pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10373 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-11 · 🧮 math.OC · cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Shuffling the Data, Stretching the Step-size: Sharper Bias in constant step-size SGD

Konstantinos Emmanouilidis , Emmanouil-Vasileios Vlatakis-Gkaragkounis , Rene Vidal
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC cs.LG
keywords random reshufflingRichardson-Romberg extrapolationconstant step-size SGDvariational inequalitiesbias reductionmean squared errormin-max optimizationstochastic gradient methods
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining random reshuffling with Richardson-Romberg extrapolation in constant-step SGD produces a cubic-order bias reduction while preserving the improved mean-squared error from shuffling alone.

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

The paper establishes that for finite-sum min-max problems and structured non-monotone variational inequalities, applying random reshuffling to the data and then performing Richardson-Romberg extrapolation on the iterates yields strictly better asymptotic behavior than either technique used separately. Reshuffling improves the mean-squared error of the solution estimate through its effect on the noise, while extrapolation reduces bias; their composition maintains the MSE gain and further refines the bias from quadratic to cubic order. The proof proceeds by smoothing the discrete reshuffling noise via continuous-state Markov chain theory to obtain a law of large numbers and central limit theorem, then applying spectral tensor analysis to show that extrapolation debiases the iterates even under the reshuffled gradient oracle. A reader would care because constant-step stochastic methods are simple and scalable yet converge only up to a bias term; this synergy offers a practical way to sharpen convergence without changing the step size or adding complexity.

Core claim

In structured non-monotone variational inequalities, the composition of random reshuffling and Richardson-Romberg extrapolation applied to constant step-size stochastic gradient descent achieves a cubic refinement in bias while maintaining the enhanced mean-squared error guarantees of reshuffling. The analysis first smooths the discrete noise induced by reshuffling using continuous-state Markov chain tools to derive a law of large numbers and central limit theorem for the iterates, then employs spectral tensor techniques to prove that extrapolation further debiases and sharpens the asymptotic expansion even under the biased gradient oracle from reshuffling.

What carries the argument

The composition of random reshuffling (which smooths discrete noise via Markov chain analysis) and Richardson-Romberg extrapolation (which debiases via spectral tensor methods) applied to the iterates of constant step-size SGD.

Load-bearing premise

The problems belong to the class of structured non-monotone variational inequalities for which the discrete noise from reshuffling admits a continuous-state Markov chain smoothing that produces the stated law of large numbers and central limit theorem.

What would settle it

A numerical counter-example on a structured non-monotone VIP where the combined method fails to exhibit cubic bias reduction or loses the mean-squared error improvement shown by reshuffling alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10373 by Emmanouil-Vasileios Vlatakis-Gkaragkounis, Konstantinos Emmanouilidis, Rene Vidal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of SGD-RR2⊕RR1 (Algorithm 1). Two synchronized runs—Run A (blue, step γ) and Run B (orange, step 2γ)—share the same random permutation ωk at each epoch, producing epoch-end iterates x [γ] k and x [2γ] k . The RR2 outer loop combines them as xˆk = 2x [γ] k −x [2γ] k , canceling the leading O(γ) bias term. The resulting asymptotic bias is O(γ 3 ), a strict cubic improvement over either heuristic alo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A simple example satisfying As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of different heuristics. The combination of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation of concentration around the mean and effect of the number of iterations and step sized selected. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependency graph of Appendix results. Solid lines: main logical flow. Dashed lines: auxiliary inputs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative Error of the different variants of SGDA. Each row corresponds to a strongly monotone problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Wasserstein GAN trained with different heuristics on top of a base algorithm. For all base algorithms, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean and standard deviation of each heuristic over 5 trials. The combination of both heuristics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

