pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.27645 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-31 · 🧮 math.OC

Convergence Analysis of Distributed Optimization: A Dissipativity Framework

Aron Karakai , Jaap Eising , Andrea Martinelli , Florian D\"orfler This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 02:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords distributed optimizationconvergence analysisdissipativitycontraction theorylinear matrix inequalitiesnetworked systemsdynamical systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Distributed optimization algorithms with split costs converge when their network dynamics satisfy dissipativity conditions checked by LMIs.

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

The paper develops a way to prove convergence for distributed optimization methods whose total cost splits across separate nodes. It treats each part of the algorithm as a dynamical system linked to others over a network and applies incremental dissipativity plus contraction ideas from control theory to test when the whole collection settles to the solution. This matters for large problems such as power dispatch or sensor fusion where hand-crafted proofs become impractical once the communication graph changes. The method produces a reusable sequence of steps that ends in linear matrix inequalities usable on any fixed network shape. The authors also run a side-by-side check against older analysis techniques on distributed gradient descent.

Core claim

Distributed optimization algorithms whose cost functions decompose across agents can be represented as a network of interacting dynamical systems; their convergence to the global optimum is then certified by incremental dissipativity and contraction properties that translate into linear matrix inequalities valid for arbitrary interconnection graphs.

What carries the argument

Incremental dissipativity of the closed-loop network of dynamical systems that represent the distributed algorithm steps, used to obtain contraction and hence convergence.

If this is right

  • Convergence certificates become available for any fixed network topology without deriving new proofs from scratch.
  • All stability conditions reduce to linear matrix inequalities that standard solvers can check numerically.
  • The same pipeline applies to algorithms beyond gradient descent once they are cast in dynamical form.
  • Numerical comparisons become possible between the new dissipativity tests and classical Lyapunov or eigenvalue methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same modeling step could be used to incorporate communication delays by adding extra states to the dynamical description.
  • Designers might tune algorithm parameters by optimizing the LMI feasibility margins rather than relying on manual step-size selection.
  • The framework naturally extends to time-varying graphs if the dissipativity conditions are required to hold uniformly over a family of interconnection matrices.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm steps can be modeled exactly as a network of dynamical systems whose incremental dissipativity properties directly determine convergence.

What would settle it

An explicit distributed gradient algorithm on a decomposable quadratic cost that meets all derived LMIs yet fails to reach the known optimum on a simple connected graph.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.27645 by Andrea Martinelli, Aron Karakai, Florian D\"orfler, Jaap Eising.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Block diagram of a distributed optimization algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Communication graph used in the example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Grid search over ρ and η, with µ = 0.05 and K = 1, using the communication graph in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Grid search over ρi and ηi , as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average logarithmic error with 1000 uniformly ran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a system-theoretic framework for the structured analysis of distributed optimization algorithms with decomposable cost functions. We model such algorithms as a network of interacting dynamical systems and derive tests for convergence based on incremental dissipativity and contraction theory. This approach yields a step-by-step analysis pipeline suitable for any network structure, with conditions expressed as linear matrix inequalities. In addition, a numerical comparison with traditional analysis methods is presented, in the context of distributed gradient descent.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a system-theoretic framework for the structured analysis of distributed optimization algorithms with decomposable cost functions. It models such algorithms as a network of interacting dynamical systems whose local dynamics are defined from the individual cost functions and whose interconnection is given by a standard Laplacian-based communication graph. Convergence tests are derived from incremental dissipativity and contraction theory, yielding a step-by-step analysis pipeline whose conditions are expressed as linear matrix inequalities applicable to arbitrary network structures. A numerical example for distributed gradient descent is included that recovers the expected convergence behavior and compares rates directly with classical Lyapunov analysis.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a modular, composable analysis pipeline that unifies convergence analysis across network topologies by composing locally verified incremental dissipativity conditions into a global LMI. Explicit strengths are the faithful modeling of each agent's dynamics directly from its cost function, the Laplacian interconnection without additional unstated assumptions, the local verification of supply rates, and the reproducible numerical comparison that recovers classical rates. These features make the framework a practical tool for structured analysis beyond ad-hoc Lyapunov constructions.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (Modeling): the precise definition of the local supply rate for each agent's dynamics should be stated explicitly with the chosen quadratic form before the composition step, to make the subsequent LMI derivation fully self-contained.
  2. [Numerical Example] Numerical Example: the reported convergence rates for the dissipativity-based test versus the classical Lyapunov bound would benefit from a side-by-side table of numerical values (e.g., contraction factors or iteration counts to a given tolerance) rather than qualitative statements.
  3. The paper would be strengthened by a brief remark on how the LMI feasibility test scales with network size, even if only as a complexity observation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our work, which correctly identifies the core contributions of the dissipativity-based framework, the Laplacian interconnection, local supply-rate verification, and the numerical comparison with classical Lyapunov methods. We appreciate the recommendation for minor revision and will incorporate any editorial improvements in the revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper models distributed optimization algorithms explicitly as networks of dynamical systems with local dynamics derived directly from the decomposable cost functions and standard Laplacian-based interconnections from the communication graph. Incremental dissipativity properties are verified locally for chosen supply rates, and the global convergence test is obtained by composing these via the network structure into an LMI without reducing to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or unverified self-citations. The numerical comparison with classical Lyapunov analysis for distributed gradient descent recovers expected rates independently. The approach relies on established dissipativity and contraction theory from the control literature as external support rather than any load-bearing self-referential step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are stated beyond the core modeling assumption.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Distributed optimization algorithms with decomposable cost functions can be modeled as networks of interacting dynamical systems.
    Directly stated in the abstract as the starting point for applying dissipativity and contraction theory.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1231 out tokens · 27304 ms · 2026-05-18T02:50:03.927409+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Toward a systems theory of algorithms,

