A Fully Adaptive Frank-Wolfe Algorithm for Relatively Smooth Problems and Its Application to Centralized Distributed Optimization

A.A. Vyguzov; F.S. Stonyakin

A Fully Adaptive Frank-Wolfe Algorithm for Relatively Smooth Problems and Its Application to Centralized Distributed Optimization

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a Frank-Wolfe method can adapt its smoothness constant and triangle-scaling exponent online without losing convergence, and shows the resulting acceleration in distributed optimization.

desk verdict A mostly sound sublinear-rate adaptive Frank-Wolfe paper whose advertised linear convergence is unsupported: Lemma 4 yields a tau that dies with epsilon. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05669 v2 pith:NXO5TCEU submitted 2025-07-08 math.OC

A.A. Vyguzov , F.S. Stonyakin This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 90C25

keywords Frank-WolfealgorithmrelativesmoothnesstrianglescalingexponentadaptivestepsizelinearconvergencedistributedoptimizationstatisticalsimilarityBregmandivergence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a Frank-Wolfe method for constrained convex problems whose objective is relatively smooth with respect to a Bregman divergence, meaning the usual Lipschitz-gradient bound is replaced by an inequality involving that divergence. The method adapts both the smoothness constant and the triangle-scaling exponent at every iteration, so no prior knowledge of these problem parameters is needed. The paper claims a sublinear convergence rate matching the known rate up to the adaptive constants, and, under an additional scaling condition and relative strong convexity, a linear contraction rate. It then shows that in centralized distributed optimization, a statistical-similarity assumption on the gradients makes the global objective relatively strongly convex with respect to a local Bregman divergence, which lets the same adaptive Frank-Wolfe algorithm run with an improved relative condition number.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bregman divergence $V(x,y) = h(x) - h(y) - \langle\nabla h(y), x-y\rangle$ defined by a reference function $h$, together with the triangle scaling exponent (TSE) $\gamma \in (1,2]$ satisfying $V((1-\theta)x+\theta z, (1-\theta)x+\theta \tilde z) \le \theta^\gamma V(z, \tilde z)$. The adaptive step size $\alpha_k$ is the ratio of the linearized decrease to the Bregman divergence raised to the power $1/(\gamma_k-1)$, and the backtracking loop in Algorithm 1 adjusts $L_k$ and $\gamma_k$ until the relative-smoothness inequality holds. The scaling condition (13) is the additional ingredient that converts the sublinear progress bound into a contraction by lower-bounding the Frank-Wolfe gap ratio; Lemma 4 derives a value of $\tau$ from the distance of the solution to the boundary, the set diameter, and the maximum Bregman divergence.