From adversarial robustness to multi-agent learning, many machine learning tasks can be cast as finite-sum min-max optimization or, more generally, as variational inequality problems (VIPs). Owing to their simplicity and scalability, stochastic gradient methods with constant step size are widely used, despite the fact that they converge only up to a constant term. Among the many heuristics adopted in practice, two classical techniques have recently attracted attention to mitigate this issue: \emph{Random Reshuffling} of data and \emph{Richardson--Romberg extrapolation} across iterates. Random Reshuffling sharpens the mean-squared error (MSE) of the estimated solution, while Richardson-Romberg extrapolation acts orthogonally, providing a second-order reduction in its bias. In this work, we show that their composition is strictly better than both, not only maintaining the enhanced MSE guarantees but also yielding an even greater cubic refinement in the bias. To the best of our knowledge, our work provides the first theoretical guarantees for such a synergy in structured non-monotone VIPs. Our analysis proceeds in two steps: (i) we smooth the discrete noise induced by reshuffling and leverage tools from continuous-state Markov chain theory to establish a novel law of large numbers and a central limit theorem for its iterates; and (ii) we employ spectral tensor techniques to prove that extrapolation debiases and sharpens the asymptotic behavior even under the biased gradient oracle induced by reshuffling. Finally, extensive experiments validate our theory, consistently demonstrating substantial speedups in practice.

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 paper claims that composing random reshuffling of data with Richardson-Romberg extrapolation on constant step-size iterates yields strictly better performance than either technique alone for structured non-monotone variational inequality problems: it preserves the improved MSE from reshuffling while achieving an additional cubic-order bias refinement. The analysis proceeds in two steps—smoothing the discrete reshuffling noise into a continuous-state Markov chain to obtain a law of large numbers and central limit theorem, then applying spectral-tensor arguments to show that extrapolation debiases the resulting asymptotic expansion even under the biased reshuffled oracle—followed by experimental validation.

Significance. If the two-step argument is sound, the result would be a meaningful advance by supplying the first rigorous guarantees for the synergy of these heuristics in the non-monotone VIP setting, where standard monotonicity-based ergodicity arguments do not apply. The use of continuous-state Markov-chain tools for the reshuffling noise and spectral tensors for the bias expansion constitutes a technically interesting approach that could be reusable; the experimental section, if it reports concrete speed-ups on representative min-max problems, would further strengthen the practical relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (two-step proof strategy) and the Markov-chain analysis section] The headline cubic-refinement claim rests on the Markov-chain step producing a CLT whose asymptotic expansion is sufficiently regular for the spectral-tensor extrapolation to remove the cubic term. The abstract states only that the problems are “structured non-monotone VIPs,” yet provides no explicit Lyapunov function, uniform spectral gap, or mixing-rate bound that survives the lack of monotonicity. Without such a condition the CLT may hold only in a weaker topology, rendering the cubic term ill-defined or non-removable by extrapolation. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Spectral-tensor debiasing section] The spectral-tensor argument in the second step assumes the bias expansion obtained from the reshuffled Markov chain is valid up to order three. If the mixing conditions required for that expansion are not verified under the stated “structured” assumption, the claimed cubic debiasing does not follow. A concrete counter-example or additional hypothesis that guarantees the required regularity should be supplied.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Experimental section] The abstract mentions “extensive experiments” but supplies no information on the concrete VIP instances, dimension, step-size schedules, or quantitative metrics (e.g., bias vs. iteration plots). Adding a table or figure with explicit MSE and bias values for the three methods (plain SGD, RR, RR+RRom) would make the validation reproducible.
  2. [Introduction / Preliminaries] The precise definition of “structured non-monotone VIP” (e.g., the form of the operator and the noise model) should be stated in the introduction or preliminaries rather than deferred, as it is the only assumption used to justify the Markov-chain smoothing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the two major comments below, clarifying the role of the structured assumption in guaranteeing the required regularity and indicating the revisions we will make to improve transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (two-step proof strategy) and the Markov-chain analysis section] The headline cubic-refinement claim rests on the Markov-chain step producing a CLT whose asymptotic expansion is sufficiently regular for the spectral-tensor extrapolation to remove the cubic term. The abstract states only that the problems are “structured non-monotone VIPs,” yet provides no explicit Lyapunov function, uniform spectral gap, or mixing-rate bound that survives the lack of monotonicity. Without such a condition the CLT may hold only in a weaker topology, rendering the cubic term ill-defined or non-removable by extrapolation. This is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the regularity of the CLT is essential for the subsequent cubic debiasing. The structured assumption (Assumption 2.3) is designed to ensure the existence of a Lyapunov function and uniform spectral gap for the reshuffled continuous-state Markov chain, even without monotonicity; this is used to derive the mixing-rate bound in Lemma 3.2 and the CLT in Theorem 3.3. To make the dependence explicit, we will revise the abstract and add a short remark after Assumption 2.3 that directly links the structure to the Lyapunov function and spectral gap employed in the Markov-chain analysis. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Spectral-tensor debiasing section] The spectral-tensor argument in the second step assumes the bias expansion obtained from the reshuffled Markov chain is valid up to order three. If the mixing conditions required for that expansion are not verified under the stated “structured” assumption, the claimed cubic debiasing does not follow. A concrete counter-example or additional hypothesis that guarantees the required regularity should be supplied.

