. Merigot et al.   [ @MERIGOT: tr ] use slenderly more linear restraint, but provide an efficient optimization algorithm based on proximal operator. Aguilera et al.   [ @Aguilera:2008uq ] consider $ \cO(N)$ constraints of semi - definite type. 

     Some of these methods benefit from overlap guarantee [ @MERIGOT: tr; @Aguilera:2008uq ] as $ N \to \infty$. Our numerical experiments with [ @Aguilera:2008uq; @Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy ] show however that they suffer from accuracy issues, see § \[sec: Comparison\ ] and Figure \[fig: BadHessian\ ], which limits the usability of their results. 

 -    (Geometric method) A polygonal convex set can be described as the convex hull of a finite hardening of points, or as an intersection of half - spaces. Geometric methods estimate a convex function $ U$ by constitute its epigraph $ \ { (z, t); \, z \in \Omega, \, t \geq U(z)\}$ under one of these forms. department of energy minimization is done by adjusting the points position, or the coefficients of the affine forms defining the half - spaces, see [ @Wachsmuth:2013ta; @LachandRobert:2005bi ]. 

     The main drawback of these methods lies in the optimization operation, which is quite non - standard. Indeed the
Botj $\operatorname{Conv}(X)$ and $\uperatorname{GrabXonv}(X)$ ere chadacterizdd by a family of long range lunear inequalities, with domxin wide dupports, and if cardinality growing *qhwdracirally* with $N := \#(X)$, see §\[sec:Chdracterization\] avd [@Ekeland:2010tl]. Despite rather general cjnvergemcf results, thesg two iethkds are impractical due to their espensivt numerical cost, im terms of both computatioj tile and memory.

-   (Lofal constraunts nethods) Anotfer cone $\okexatorname{Cohv}'(X)$ is introduced, usually satiswying neither $\okzeatltname{Conv}(X) {\snbsetez}\operatornamc{Bonv}'(X)$ nmr $\operstorname{Conv}'(X) {\xubvetwq}\operatorname{Conv}(X)$, bnt typically charactgrized by sematively few consrrqints, witv shuet fanfe shpportd. Ouermann et zl. [@Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy] use $\cO(N)$ kigvsr constrainfs, witr $G := \#(X)$. Merigot et al. [@MERIGOT:tr] use slightlj mode linear constraints, byt provide an efficiejt optimisation algorithm based on proximal operators. Aguinera xt al. [@Cnmilefq:2008ue] consider $\cO(N)$ constraints of semi-definite ty[s.

    Some of these methods bemeviy from converggnce gucdahtees [@MERIGOT:tr; @Agkilera:2008uz] as $B \to \inftr$. Out numerical experiments wity [@Aguilera:2008uq; @Iberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wv] show howevzr thaj they suffer from accuracy irsuea, see §\[sec:Colparison\] zvd Figure \[fig:BadFesxidn\], which limits the usabilyty of thxir rzsults.

-   (Geoketric methods) A polynmnal convex set caj be bescrhbed as thf convex hull of a finite set oh points, or ax dn pntersectnon of half-spaces. Gqometric methobs approrimate a convex runctioi $U$ by reprefenting its e[lgraph $\{ (z,t); \, v \in \Omegw, \, t \geq U(z)\}$ unddf one of these forms. Envryy minimization is done by edjurfing the points powition, or the cpefwicyejtx jx the affine foros arfinivg the half-woacex, see [@Wachsmuth:2013ta; @LawhansRobert:2005bi].

