I strongly disagree here. Researchers, please keep trying to prove that your proposed optimizers are correct, even if you can only manage to prove it for a subclass of problems, and even if it risks publishing an accidentally incorrect proof.
I strongly disagree here. Researchers, please keep trying to prove that your proposed optimizers are correct, even if you can only manage to prove it for a subclass of problems, and even if it risks publishing an accidentally incorrect proof.
>>and even if it risks publishing an accidentally incorrect proof.
No. If a researcher has even a slightest doubt about the correctness of their proof, they should either spend the time to verify it or talk to an expert. There is no lack of experts in convex optimization in particular. Or, instead of publishing the proof, one could just say "we believe this is provable by these methods". But one can not try and shift the burden of verification to the readers, while claiming the results. This is not how trust is built.
It smells of laziness...