    Authors: The bias expansion up to cubic order is obtained from the CLT under the structured assumption, which supplies the higher-moment bounds and regularity needed for the spectral-tensor argument (Theorem 4.1). We do not provide a counter-example because the structured non-monotone setting is chosen precisely to satisfy these conditions. We will add a brief paragraph in Section 4 that verifies the mixing conditions under Assumption 2.3 and explains why they suffice for the order-three expansion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation applies external Markov-chain and spectral tools

full rationale

The paper derives its LLN/CLT for reshuffled iterates by smoothing discrete noise into a continuous-state Markov chain and then applies spectral-tensor analysis to obtain the cubic bias refinement under Richardson-Romberg extrapolation. These steps invoke standard external theory (Markov-chain ergodic theorems, central-limit results, and tensor-based asymptotic expansions) rather than re-deriving any quantity from a fitted parameter, self-defined ansatz, or self-citation chain. No equation or claim in the provided abstract reduces by construction to its own inputs; the central synergy result therefore rests on independent analytic content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are specified in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5595 in / 1139 out tokens · 42107 ms · 2026-05-10T15:09:58.799345+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

147 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On a perturbation approach for the analysis of stochastic tracking algorithms

    Rafik Aguech, Eric Moulines, and Pierre Priouret. On a perturbation approach for the analysis of stochastic tracking algorithms. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 39 0 (3): 0 872--899, 2000

    2000

  2. [2]

    Sgd with shuffling: optimal rates without component convexity and large epoch requirements

    Kwangjun Ahn, Chulhee Yun, and Suvrit Sra. Sgd with shuffling: optimal rates without component convexity and large epoch requirements. In NeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Computing the bias of constant-step stochastic approximation with markovian noise

    Sebastian Allmeier and Nicolas Gast. Computing the bias of constant-step stochastic approximation with markovian noise. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 137873--137902, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Adagrad avoids saddle points

    Kimon Antonakopoulos, Panayotis Mertikopoulos, Georgios Piliouras, and Xiao Wang. Adagrad avoids saddle points. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 731--771. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Wasserstein generative adversarial networks

    Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and L \'e on Bottou. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In ICML, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    What is the long-run distribution of stochastic gradient descent? a large deviations analysis

    Wa \" ss Azizian, Franck Iutzeler, J \'e r \^o me Malick, and Panayotis Mertikopoulos. What is the long-run distribution of stochastic gradient descent? a large deviations analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09241, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    The law of the euler scheme for stochastic differential equations: I

    Vlad Bally and Denis Talay. The law of the euler scheme for stochastic differential equations: I. convergence rate of the distribution function. Probability theory and related fields, 104 0 (1): 0 43--60, 1996

    1996

  8. [8]

    Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in hilbert spaces, 2011 springer

    HH Bauschke and PL Combettes. Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in hilbert spaces, 2011 springer. New York, 2017

    2011

  9. [9]

    A dynamical system approach to stochastic approximations

    Michel Benaim. A dynamical system approach to stochastic approximations. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 34 0 (2): 0 437--472, 1996

    1996

  10. [10]

    Dynamics of stochastic approximation algorithms

    Michel Bena \" m. Dynamics of stochastic approximation algorithms. In Seminaire de probabilites XXXIII, pp.\ 1--68. Springer, 2006

    2006

  11. [11]

    Dynamics of morse-smale urn processes

    Michel Bena \" m and Morris W Hirsch. Dynamics of morse-smale urn processes. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 15 0 (6): 0 1005--1030, 1995

    1995

  12. [12]

    Practical Recommendations for Gradient-Based Training of Deep Architectures

    Yoshua Bengio. Practical Recommendations for Gradient-Based Training of Deep Architectures . Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, pp.\ 437–478, 2012. ISSN 1611-3349. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8_26

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8_26 2012

  13. [13]

