pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08802 · v1 · pith:7HS2U5JXnew · submitted 2019-07-20 · 🧮 math.OC · cs.MA

Distributed Global Optimization by Annealing

Brian Swenson , Soummya Kar , H. Vincent Poor , Jos\'e M. F. Moura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC cs.MA
keywords distributed optimizationglobal minimizationnonconvex functionsannealingconsensus algorithmsinnovationstarget localizationstochastic approximation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A distributed consensus-innovations algorithm with decaying Gaussian noise converges to the global minima of nonconvex functions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a distributed first-order algorithm for minimizing nonconvex functions over a network. It combines consensus updates among agents with local innovations and adds decaying Gaussian noise to drive the system away from local minima toward the global set. The authors supply straightforward checks to confirm that the required conditions on the objective function and network hold. They illustrate the approach on a distributed target-localization example. A reader would care because many practical distributed problems are nonconvex and lack central coordination, so local methods often fail to find the best solutions.

Core claim

The authors present a consensus + innovations algorithm that incorporates decaying additive Gaussian noise for annealing and prove that the iterates converge to the set of global minima under certain technical assumptions on the objective function and the communication network.

What carries the argument

Consensus + innovations update rule augmented with decaying additive Gaussian annealing noise.

If this is right

  • The algorithm converges to the global minimum set whenever the stated technical assumptions hold.
  • Simple verification procedures exist for confirming that the assumptions are satisfied.
  • The method applies directly to distributed target-localization tasks.
  • No convexity of the objective is required for the convergence guarantee.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar noise-driven annealing could be tested in other distributed nonconvex problems such as sensor network calibration.
  • The verification methods might be extended to automatically certify assumptions for large-scale networks.
  • If the noise decay rate is chosen too aggressively, the iterates may still converge only locally even when other conditions hold.

Load-bearing premise

The objective function and communication network satisfy the technical conditions that let the decaying noise drive the iterates to the global minimum set.

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample function and network where the technical assumptions are violated and the algorithm iterates remain bounded away from the global minimum set.

read the original abstract

The paper considers a distributed algorithm for global minimization of a nonconvex function. The algorithm is a first-order consensus + innovations type algorithm that incorporates decaying additive Gaussian noise for annealing, converging to the set of global minima under certain technical assumptions. The paper presents simple methods for verifying that the required technical assumptions hold and illustrates it with a distributed target-localization application.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a distributed first-order consensus + innovations algorithm augmented with decaying additive Gaussian noise (annealing) for global minimization of nonconvex functions. It claims that the iterates converge to the set of global minima under technical assumptions on the objective and the communication network, supplies simple verification procedures for those assumptions, and illustrates the method on a distributed target-localization problem.

Significance. If the convergence theorem is valid and the verification procedures are genuinely elementary and non-circular, the work would supply a practical route from local consensus dynamics to global optimality guarantees in distributed nonconvex settings. The explicit verification methods and the concrete application are positive features that could aid adoption.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (Technical Assumptions) and the verification subsection: the claim that the listed methods for checking coercivity, isolated minima, and uniform connectivity are 'simple' is load-bearing for the practical utility of the result. The manuscript must demonstrate, with a concrete non-trivial example, that these checks do not themselves require solving an auxiliary global optimization problem or performing an exhaustive search.
  2. [Theorem 4.1] Theorem 4.1 (Convergence): the proof sketch invokes the specific annealing schedule together with the consensus+innovations dynamics, but the argument that the noise term forces escape from local minima while preserving consensus appears to rest on the same technical assumptions whose verification is at issue. A self-contained counter-example or a more explicit Lyapunov analysis would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (target-localization trajectories): axis labels and the legend for the annealing parameter schedule are missing, making it difficult to relate the plotted paths to the stated assumptions.
  2. Notation: the distinction between the innovation gain sequence and the annealing variance schedule is introduced without a consolidated table; a single reference table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point-by-point below, indicating where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Technical Assumptions) and the verification subsection: the claim that the listed methods for checking coercivity, isolated minima, and uniform connectivity are 'simple' is load-bearing for the practical utility of the result. The manuscript must demonstrate, with a concrete non-trivial example, that these checks do not themselves require solving an auxiliary global optimization problem or performing an exhaustive search.

