# Solution Refinement at Regular Points of Conic Problems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02157 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.02157/

## Key facts

- Cited by 21 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 6 Nov 2018.

## Built on by (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [DC3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.12225/) (2021)
- [Decision-Focused Learning: Foundations, State of the Art, Benchmark and Future Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13565/) (2023)
- [Tutorial on amortized optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.00665/) (2022)
- [Nonsmooth Implicit Differentiation for Machine Learning and Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.04350/) (2021)
- [Learning to Warm-Start Fixed-Point Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07835/) (2023)
- [Efficient differentiable quadratic programming layers: an ADMM approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.07464/) (2021)
- [Pinet: Optimizing hard-constrained neural networks with orthogonal projection layers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10480/) (2025)
- [Flexible Differentiable Optimization via Model Transformations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.06135/) (2022)
- [Backpropagation of Unrolled Solvers with Folded Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.12047/) (2023)
- [Neural Fixed-Point Acceleration for Convex Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.10254/) (2021)
- [Differentiable Distributionally Robust Optimization Layers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.16571/) (2024)
- [Diff-Explainer: Differentiable Convex Optimization for Explainable Multi-hop Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03417/) (2021)
- [LPGD: A General Framework for Backpropagation through Embedded Optimization Layers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.05920/) (2024)
- [Implicit Bilevel Optimization: Differentiating through Bilevel Optimization Programming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14473/) (2023)
- [Gradient boosting for convex cone predict and optimize problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.06895/) (2022)
- [Analyzing and Enhancing the Backward-Pass Convergence of Unrolled Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17394/) (2023)
- [Learning to Optimize by Differentiable Programming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.16510/) (2026)
- [End-to-End Fairness Optimization with Fair Decision-Focused Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.29441/) (2026)
- [Decision-Focused Learning for Complex System Identification: HVAC Management System Application](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14708/) (2025)
- [Learning to Solve Constrained Bilevel Control Co-Design Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09050/) (2025)
- [Distributionally Robust Control with End-to-End Statistically Guaranteed Metric Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.10214/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Most numerical methods for conic problems use the homogenous primal-dual embedding, which yields a primal-dual solution or a certificate establishing primal or dual infeasibility. Following Patrinos (and others, 2018), we express the embedding as the problem of finding a zero of a mapping containing a skew-symmetric linear function and projections onto cones and their duals. We focus on the special case when this mapping is regular, i.e., differentiable with nonsingular derivative matrix, at a solution point. While this is not always the case, it is a very common occurrence in practice. We propose a simple method that uses LSQR, a variant of conjugate gradients for least squares problems, and the derivative of the residual mapping to refine an approximate solution, i.e., to increase its accuracy. LSQR is a matrix-free method, i.e., requires only the evaluation of the derivative mapping and its adjoint, and so avoids forming or storing large matrices, which makes it efficient even for cone problems in which the data matrices are given and dense, and also allows the method to extend to cone programs in which the data are given as abstract linear operators. Numerical examples show that the method almost always improves an approximate solution of a conic program, and often dramatically, at a computational cost that is typically small compared to the cost of obtaining the original approximate solution. For completeness we describe methods for computing the derivative of the projection onto the cones commonly used in practice: nonnegative, second-order, semidefinite, and exponential cones. The paper is accompanied by an open source implementation.