What would settle it

Take a relatively smooth problem with an interior solution, such as the D-optimal design problem with a strictly interior maximizer, run Algorithm 1, and record the ratio $-\langle\nabla f(x_k), d_k\rangle / [V(s_k, x_k) \cdot (-\nabla f(x_k))^T(x^* - x_k)/V(x^*, x_k)]$ along the trajectory; if this ratio shrinks proportionally to the current suboptimality, the scaling condition has no uniform $\tau$ and the claimed linear rate fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that full parameter adaptation is free: replacing the fixed step-size rule with the adaptive rule $\alpha_k = \min\left(\left(\frac{-\langle\nabla f(x_k), d_k\rangle}{2L_k V(s_k, x_k)}\right)^{1/(\gamma_k-1)}, 1\right)$, where $L_k$ and $\gamma_k$ are adjusted online by backtracking, does not degrade the theoretical convergence of the Frank-Wolfe method. Theorem 1 gives $f(x_k) - f^* \le \left(\frac{2}{k+2}\right)^{\gamma_{\min}-1} L_{\max} R^2$ for relatively smooth objectives satisfying the triangle scaling property. Theorem 2 gives a linear contraction $f(x_k) - f^* \le (f(x_0) - f^*)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^t \left(1 - \frac{\gamma_{\min}^{\gamma_{\min}/(\gamma_{\min}-1)}}{\gamma_{\min}+1}\left(\frac{\tau \mu}{2 L_{\max}}\right)^{1/(\gamma_{\min}-1)}\right)^{k-t}$ under relative strong convexity and the scaling condition, where $\tau$ is a constant that Lemma 4 attempts to certify from the geometry of the feasible set and the desired accuracy. In the distributed setting, statistical similarity of the local and aggregate gradients implies that the global objective is $1$-relatively smooth and $\mu_{\mathrm{euk}}/(\mu_{\mathrm{euk}}+2\sigma)$-relatively strongly convex with respect to the Bregman divergence generated by the local function plus a quadratic term, yielding a relative condition number $1 + 2\sigma/\mu_{\mathrm{euk}}$ that can be much smaller than the Euclidean condition number $L_{\mathrm{euk}}/\mu_{\mathrm{euk}}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scaling condition (13) holds with a constant $\tau$ that stays bounded away from zero even as the desired accuracy becomes very small; if $\tau$ can only be proportional to the accuracy, the linear convergence claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 1 holds, users can run Frank-Wolfe on relatively smooth problems without estimating $L$ or $\gamma$ in advance and still obtain the same $O(1/k^{\gamma_{\min}-1})$ style sublinear rate with only $O(N)$ total backtracking checks over $N$ iterations.
If Theorem 2 holds, once the scaling condition is satisfied the method achieves a linear contraction factor that improves as the relative condition number $\tau \mu / L_{\max}$ improves, with each full step $\alpha_k = 1$ halving the residual.
In the centralized distributed setting, statistical similarity of gradients implies $F$ is relatively smooth and relatively strongly convex with respect to $V_{\tilde F}$, so Algorithm 2 can be applied with $L$ fixed and only $\gamma$ adapted, and the resulting relative condition number $1 + 2\sigma/\mu_{\mathrm{euk}}$ is provably smaller than the Euclidean condition number.
The numerical experiments on D-optimal design and Poisson inverse problems show the fully adaptive variant converging faster in iterations than variants that adapt only $L$ or use fixed parameters, at the cost of some early tuning overhead.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable consequence not stated in the paper: the linear-rate guarantee is uniform only if $\tau$ can be chosen independently of the target accuracy $\varepsilon$; because Lemma 4's derived $\tau$ is proportional to $\varepsilon$, checking whether a fixed $\tau$ exists for a given problem would settle whether the linear rate is genuine or an artifact of the proof.
The same adaptive step-size rule could be applied to Frank-Wolfe variants for weakly convex objectives or stochastic gradients, where the Bregman update is still well-defined, and the TSE-based step should carry over whenever the divergence satisfies the scaling inequality.
The distributed result suggests a practical heuristic: choose the local function with the largest curvature as the reference $\tilde F$ to maximize similarity and shrink $1 + 2\sigma/\mu_{\mathrm{euk}}$, though the paper does not address how to select $\tilde F$ in a network.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real content here is the two-parameter adaptive step size (L and gamma) and a sublinear convergence rate in Theorem 1 that is broadly consistent with the existing relative-smoothness literature. That part is a legitimate, if modest, extension of the authors' own earlier work. The distributed-optimization application built on statistical similarity is also a reasonable idea, and the numerical experiments give some support to the adaptive mechanism. Give credit where it is due: the algorithm is genuinely parameter-free, the adaptation conditions are local, and the complexity analysis of the line-search checks (Remark 2) is a nice touch.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it: Theorem 2's linear convergence. Lemma 4 is the load-bearing proof, and it fails in two ways. First, the exceptional case V(x*, xk) <= epsilon does not mean the desired objective accuracy is reached; relative strong convexity (6) gives f(xk)-f* >= mu L V(x*,xk), so a small Bregman divergence can still leave a large function gap. Second, in the main case the proof only produces tau = (delta epsilon)/(D D_V), which is proportional to the target epsilon. Substituting that into the contraction factor in Theorem 2 gives a factor that tends to 1 as epsilon -> 0, so the 'linear' rate is not linear in the precision-independent sense. The distributed corollary inherits this, so the advertised acceleration result does not follow from the stated assumptions.

Minor technical issues: gamma_max is never defined, Algorithm 2 uses V(xk + alpha dk) with one argument, and the TSE exponent range is handled sloppily (the intro mentions IS divergence with gamma > 0.5 while the definition and all theorems require gamma in (1,2]). These are fixable, but the linear-rate problem is not.

Who is this for? Someone working on adaptive Frank-Wolfe or relative-smoothness methods might find the sublinear analysis useful, and the statistical-similarity setup for Frank-Wolfe is worth knowing. But as it stands, the central advertised result is unsupported. I would not cite the linear convergence claim, though I might cite the sublinear part if I needed a parameter-free variant.