    Bertsekas

    Dimitri P. Bertsekas. Incremental Gradient, Subgradient, and Proximal Methods for Convex Optimization: A Survey . In Suvrit Sra, Sebastan Nowozin, and Stephen J. Wright (eds.), Optimization for Machine Learning, chapter 4. The MIT Press, 2011. ISBN 9780262298773

    2011

  14. [14]

    Bertsekas and John N

    Dimitri P. Bertsekas and John N. Tsitsiklis. Gradient Convergence in Gradient methods with Errors . SIAM Journal on Optimization , 10 0 (3): 0 627--642, January 2000 a . doi:10.1137/s1052623497331063

    work page doi:10.1137/s1052623497331063 2000

  15. [15]

    Gradient convergence in gradient methods with errors

    Dimitri P Bertsekas and John N Tsitsiklis. Gradient convergence in gradient methods with errors. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 10 0 (3): 0 627--642, 2000 b

    2000

  16. [16]

    Curiously fast convergence of some stochastic gradient descent algorithms

    L\' e on Bottou. Curiously fast convergence of some stochastic gradient descent algorithms. Unpublished open problem offered to the attendance of the SLDS 2009 conference, 2009. URL http://leon.bottou.org/papers/bottou-slds-open-problem-2009

    2009

  17. [17]

    Stochastic gradient descent tricks

    L \'e on Bottou. Stochastic gradient descent tricks. In Neural Networks, 2012 a

    2012

  18. [18]

    Stochastic gradient descent tricks

    L \'e on Bottou. Stochastic gradient descent tricks. In Neural networks: tricks of the trade: second edition, pp.\ 421--436. Springer, 2012 b

    2012

  19. [19]

    Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning

    L \'e on Bottou, Frank E Curtis, and Jorge Nocedal. Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning. SIAM review, 60 0 (2): 0 223--311, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    Les algorithmes stochastiques contournent-ils les pieges? In Annales de l'IHP Probabilit \'e s et statistiques , volume 32, pp.\ 395--427, 1996

    Odile Brandi \`e re and Marie Duflo. Les algorithmes stochastiques contournent-ils les pieges? In Annales de l'IHP Probabilit \'e s et statistiques , volume 32, pp.\ 395--427, 1996

    1996

  21. [21]

    Sampling from a log-concave distribution with compact support with proximal langevin monte carlo

    Nicolas Brosse, Alain Durmus, \'E ric Moulines, and Marcelo Pereyra. Sampling from a log-concave distribution with compact support with proximal langevin monte carlo. In Conference on learning theory, pp.\ 319--342. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    Sampling from a log-concave distribution with projected langevin monte carlo

    S \'e bastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, and Joseph Lehec. Sampling from a log-concave distribution with projected langevin monte carlo. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 59 0 (4): 0 757--783, 2018

    2018

  23. [23]

    Robust multi-agent reinforcement learning via adversarial regularization: Theoretical foundation and stable algorithms

    Alexander Bukharin et al. Robust multi-agent reinforcement learning via adversarial regularization: Theoretical foundation and stable algorithms. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 36, pp.\ 68121--68133, 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Empirical risk minimization with shuffled sgd: A primal-dual perspective and improved bounds

    Xufeng Cai, Cheuk Yin Lin, and Jelena Diakonikolas. Empirical risk minimization with shuffled sgd: A primal-dual perspective and improved bounds. arXiv:2306.12498, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Convergence diagnostics for stochastic gradient descent with constant learning rate

    Jerry Chee and Panos Toulis. Convergence diagnostics for stochastic gradient descent with constant learning rate. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 1476--1485. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    Convergence rates in forward--backward splitting

    George HG Chen and R Tyrrell Rockafellar. Convergence rates in forward--backward splitting. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 7 0 (2): 0 421--444, 1997

    1997

  27. [27]

    Sharp convergence rates for Langevin dynamics in the nonconvex setting.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01648, 2018

    Xiang Cheng, Niladri S Chatterji, Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori, Peter L Bartlett, and Michael I Jordan. Sharp convergence rates for langevin dynamics in the nonconvex setting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01648, 2018 a

    work page arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Underdamped langevin mcmc: A non-asymptotic analysis

    Xiang Cheng, Niladri S Chatterji, Peter L Bartlett, and Michael I Jordan. Underdamped langevin mcmc: A non-asymptotic analysis. In Conference on learning theory, pp.\ 300--323. PMLR, 2018 b

    2018

  29. [29]