    Authors: We agree that a concrete demonstration is necessary to support the claim of simplicity. Our distributed target-localization example in Section 5 provides this. Coercivity is established from the quadratic growth of the sum of squared range measurements. Isolated minima are verified by local Hessian analysis at the target location without exhaustive search. Network connectivity is given by construction. We will add explicit verification steps in a revised §3.2 to illustrate this process clearly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theorem 4.1] Theorem 4.1 (Convergence): the proof sketch invokes the specific annealing schedule together with the consensus+innovations dynamics, but the argument that the noise term forces escape from local minima while preserving consensus appears to rest on the same technical assumptions whose verification is at issue. A self-contained counter-example or a more explicit Lyapunov analysis would strengthen the claim.

    Authors: The proof of Theorem 4.1 uses the annealing schedule to ensure that the additive noise allows the iterates to escape local minima with probability one, while the consensus+innovations structure maintains agreement. The technical assumptions are on the objective and the graph, which are verified independently. We acknowledge that the main-text sketch could be more explicit. We will expand the proof outline in the revised manuscript with additional steps from the Lyapunov function, referencing the full appendix analysis. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained under external assumptions

full rationale

The abstract and description indicate convergence is proven under technical assumptions on the objective function and network, with separate simple verification methods provided. No quoted equations or steps reduce the central claim (convergence via consensus+innovations + annealing) to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The result is not forced by construction from its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; the central claim rests on unspecified technical assumptions whose verification is claimed to be simple.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The objective function and network satisfy certain technical assumptions required for convergence.
    Explicitly referenced in the abstract as necessary for the stated convergence result.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5580 in / 1008 out tokens · 23906 ms · 2026-05-24T18:55:12.384866+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep learning. MIT press, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Exact reconstruction of sparse signals via nonconvex minimization,

    R. Chartrand, “Exact reconstruction of sparse signals via nonconvex minimization,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 707–710, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Gradient descent with random initialization: fast global convergence for nonconvex phase retrieval,

    Y . Chen, Y . Chi, J. Fan, and C. Ma, “Gradient descent with random initialization: fast global convergence for nonconvex phase retrieval,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 176, no. 1-2, pp. 5–37, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Clustering with Distributed Data

    S. Kar and B. Swenson, “Clustering with distributed data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00214, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  5. [5]

    Edge computing: Vision and challenges,

    W. Shi, J. Cao, Q. Zhang, Y . Li, and L. Xu, “Edge computing: Vision and challenges,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 637–646, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A tutorial survey on vehicular ad hoc networks,

    H. Hartenstein and L. Laberteaux, “A tutorial survey on vehicular ad hoc networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 164–171, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Mobile edge computinga key technology towards 5G,

    Y . C. Hu, M. Patel, D. Sabella, N. Sprecher, and V . Young, “Mobile edge computinga key technology towards 5G,” ETSI White Paper , vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1–16, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Deep learning with differential privacy,

    M. Abadi, A. Chu, I. Goodfellow, H. B. McMahan, I. Mironov, K. Talwar, and L. Zhang, “Deep learning with differential privacy,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , Hofburg Palace, Vienna, Austria, 2016, pp. 308–318

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    A distributed quasi-Newton algorithm for empirical risk minimization with nonsmooth regulariza- tion,

    C. Lee, C. H. Lim, and S. J. Wright, “A distributed quasi-Newton algorithm for empirical risk minimization with nonsmooth regulariza- tion,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , London, United Kingdom, 2018, pp. 1646–1655

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Distributed nonconvex optimization over networks,