For peer review: send it. The paper deserves referee time because the sublinear result and the adaptive scheme are worth examining, and the flaw is precisely what referees are for. The verdict should be reject in its current form, but a revision that drops or repairs the linear-rate claim could make a solid shorter paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the adaptive step-size analysis and the linear-rate theorem are derived from stated assumptions without assuming their conclusions; the ε-dependence of τ in Lemma 4 is a correctness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's convergence claims are not circular. Algorithm 1's step size is defined by Eq. (4) and validated by the line-search condition (Algorithm 1, line 8); Lemmas 1-3 and Theorem 1 derive the sublinear rate from relative smoothness (2), TSE (3), and the Frank-Wolfe gap (9), none of which presuppose the theorem's bound. The self-citation to [21] describes the prior shortest-step variant, but the new L/γ adaptation and its proof do not import any load-bearing result from [21]; the TSE property is attributed to [12] and the distributed relative-smoothness construction to [13], both external. Theorem 2 is conditional on the scaling condition (13), and Lemma 4 attempts to verify it; however, Lemma 4 produces τ = δε/(D D_V), proportional to the target ε, and asserts that V(x*, xk) ≤ ε already achieves the desired accuracy, which is inconsistent with relative strong convexity (6) (small V only lower-bounds the objective gap, not upper-bounds it). This is an unfulfilled hypothesis and a correctness gap in the claimed linear rate, not a circular reduction: Theorem 2 does not assume its own conclusion, and the adaptive algorithm is benchmarked against fixed-parameter FW variants in Section 4. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-equivalence standard is present; the score reflects absence of circularity, while the τ = O(ε) issue should be treated as a correctness objection.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central analysis rests on standard relative-smoothness machinery plus two assumptions introduced for this paper: the scaling condition and the statistical-similarity construction. The scaling condition is the most fragile: its only derivation, Lemma 4, is logically invalid as written. The other axioms are established in the prior literature.

free parameters (3)

initial smoothness estimate L0
Hand-chosen in Algorithm 1; adapted online, but the bounds L_max and the line-search check count depend on it.
adaptation rate eta
User-defined with eta > 1; controls how quickly L and gamma are adjusted and appears in the line-search check count.
TSE exponent cap gamma_max = undefined
Algorithm 1 line 4 references gamma_max but the paper never defines it; the convergence rate is expressed through gamma_min instead.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Relative smoothness (2): f(x) <= f(y) + <grad f(y), x-y> + L V(x,y)
Assumed throughout the paper; the algorithmic design and all convergence proofs rely on this inequality.
domain assumption Triangle Scaling Exponent property (3) with gamma in (1,2]
Used in Lemma 1 and all rates; the exact exponent is unknown for many divergences, and the introduction also mentions gamma=1 for Euclidean/KL, creating an inconsistency with the gamma>1 requirement.
domain assumption Relative strong convexity (6)
Assumed for Theorem 2 and the distributed application; not needed for the sublinear result.
ad hoc to paper Scaling condition (13) with a fixed tau > 0
Introduced specifically to obtain linear convergence; Lemma 4 attempts to justify it but the proof is flawed and tau depends on the target accuracy epsilon.
domain assumption Bounded divergence V(x,y) <= R^2/2 on a compact feasible set
Standard for Frank-Wolfe sublinear rates; used in Theorem 1 to bound V(s_k,x_k).
domain assumption Statistical similarity (20) with sigma << L_euk
Assumed in the distributed section to derive relative smoothness and strong convexity of the global objective with respect to a local Bregman divergence.

invented entities (1)

Reference function d_Ftil(x) = Ftil(x) + (sigma/2)||x||^2
purpose: Generates the Bregman divergence with respect to which the global objective becomes relatively smooth and relatively strongly convex in the distributed setting.
The paper constructs this function to obtain the improved relative condition number; independent validation of the resulting acceleration is not provided, only theoretical derivations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Fully Adaptive Frank-Wolfe Algorithm for Relatively Smooth Problems and Its Application to Centralized Distributed Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXO5TCEU