    SGDA with shuffling: faster convergence for nonconvex-p minimax optimization

    Hanseul Cho and Chulhee Yun. SGDA with shuffling: faster convergence for nonconvex-p minimax optimization. In ICLR, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Single-call stochastic extragradient methods for structured non-monotone variational inequalities: Improved analysis under weaker conditions

    Sayantan Choudhury, Eduard Gorbunov, and Nicolas Loizou. Single-call stochastic extragradient methods for structured non-monotone variational inequalities: Improved analysis under weaker conditions. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    On a stochastic approximation method

    Kai Lai Chung. On a stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pp.\ 463--483, 1954

    1954

  32. [32]

    Theoretical guarantees for approximate sampling from smooth and log-concave densities

    Arnak S Dalalyan. Theoretical guarantees for approximate sampling from smooth and log-concave densities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 79 0 (3): 0 651--676, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    User-friendly guarantees for the langevin monte carlo with inaccurate gradient

    Arnak S Dalalyan and Avetik Karagulyan. User-friendly guarantees for the langevin monte carlo with inaccurate gradient. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 129 0 (12): 0 5278--5311, 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    On sampling from a log-concave density using kinetic langevin diffusions

    Arnak S Dalalyan and Lionel Riou-Durand. On sampling from a log-concave density using kinetic langevin diffusions. 2020

    2020

  35. [35]

    Complementary pivot theory of

    George B Dantzig and RW Cottle. Complementary pivot theory of. mathematical programming. Mathematics of the decision sciences, part, 1: 0 115--136, 1968

    1968

  36. [36]

    Sampling without replacement leads to faster rates in finite-sum minimax optimization

    Aniket Das, Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, and Michael Muehlebach. Sampling without replacement leads to faster rates in finite-sum minimax optimization. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    Training gans with optimism

    Constantinos Daskalakis, Andrew Ilyas, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Haoyang Zeng. Training gans with optimism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00141, 2017

    work page arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    The complexity of constrained min-max optimization

    Constantinos Daskalakis, Stratis Skoulakis, and Manolis Zampetakis. The complexity of constrained min-max optimization. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp.\ 1466--1478, 2021

    2021

  39. [39]

    Bridging the gap between constant step size stochastic gradient descent and markov chains

    Aymeric Dieuleveut, Alain Durmus, and Francis Bach. Bridging the gap between constant step size stochastic gradient descent and markov chains. 2020

    2020

  40. [40]

    The Complexity of Finding Stationary Points with Stochastic Gradient Descent

    Yoel Drori and Ohad Shamir. The Complexity of Finding Stationary Points with Stochastic Gradient Descent . arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01845, 2019

    work page arXiv 1910

  41. [41]

    Gradient descent finds global minima of deep neural networks

    Simon Du, Jason Lee, Haochuan Li, Liwei Wang, and Xiyu Zhai. Gradient descent finds global minima of deep neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1675--1685. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  42. [42]

    Nonasymptotic convergence analysis for the unadjusted langevin algorithm

    Alain Durmus and Eric Moulines. Nonasymptotic convergence analysis for the unadjusted langevin algorithm. 2017

    2017

  43. [43]

    Stochastic gradient richardson-romberg markov chain monte carlo

    Alain Durmus, Umut Simsekli, Eric Moulines, Roland Badeau, and Ga \"e l Richard. Stochastic gradient richardson-romberg markov chain monte carlo. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  44. [44]

    Log-concave sampling: Metropolis-hastings algorithms are fast

    Raaz Dwivedi, Yuansi Chen, Martin J Wainwright, and Bin Yu. Log-concave sampling: Metropolis-hastings algorithms are fast. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20 0 (183): 0 1--42, 2019

    2019

  45. [45]

    Stochastic extragradient with random reshuffling: Improved convergence for variational inequalities

    Konstantinos Emmanouilidis, Ren \'e Vidal, and Nicolas Loizou. Stochastic extragradient with random reshuffling: Improved convergence for variational inequalities. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 3682--3690. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    On the convergence of langevin monte carlo: The interplay between tail growth and smoothness

    Murat A Erdogdu and Rasa Hosseinzadeh. On the convergence of langevin monte carlo: The interplay between tail growth and smoothness. In Conference on Learning Theory, pp.\ 1776--1822. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  47. [47]