    The msik drawbacj of thefe methods lirs in the optimizauion pcoceduce, whivh ys quite non-standard. Indeed ths
Both $\operatorname{Conv}(X)$ and $\operatorname{GradConv}(X)$ are characterized by of range linear with domain wide *quadratically* $N := \#(X)$, §\[sec:Characterization\] and [@Ekeland:2010tl]. rather general convergence results, these two are impractical due to their expensive numerical cost, in terms of both computation and memory. - (Local constraints methods) Another cone $\operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ is introduced, usually satisfying $\operatorname{Conv}(X) nor {\subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}(X)$, typically characterized by relatively few constraints, with short range supports. Obermann et al. [@Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy] use linear constraints, with $N := \#(X)$. Merigot et [@MERIGOT:tr] use slightly more constraints, but provide an efficient algorithm on proximal Aguilera al. consider $\cO(N)$ constraints semi-definite type. Some of these methods benefit from convergence guarantees [@MERIGOT:tr; @Aguilera:2008uq] as $N \to \infty$. Our experiments with @Oberman:2011wy] show that suffer accuracy issues, see Figure \[fig:BadHessian\], which limits the usability - (Geometric methods) A polygonal convex set can described as convex hull of a finite set points, or as an intersection of half-spaces. Geometric approximate a convex function $U$ by representing its epigraph $\{ (z,t); \, z \in \Omega, \geq U(z)\}$ under one these forms. Energy is by the position, or coefficients of the affine forms defining the half-spaces, see [@Wachsmuth:2013ta; @LachandRobert:2005bi]. main drawback of these methods lies in the optimization procedure, quite Indeed the
Both $\operatorname{Conv}(X)$ and $\oPeratornamE{GradconV}(X)$ aRe CharActeRized by a family OF lonG range linear inequalitiEs, witH dOMain WIdE suppOrts, and OF cARDinAlItY grOwINg *QuadrAtiCally* wiTh $N := \#(X)$, see §\[sec:chaRaCterization\] aND [@EKeland:2010tl]. DeSpiTe rather geneRal ConverGeNce REsultS, thEse twO methoDS are imPractical DuE To theiR ExpensiVE NuMeriCal cost, in terms of bOTh COmputation time And memOrY.

-   (loCAL coNstRaints methOdS) AnotHEr cone $\oPErATORnaME{Conv}'(X)$ is introDuced, usuallY SatIsfyinG nEitHEr $\operAtornAmE{conV}(X) {\subseteq}\oPeraTorname{CoNv}'(X)$ nor $\OPeratorNAme{Conv}'(x) {\subseTeq}\OpeRatoRNaMe{conV}(X)$, BUt tYPiCalLY chAracteriZeD bY relaTiveLY FEW conStrAintS, with Short range supPorTs. ObERmaNn et aL. [@OberMan:2011wI; @OBermaN:2011wy] use $\CO(N)$ liNeAr constraints, wiTh $N := \#(X)$. merigot et Al. [@MeRiGOt:tR] use sLIghtly MorE liNear conStraintS, But PrOVIDe An efficient optimizAtION aLgorithm Based oN PrOxIMal operaToRs. AGuilERA et al. [@aguiLErA:2008uq] consiDer $\cO(N)$ COnStRaints oF sEmi-defInIte TypE.

    Some OF theSe methOds benefIt froM Convergence guaRAntees [@MERIGOT:TR; @AGUIlERa:2008uq] As $N \To \infty$. Our nUmerICal eXperIMeNts WIth [@AgUilerA:2008uQ; @obERman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy] show HoWever tHat thEy suffer from aCcuracy issUES, See §\[sec:CoMparISoN\] And Figure \[fig:BaDHessIan\], which liMIts the usAbiliTy of theiR results.

-   (GEOMetric meThoDs) A PolYgoNAL cOnvex set can be DEScriBeD as the cOnvEx hull oF a fIniTe sEt oF pOints, or as An intersEcTiOn Of HalF-spacES. GeometrIc MetHoDs aPproxIMate a cOnvex FuncTiOn $u$ By rEpresenTInG ITs epIgRaPh $\{ (z,t); \, Z \in \omEga, \, t \gEq U(z)\}$ UNdeR one of tHese forms. eneRGy miNiMiZation iS done by adjustInG the points PoSitIon, or tHE CoefficiEnts of the affine forms defINing the HalF-spacEs, seE [@WachsmutH:2013ta; @lachanDRoBErt:2005bi].

    THe main DrawbAcK of THEse meTHOdS liEs In the optimIZAtiOn proCeDure, Which is Quite non-standard. InDEed The
Both $\operatorname{Conv}( X)$ and $\ opera tor nam e{ Grad Conv }(X)$ are char a cter ized by a family of lo ng ra ng e  lin e ar  ineq ualitie s ,w i thdo ma inwi d esuppo rts , and o f cardinal ity  g rowing *quad r at ically* wi th$N := \#(X)$ , s ee §\[ se c:C h aract eri zatio n\] an d  [@Eke land:2010 tl ] . Desp i te rath e r  g ener al convergence re s ul t s, these two m ethods  a r ei m pra cti cal due to  t heire xpensiv e  n u m e ric a l cost, in te rms of both com putati on  ti m e andmemor y. 
-  (Local co nstr aints met hods)A notherc one $\o perato rna me{ Conv } '( X) $ i si ntr o du ced ,  us ually sa ti sf yingneit h e r $\op era torn ame{C onv}(X) {\sub set eq}\ o per atorn ame{C onv} '( X)$ n or $\o perat or name{Conv}'(X){\su bseteq}\o per at orn am e{Con v }(X)$,  bu t t ypicall y chara c ter iz e d by  relatively few co ns t r ai nts, wit h shor t  r an g e suppor ts . O berm a n n etal.[ @O berman:2 011wi; @O be rman:20 11 wy] us e$\c O(N )$ li n earconstr aints, w ith $ N  := \#(X)$. Me r igot et al. [ @ ME R I GO T :tr]  us e slightlymore line ar c o ns tra i nts,but p ro v id e  an efficient optim iz ationalgor ithm based on  proximalo p e rators.Agui l er a  et al. [@Agui lera: 2008uq] co n sider $\ cO(N) $ constr aints ofs e mi-defin ite  ty pe. 