@misc{pith2026250705669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Fully Adaptive Frank-Wolfe Algorithm for Relatively Smooth Problems and Its Application to Centralized Distributed Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXO5TCEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05669}
}

read the original abstract

We study the Frank-Wolfe algorithm for constrained optimization problems with relatively smooth objectives. Building upon our previous work, we propose a fully adaptive variant of the Frank-Wolfe method that dynamically adjusts the step size. Our method does not require prior knowledge of the function parameters and guarantees convergence using only local information. We establish a linear convergence rate under relative strong convexity and provide a detailed theoretical analysis of the proposed adaptive step-size rule. Furthermore, we demonstrate how relative smoothness and strong convexity naturally arise in the setting of centralized distributed optimization. Under a variance-type assumption on the gradients, we show that the global objective becomes relatively strongly convex with respect to the Bregman divergence generated by a local function. This structure allows us to apply our adaptive Frank-Wolfe algorithm, leading to provable acceleration due to an improved relative condition number.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05669 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** D-optimal experiment design (24), changing the parameter n. The left graph shows the convergence rate on a logarithmic scale, while the right graph displays CPU time on a linear scale. FW-Full Adapt corresponds to the step-size (4) adaptable by L, γ parameters. FW-adapt refers to step-size (4) adaptable by L parameter and FWBregman is step-size (4) with fixed parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** D-optimal experiment design (24), changing the parameter m. The left graph shows the convergence rate on a logarithmic scale, while the right graph displays CPU time on a linear scale. FW-Full Adapt corresponds to the step-size (4) adaptable by L, γ parameters. FW-adapt refers to step-size (4) adaptable by L parameter and FWBregman is step-size (4) with fixed parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Poisson linear inverse problem (25). The left graph shows the convergence rate on a logarithmic scale, while the right graph displays CPU time on a linear scale. FWFull Adapt corresponds to the step-size (4) adaptable by L, γ parameters. FW-adapt refers to step-size (4) adaptable by L parameter and FW-Bregman is step-size (4) with fixed parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

Arjevani,Y.,Shamir,O.:Communicationcomplexityofdistributedconvexlearning and optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

Mathematics of Operations Research 42(2), 330–348 (2017)

Bauschke, H.H., Bolte, J., Teboulle, M.: A descent lemma beyond lipschitz gra- dient continuity: first-order methods revisited and applications. Mathematics of Operations Research 42(2), 330–348 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

In: International Conference on Optimization and Applications

Beznosikov, A., Gasnikov, A.: Compression and data similarity: Combination of two techniques for communication-efficient solving of distributed variational in- equalities. In: International Conference on Optimization and Applications. pp. 151–162. Springer (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

Similarity, Compression and Local Steps: Three Pillars of Efficient Communications for Distributed Variational Inequalities

Beznosikov, A., Takáč, M., Gasnikov, A.: Similarity, compression and local steps: three pillars of efficient communications for distributed variational inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07615 (2023)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[5]

4OR19, 313–345 (2021)

Bomze, I.M., Rinaldi, F., Zeffiro, D.: Frank–wolfe and friends: a journey into projection-free first-order optimization methods. 4OR19, 313–345 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14103 (2022)

Braun, G., Carderera, A., Combettes, C.W., Hassani, H., Karbasi, A., Mokhtari, A., Pokutta, S.: Conditional gradient methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14103 (2022)

arXiv 2022
[7]

Operations Research Letters49(4), 565–571 (2021)

Combettes, C.W., Pokutta, S.: Complexity of linear minimization and projection on some sets. Operations Research Letters49(4), 565–571 (2021)

2021
[8]

The annals of statistics 19(4), 2032–2066 (1991)

Csiszar, I.: Why least squares and maximum entropy? an axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems. The annals of statistics 19(4), 2032–2066 (1991)

work page 1991

Show all 22 references

[9]

JournalofOptimizationTheory andApplications 189,341–363 (2021) 20 A

Dragomir, R.A., d’Aspremont, A., Bolte, J.: Quartic first-order methods for low- rankminimization. JournalofOptimizationTheory andApplications 189,341–363 (2021) 20 A. Vyguzov et al

2021
[10]

Naval re- search logistics quarterly3(1-2), 95–110 (1956)

Frank, M., Wolfe, P., et al.: An algorithm for quadratic programming. Naval re- search logistics quarterly3(1-2), 95–110 (1956)

1956
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01858 (2021)

Ghojogh, B., Ghodsi, A., Karray, F., Crowley, M.: Kkt conditions, first-order and second-order optimization, and distributed optimization: tutorial and survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01858 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[12]

Computational Optimization and Applications 79, 405–440 (2021)