    P. Di Lorenzo and G. Scutari, “Distributed nonconvex optimization over networks,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Com- putational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP) , Cancun, Mexico, 2015, pp. 229–232

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Distributed nonconvex multiagent optimization over time-varying networks,

    Y . Sun, G. Scutari, and D. Palomar, “Distributed nonconvex multiagent optimization over time-varying networks,” in Proceedings of the Asilo- mar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers , Monterey, CA, USA, 2016, pp. 788–794

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Distributed non-convex optimization of multi-agent systems using boosting functions to escape local optima,

    S. Welikala and C. G. Cassandras, “Distributed non-convex optimization of multi-agent systems using boosting functions to escape local optima,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.04133 , 2019

    work page arXiv 1903

  13. [13]

    Convergence of a multi-agent pro- jected stochastic gradient algorithm for non-convex optimization,

    P. Bianchi and J. Jakubowicz, “Convergence of a multi-agent pro- jected stochastic gradient algorithm for non-convex optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 391–405, 2012

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Next: In-network nonconvex optimiza- tion,

    P. Di Lorenzo and G. Scutari, “Next: In-network nonconvex optimiza- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 120–136, 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    An approximate dual subgradient algorithm for multi-agent non-convex optimization,

    M. Zhu and S. Mart ´ınez, “An approximate dual subgradient algorithm for multi-agent non-convex optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1534–1539, 2012

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    On the convergence of alternating direction Lagrangian methods for nonconvex structured optimization problems,

    S. Magn ´usson, P. C. Weeraddana, M. G. Rabbat, and C. Fischione, “On the convergence of alternating direction Lagrangian methods for nonconvex structured optimization problems,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 296–309, 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Non-convex distributed optimization,

    T. Tatarenko and B. Touri, “Non-convex distributed optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3744–3757, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Second-o rder guaran- tees of distributed gradient algorithms,

    A. Daneshmand, G. Scutari, and V . Kungurtsev, “Second-order guarantees of distributed gradient algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08694, 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Second-order guarantees of gradient algorithms over networks,

    ——, “Second-order guarantees of gradient algorithms over networks,” in Proceedings of the Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, Allerton Park and Retreat Center, Monticello, IL, USA, 2018, pp. 359–365

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Gradient primal-dual algo- rithm converges to second-order stationary solutions for nonconvex dis- tributed optimization,

    M. Hong, J. D. Lee, and M. Razaviyayn, “Gradient primal-dual algo- rithm converges to second-order stationary solutions for nonconvex dis- tributed optimization,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , Stockholm, Sweden, 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Distributed parameter estima- tion in sensor networks: Nonlinear observation models and imperfect communication,

    S. Kar, J. M. Moura, and K. Ramanan, “Distributed parameter estima- tion in sensor networks: Nonlinear observation models and imperfect communication,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3575–3605, 2012

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Recursive stochastic algorithms for global optimization in Rd,

    S. B. Gelfand and S. K. Mitter, “Recursive stochastic algorithms for global optimization in Rd,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 999–1018, 1991

    work page 1991

  23. [23]

    Annealing for Distributed Global Optimization

    B. Swenson, S. Kar, H. V . Poor, and J. M. F. Moura, “Annealing for distributed global optimization,” 2019, to be published in Proceedings of 2019 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, arXiv preprint arxiv:1903.07258

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Billingsley, Convergence of probability measures

    P. Billingsley, Convergence of probability measures . John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Stoer and R

    J. Stoer and R. Bulirsch, Introduction to numerical analysis . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013, vol. 12

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Diffusion adaptation strategies for distributed optimization and learning over networks,

    J. Chen and A. H. Sayed, “Diffusion adaptation strategies for distributed optimization and learning over networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 4289–4305, 2012

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Laplace’s method revisited: weak convergence of prob- ability measures,

    C.-R. Hwang, “Laplace’s method revisited: weak convergence of prob- ability measures,” The Annals of Probability , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1177– 1182, 1980

    work page 1980