    F. D ¨orfler, Z. He, G. Belgioioso, S. Bolognani, J. Lygeros, and M. Muehlebach, “Toward a systems theory of algorithms,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, p. 1198–1210, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    J. B. Rawlings,Model predictive control. Nob Hill Pub, Jan. 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Online optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking,

    M. Colombino, E. Dall’Anese, and A. Bernstein, “Online optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 422–432, Mar. 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Opti- mization algorithms as robust feedback controllers,

    A. Hauswirth, Z. He, S. Bolognani, G. Hug, and F. D ¨orfler, “Opti- mization algorithms as robust feedback controllers,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 57, p. 100941, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A survey of distributed optimization and control algorithms for electric power systems,

    D. K. Molzahn, F. Dorfler, H. Sandberg, S. H. Low, S. Chakrabarti, R. Baldick, and J. Lavaei, “A survey of distributed optimization and control algorithms for electric power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 2941–2962, Nov. 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Distributed optimization in sensor net- works,

    M. Rabbat and R. Nowak, “Distributed optimization in sensor net- works,” inThird International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2004. IPSN 2004, 2004, pp. 20–27

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 50–60, May 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    A survey of distributed optimization,

    T. Yang, X. Yi, J. Wu, Y . Yuan, D. Wu, Z. Meng, Y . Hong, H. Wang, Z. Lin, and K. H. Johansson, “A survey of distributed optimization,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 47, p. 278–305, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    A unifying system theory framework for distributed optimization and games,

    G. Carnevale, N. Mimmo, and G. Notarstefano, “A unifying system theory framework for distributed optimization and games,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025, to appear

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Dissipative dynamical systems part I: General theory,

    J. C. Willems, “Dissipative dynamical systems part I: General theory,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, vol. 45, no. 5, p. 321–351, 1972

    work page 1972

  11. [11]

    Dissipative dynamical systems part II: Linear systems with quadratic supply rates,

    ——, “Dissipative dynamical systems part II: Linear systems with quadratic supply rates,”Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, vol. 45, no. 5, p. 352–393, 1972

    work page 1972

  12. [12]

    The analysis of optimization algorithms, a dissipativity approach,

    L. Lessard, “The analysis of optimization algorithms, a dissipativity approach,”IEEE Control Systems, vol. 42, no. 3, p. 58–72, Jun. 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    On the theory of stability of control systems,

    A. I. Lur’e and V . N. Postnikov, “On the theory of stability of control systems,”Applied mathematics and mechanics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 246– 248, 1944

    work page 1944

  14. [14]

    Convex synthesis of accelerated gradi- ent algorithms,

    C. Scherer and C. Ebenbauer, “Convex synthesis of accelerated gradi- ent algorithms,”SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 4615–4645, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    On analysis of open optimization algorithms,

    J. Eising and F. D ¨orfler, “On analysis of open optimization algorithms,” 2024, arXiv:2411.18219

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Arcak, C

    M. Arcak, C. Meissen, and A. Packard,Networks of Dissipative Systems, ser. SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering. Springer International Publishing, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    van der Schaft,L2-Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control, ser

    A. van der Schaft,L2-Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control, ser. Communications and Control Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-49992-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49992-5 2017

  18. [18]

    Passivity-based decen- tralized control for discrete-time large-scale systems,

    A. Aboudonia, A. Martinelli, and J. Lygeros, “Passivity-based decen- tralized control for discrete-time large-scale systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, p. 2072–2077, Dec. 2021

    work page 2072

  19. [19]

    Interconnection of (Q, S, R)-dissipative systems in discrete time,

    A. Martinelli, A. Aboudonia, and J. Lygeros, “In- terconnection of(q, s, r)-dissipative systems in dis- crete time,” 2024, arXiv:2311.08088. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08088

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Dissipativity-based data-driven decentralized control of interconnected systems,

    T. Nakano, A. Aboudonia, J. Eising, A. Martinelli, F. D ¨orfler, and J. Lygeros, “Dissipativity-based data-driven decentralized control of interconnected systems,” 2025, arXiv:2509.14047

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    On the incremental form of dissipativity,

    R. Sepulchre, T. Chaffey, and F. Forni, “On the incremental form of dissipativity,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 55, no. 30, p. 290–294, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Bullo,Contraction theory for dynamical systems

    F. Bullo,Contraction theory for dynamical systems. Santa Barbara, CA: Kindle Direct Publishing, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    On the convergence of decentralized gradient descent,

    K. Yuan, Q. Ling, and W. Yin, “On the convergence of decentralized gradient descent,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 1835–1854, Jan. 2016

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    EXTRA: An exact first-order algorithm for decentralized consensus optimization,

    W. Shi, Q. Ling, G. Wu, and W. Yin, “EXTRA: An exact first-order algorithm for decentralized consensus optimization,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 944–966, 2015

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes,Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, ser. CMS Books in Mathematics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-48311-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48311-5 2017

  26. [26]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0,

    CVX Research, Inc., “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0,” https://cvxr.com/cvx, Aug. 2012

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, “Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,” inRecent Advances in Learning and Control, ser. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, V . Blondel, S. Boyd, and H. Kimura, Eds. Springer-Verlag Limited, 2008, pp. 95–110

    work page 2008