Hanzely, F., Richtarik, P., Xiao, L.: Accelerated bregman proximal gradient meth- ods for relatively smooth convex optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications 79, 405–440 (2021)

2021
[13]

In: International conference on machine learning

Hendrikx, H., Xiao, L., Bubeck, S., Bach, F., Massoulie, L.: Statistically precondi- tioned accelerated gradient method for distributed optimization. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 4203–4227. PMLR (2020)

2020
[14]

USSR Computa- tional mathematics and mathematical physics6(5), 1–50 (1966)

Levitin, E.S., Polyak, B.T.: Constrained minimization methods. USSR Computa- tional mathematics and mathematical physics6(5), 1–50 (1966)

1966
[15]

SIAM Journal on Optimization28(1), 333–354 (2018)

Lu,H.,Freund,R.M.,Nesterov,Y.:Relativelysmoothconvexoptimizationbyfirst- order methods, and applications. SIAM Journal on Optimization28(1), 333–354 (2018)

2018
[16]

In: International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics

Pedregosa, F., Negiar, G., Askari, A., Jaggi, M.: Linearly convergent frank-wolfe with backtracking line-search. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics. pp. 1–10. PMLR (2020)

2020
[17]

In: Optimiza- tion and Applications: 12th International Conference, OPTIMA 2021, Petrovac, Montenegro, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings 12

Rogozin, A., Lukoshkin, V., Gasnikov, A., Kovalev, D., Shulgin, E.: Towards accel- erated rates for distributed optimization over time-varying networks. In: Optimiza- tion and Applications: 12th International Conference, OPTIMA 2021, Petrovac, Montenegro, September 27–October ...

2021
[18]

In: International conference on machine learning

Shamir, O., Srebro, N., Zhang, T.: Communication-efficient distributed optimiza- tion using an approximate newton-type method. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 1000–1008. PMLR (2014)

2014
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04330 (2025)

Takahashi, S., Pokutta, S., Takeda, A.: Fast frank–wolfe algorithms with adaptive bregman step-size for weakly convex functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04330 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[20]

In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

Tian, Y., Scutari, G., Cao, T., Gasnikov, A.: Acceleration in distributed optimiza- tion under similarity. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. pp. 5721–5756. PMLR (2022)

2022
[21]

Vyguzov, A., Stonyakin, F.: Adaptive variant of frank-wolfe method for rela- tive smooth convex optimization problems (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2405. 12948

2024
[22]

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 62(11), 5522–5537 (2017)

Wai, H.T., Lafond, J., Scaglione, A., Moulines, E.: Decentralized frank–wolfe al- gorithm for convex and nonconvex problems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 62(11), 5522–5537 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

Arjevani,Y.,Shamir,O.:Communicationcomplexityofdistributedconvexlearning and optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Mathematics of Operations Research 42(2), 330–348 (2017)

Bauschke, H.H., Bolte, J., Teboulle, M.: A descent lemma beyond lipschitz gra- dient continuity: first-order methods revisited and applications. Mathematics of Operations Research 42(2), 330–348 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

In: International Conference on Optimization and Applications

Beznosikov, A., Gasnikov, A.: Compression and data similarity: Combination of two techniques for communication-efficient solving of distributed variational in- equalities. In: International Conference on Optimization and Applications. pp. 151–162. Springer (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Similarity, Compression and Local Steps: Three Pillars of Efficient Communications for Distributed Variational Inequalities

Beznosikov, A., Takáč, M., Gasnikov, A.: Similarity, compression and local steps: three pillars of efficient communications for distributed variational inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07615 (2023)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

4OR19, 313–345 (2021)

Bomze, I.M., Rinaldi, F., Zeffiro, D.: Frank–wolfe and friends: a journey into projection-free first-order optimization methods. 4OR19, 313–345 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14103 (2022)

Braun, G., Carderera, A., Combettes, C.W., Hassani, H., Karbasi, A., Mokhtari, A., Pokutta, S.: Conditional gradient methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14103 (2022)

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Operations Research Letters49(4), 565–571 (2021)

Combettes, C.W., Pokutta, S.: Complexity of linear minimization and projection on some sets. Operations Research Letters49(4), 565–571 (2021)

2021

[8] [8]

The annals of statistics 19(4), 2032–2066 (1991)

Csiszar, I.: Why least squares and maximum entropy? an axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems. The annals of statistics 19(4), 2032–2066 (1991)

work page 1991