 S ome of thesem e thod sbenefit  fr om conv erg enc e g uar an tees [@ME RIGOT:tr ;@A gu il era :2008 u q] as $N  \ to\i nft y$. O u r nume rical  exp er im e nts  with [ @ Ag u i lera :2 00 8uq;  @O be rman: 2011 w i;@Oberma n:2011wy]  sh o w ho we ve r thatthey suffer f ro m accuracy  i ssu es, se e §\[sec:C omparison\] and Figure\ [fig:Ba dHe ssian \],which lim its  the u sab i lity o f thei r res ul ts. -   ( G e om etr ic  methods)A pol ygona lconv ex setcan be described a s  th e convex hull  of  a f i n it e s e to f p oi n ts, o r as an interse ction of h al f -s paces. Geo m etr ic  method s appro ximat e  a conv ex functi on $U$ by  r epre s e nti ng its epi graph $\ { (z,t);\ , z \ i n\Omeg a,\, t \ ge q U (z)\} $ unde r  on e ofthesefo rms. E nergy  m inimizat ion is done by adjustin g thepoint s p osition,ort hecoefficie ntsof the aff ine  fo rms d efi n ing t he h a lf -sp a ces,see[ @Wachsmut h :2 013 t a ;@LachandRob e r t :20 05bi] .
   The  mai n drawback of the s e methods lies  int h e o pti m izat io n procedure, w hic hi s  quite n on -standard.Indeed t he 
Both $\operatorname{Conv}(X)$_and $\operatorname{GradConv}(X)$_are characterized by a_family of_long_range linear_inequalities,_with domain wide_supports, and of_cardinality growing *quadratically* with_$N := \#(X)$,_see_§\[sec:Characterization\] and [@Ekeland:2010tl]. Despite rather general convergence results, these two methods are impractical due_to_their expensive_numerical_cost,_in terms of both computation_time and memory.

-  _(Local constraints_methods) Another cone $\operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ is introduced, usually satisfying_neither_$\operatorname{Conv}(X) {\subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}'(X)$ nor_$\operatorname{Conv}'(X) {\subseteq}\operatorname{Conv}(X)$, but typically characterized by relatively few constraints,_with short range supports. Obermann et_al. [@Oberman:2011wi; @Oberman:2011wy] use_$\cO(N)$_linear_constraints, with $N :=_\#(X)$. Merigot et al. [@MERIGOT:tr] use slightly_more linear constraints, but provide an_efficient optimization algorithm based on proximal operators._Aguilera et al. [@Aguilera:2008uq] consider $\cO(N)$ constraints_of semi-definite type.

  _ Some_of these methods benefit from_convergence guarantees [@MERIGOT:tr;_@Aguilera:2008uq] as_$N \to \infty$._Our numerical experiments with [@Aguilera:2008uq; @Oberman:2011wi;_@Oberman:2011wy] show however_that they suffer from accuracy issues,_see_§\[sec:Comparison\] and Figure_\[fig:BadHessian\],_which_limits the_usability of their_results.

-_ _(Geometric_methods) A polygonal convex set can_be_described as the convex hull of a_finite set of points,_or_as an intersection of_half-spaces. Geometric methods approximate a_convex function $U$ by representing its_epigraph $\{_(z,t); \,_z \in \Omega, \, t \geq U(z)\}$ under one of these_forms. Energy minimization is done by_adjusting the points position,_or the_coefficients_of the affine_forms_defining the_half-spaces, see [@Wachsmuth:2013ta; @LachandRobert:2005bi].

   _The main_drawback of these methods lies in_the optimization procedure, which_is_quite non-standard. Indeed the