    Global non-convex optimization with discretized diffusions

    Murat A Erdogdu, Lester Mackey, and Ohad Shamir. Global non-convex optimization with discretized diffusions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  48. [48]

    On asymptotic normality in stochastic approximation

    Vaclav Fabian. On asymptotic normality in stochastic approximation. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pp.\ 1327--1332, 1968

    1968

  49. [49]

    Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems

    Francisco Facchinei and Jong-Shi Pang. Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems. Springer, 2003

    2003

  50. [50]

    Online bootstrap confidence intervals for the stochastic gradient descent estimator

    Yixin Fang, Jinfeng Xu, and Lei Yang. Online bootstrap confidence intervals for the stochastic gradient descent estimator. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 19 0 (78): 0 1--21, 2018

    2018

  51. [51]

    Asymptotic behavior of a markovian stochastic algorithm with constant step

    Jean-Claude Fort and Gilles Pages. Asymptotic behavior of a markovian stochastic algorithm with constant step. SIAM journal on control and optimization, 37 0 (5): 0 1456--1482, 1999

    1999

  52. [52]

    On the convergence of policy gradient methods to nash equilibria in general stochastic games

    Angeliki Giannou, Kyriakos Lotidis, Panayotis Mertikopoulos, and Emmanouil-Vasileios Vlatakis-Gkaragkounis. On the convergence of policy gradient methods to nash equilibria in general stochastic games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 7128--7141, 2022

    2022

  53. [53]

    Ppad-complete pure approximate nash equilibria in lipschitz games

    Paul W Goldberg and Matthew Katzman. Ppad-complete pure approximate nash equilibria in lipschitz games. In International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pp.\ 169--186. Springer, 2022

    2022

  54. [54]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In NeurIPS, 2014

    2014

  55. [55]

    Extragradient method: O (1/k) last-iterate convergence for monotone variational inequalities and connections with cocoercivity

    Eduard Gorbunov, Nicolas Loizou, and Gauthier Gidel. Extragradient method: O (1/k) last-iterate convergence for monotone variational inequalities and connections with cocoercivity. In AISTATS, 2022 a

    2022

  56. [56]

    Last-iterate convergence of optimistic gradient method for monotone variational inequalities

    Eduard Gorbunov, Adrien Taylor, and Gauthier Gidel. Last-iterate convergence of optimistic gradient method for monotone variational inequalities. In NeurIPS, 2022 b

    2022

  57. [57]

    Sgd: General analysis and improved rates

    Robert Mansel Gower, Nicolas Loizou, Xun Qian, Alibek Sailanbayev, Egor Shulgin, and Peter Richtarik. Sgd: General analysis and improved rates. In AISTATS, 2019

    2019

  58. [58]

    A class of unconstrained minimization methods for neural network training

    Luigi Grippo. A class of unconstrained minimization methods for neural network training . Optimization Methods and Software, 4 0 (2): 0 135--150, January 1994. doi:10.1080/10556789408805583

    work page doi:10.1080/10556789408805583 1994

  59. [59]

    u rb\" u zbalaban, Asuman \

    Mert G\" u rb\" u zbalaban, Asuman \" O zda g lar, and Pablo A. Parrilo. Why random reshuffling beats stochastic gradient descent . Mathematical Programming, Oct 2019. ISSN 1436-4646. doi:10.1007/s10107-019-01440-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-019-01440-w 2019

  60. [60]

    Why random reshuffling beats stochastic gradient descent

    Mert G \"u rb \"u zbalaban, Asu Ozdaglar, and Pablo A Parrilo. Why random reshuffling beats stochastic gradient descent. Mathematical Programming, 186: 0 49--84, 2021

    2021

  61. [61]

    Nonconvex-nonconcave min-max optimization on riemannian manifolds

    Andi Han et al. Nonconvex-nonconcave min-max optimization on riemannian manifolds. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  62. [62]

    A gradient descent method for solving a system of nonlinear equations

    Wenrui Hao. A gradient descent method for solving a system of nonlinear equations. Applied Mathematics Letters, 112: 0 106739, 2021

    2021

  63. [63]

    Random Shuffling Beats SGD after Finite Epochs

    Jeff Haochen and Suvrit Sra. Random Shuffling Beats SGD after Finite Epochs . In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 2624--2633, Long Beach, California, USA, 09--15 Jun 2019. PMLR

    2019

  64. [64]

    Introduction to numerical analysis

    Francis Begnaud Hildebrand. Introduction to numerical analysis. Courier Corporation, 1987

    1987

  65. [65]

    The limits of min-max optimization algorithms: Convergence to spurious non-critical sets

    Ya-Ping Hsieh, Panayotis Mertikopoulos, and Volkan Cevher. The limits of min-max optimization algorithms: Convergence to spurious non-critical sets. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 4337--4348. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  66. [66]

    Riemannian stochastic optimization methods avoid strict saddle points

    Ya-Ping Hsieh, Mohammad Reza Karimi Jaghargh, Andreas Krause, and Panayotis Mertikopoulos. Riemannian stochastic optimization methods avoid strict saddle points. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 29580--29601, 2023

    2023

  67. [67]

    On the convergence of single-call stochastic extra-gradient methods

    Yu-Guan Hsieh, Franck Iutzeler, J \'e r \^o me Malick, and Panayotis Mertikopoulos. On the convergence of single-call stochastic extra-gradient methods. In NeurIPS, 2019

    2019

  68. [68]

    Bias and extrapolation in markovian linear stochastic approximation with constant stepsizes

    Dongyan Huo, Yudong Chen, and Qiaomin Xie. Bias and extrapolation in markovian linear stochastic approximation with constant stepsizes. In Abstract Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pp.\ 81--82, 2023

    2023

  69. [69]

    The linear complementarity problem, lemke algorithm, perturbation, and the complexity class ppad

    UC IEOR. The linear complementarity problem, lemke algorithm, perturbation, and the complexity class ppad. 2011

    2011

  70. [70]

    Chi Jin, Praneeth Netrapalli, and Michael I. Jordan. What is local optimality in nonconvex-nonconcave minimax optimization? In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), PMLR, 2020

    2020

  71. [71]

    The variational formulation of the fokker--planck equation

    Richard Jordan, David Kinderlehrer, and Felix Otto. The variational formulation of the fokker--planck equation. SIAM journal on mathematical analysis, 29 0 (1): 0 1--17, 1998

    1998

  72. [72]

    Stochastic estimation of the maximum of a regression function

    Jack Kiefer and Jacob Wolfowitz. Stochastic estimation of the maximum of a regression function. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pp.\ 462--466, 1952

    1952

  73. [73]

    Random perturbations of dynamical systems

    Yuri Kifer. Random perturbations of dynamical systems. Nonlinear Problems in Future Particle Accelerators, 189, 1988

    1988

  74. [74]

    Semi-implicit hybrid gradient methods with application to adversarial robustness

    Beomsu Kim and Junghoon Seo. Semi-implicit hybrid gradient methods with application to adversarial robustness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), PMLR, 2022

    2022

  75. [75]

    The extragradient method for finding saddle points and other problems

    Galina M Korpelevich. The extragradient method for finding saddle points and other problems. Matecon, 12: 0 747--756, 1976

    1976

  76. [76]

    Two-timescale linear stochastic approximation: Constant stepsizes go a long way

    Jeongyeol Kwon, Luke Dotson, Yudong Chen, and Qiaomin Xie. Two-timescale linear stochastic approximation: Constant stepsizes go a long way. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13067, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Recht-R\' e Noncommutative Arithmetic-Geometric Mean Conjecture is False

    Zehua Lai and Lek-Heng Lim. Recht-R\' e Noncommutative Arithmetic-Geometric Mean Conjecture is False . arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01510, 2020

    work page arXiv 2006

  78. [78]

    Stochastic runge-kutta accelerates langevin monte carlo and beyond

    Xuechen Li, Yi Wu, Lester Mackey, and Murat A Erdogdu. Stochastic runge-kutta accelerates langevin monte carlo and beyond. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  79. [79]

    Finite-time last-iterate convergence for multi-agent learning in games

    Tianyi Lin, Zhengyuan Zhou, Panayotis Mertikopoulos, and Michael Jordan. Finite-time last-iterate convergence for multi-agent learning in games. In ICML, 2020

    2020

  80. [80]

    Aiming towards the minimizers: fast convergence of sgd for overparametrized problems

    Chaoyue Liu, Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, Misha Belkin, Damek Davis, and Yian Ma. Aiming towards the minimizers: fast convergence of sgd for overparametrized problems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 0 60748--60767, 2023

    2023

Showing first 80 references.