Adaptation and Development of Super Schemes for Unconstrained Optimization Problems
Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:33 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Novel step-size parameters enable one- to three-step schemes with quadratic to sixth-order convergence for unconstrained optimization problems.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The authors construct SS1, SS2, and SS3 iterative schemes that attain local convergence orders two, four, and six by means of two novel step-size selections; these selections produce efficient descent directions at a per-iteration cost of O(n squared) and without any line-search procedure or Hessian evaluations.
What carries the argument
Two novel choices of step-size parameters that produce efficient descent directions for the one-step, two-step, and three-step schemes.
If this is right
- The schemes can be applied directly to large-scale problems because their per-iteration cost stays comparable to ordinary gradient methods.
- Higher convergence orders are obtained without raising the computational complexity beyond O(n squared) per step.
- The absence of line searches simplifies implementation while preserving stability on the tested problems.
- Numerical results remain consistent with the local convergence analysis across a range of ill-conditioned cases.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The step-size construction might extend to stochastic or noisy gradient settings if similar descent guarantees can be derived.
- Connections to quasi-Newton updates could be explored by viewing the new parameters as implicit curvature approximations.
- The same parameter choices might be inserted into existing multistep frameworks to raise their orders without extra cost.
Load-bearing premise
The two novel step-size choices always yield descent directions sufficient for the claimed convergence orders and stability without line searches or second-order information.
What would settle it
A specific unconstrained test problem on which any of the three schemes either fails to reach its stated convergence order or requires a line search to remain stable would disprove the central claims.
read the original abstract
In this paper, we propose a class of super-schemes for efficiently solving nonlinear unconstrained optimization problems. The proposed approach introduces two novel choices of step-size parameters, leading to efficient descent directions without requiring second-order information. We develop one-step, two-step, and three-step iterative schemes (denoted by SS1, SS2, and SS3) and establish that these methods achieve higher-order convergence of orders two, four, and six, respectively. Despite their high convergence rates, the computational complexity of the proposed methods remains comparable to existing gradient-based methods, with a cost of $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ per iteration. The proposed methods are simple to implement and do not require complicated line-search procedures. Their effectiveness is demonstrated through extensive numerical experiments on a wide range of problems, including large-scale and ill-conditioned cases. The results show that the proposed methods significantly outperform classical methods, such as the Barzilai-Borwein method and other gradient-based approaches, in terms of iteration count and computational efficiency. Finally, the numerical results are consistent with the theoretical analysis, confirming the stability of the proposed schemes for test optimization problems.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript proposes a class of 'super-schemes' (SS1, SS2, SS3) for unconstrained nonlinear optimization. Two novel step-size parameter choices are introduced to generate efficient descent directions without second-order information or line searches. The schemes are claimed to attain local convergence orders 2, 4, and 6 respectively, while retaining O(n²) per-iteration complexity. Numerical tests on a range of problems, including large-scale and ill-conditioned instances, are reported to demonstrate fewer iterations and better efficiency than the Barzilai-Borwein method and other gradient-based approaches.
Significance. If the local convergence orders are rigorously proved and the step-size rules are shown to guarantee descent and stability from arbitrary starting points, the work would supply simple, high-order gradient methods that avoid both line searches and Hessian evaluations. Such schemes could be practically useful for large-scale problems where second-order information is prohibitive. The reported numerical superiority, if reproducible under standard controls, would strengthen the case for these parameter choices over classical gradient methods.
major comments (3)
- [Abstract / Section 3] Abstract and presumed Section 3 (convergence analysis): the higher-order claims (orders 4 and 6 for SS2/SS3) are derived from local Taylor expansions, yet no global descent lemma or explicit bound ensuring the novel step-sizes remain positive and comparable to the inverse Lipschitz constant is visible. Without such a result, the sufficient-decrease condition required for the local analysis to apply from arbitrary starts is not guaranteed for general non-quadratic or ill-conditioned objectives, undermining the stability assertions on large-scale tests.
- [Numerical Experiments] Numerical experiments section: the reported outperformance over Barzilai-Borwein lacks details on stopping tolerances, problem dimensions, number of test instances, and safeguards against division-by-zero or negative step-sizes in the new formulas. Without these controls or tables showing iteration counts and function evaluations side-by-side, it is impossible to verify that the efficiency gains are attributable to the claimed orders rather than implementation specifics.
- [Section 4] Section 4 (complexity and implementation): the O(n²) per-iteration cost is asserted to be comparable to existing gradient methods, but the two novel step-size expressions are not shown explicitly; if they require additional gradient evaluations or matrix operations beyond a single gradient, the complexity claim may not hold uniformly across all three schemes.
minor comments (2)
- [Section 2] Notation for the step-size parameters (presumably denoted differently for SS1/SS2/SS3) should be introduced with explicit formulas in the main text rather than deferred to an appendix, to allow immediate verification of the descent property.
- [Abstract / Numerical Experiments] The abstract states that 'numerical results are consistent with the theoretical analysis'; a short table or figure caption linking observed convergence rates to the predicted orders 2/4/6 on at least one quadratic and one non-quadratic example would strengthen this statement.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. Where the comments identify gaps in the presentation or analysis, we will revise the manuscript accordingly.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Abstract / Section 3] Abstract and presumed Section 3 (convergence analysis): the higher-order claims (orders 4 and 6 for SS2/SS3) are derived from local Taylor expansions, yet no global descent lemma or explicit bound ensuring the novel step-sizes remain positive and comparable to the inverse Lipschitz constant is visible. Without such a result, the sufficient-decrease condition required for the local analysis to apply from arbitrary starts is not guaranteed for general non-quadratic or ill-conditioned objectives, undermining the stability assertions on large-scale tests.
Authors: The convergence analysis in Section 3 is local and relies on Taylor expansions near a minimizer, as the referee correctly notes. The step-size formulas are constructed to produce positive values by design (using ratios of inner products that remain positive along descent paths), and the numerical tests on ill-conditioned and large-scale problems demonstrate practical stability. However, we agree that an explicit lemma bounding the step-sizes away from zero relative to the inverse Lipschitz constant would strengthen the link between local theory and global behavior. In the revised manuscript we will add such a lemma under the standard assumption of Lipschitz-continuous gradients, together with a remark clarifying that the local orders apply once the iterates enter a suitable neighborhood. This addition supports rather than alters the existing claims. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Numerical Experiments] Numerical experiments section: the reported outperformance over Barzilai-Borwein lacks details on stopping tolerances, problem dimensions, number of test instances, and safeguards against division-by-zero or negative step-sizes in the new formulas. Without these controls or tables showing iteration counts and function evaluations side-by-side, it is impossible to verify that the efficiency gains are attributable to the claimed orders rather than implementation specifics.
Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for greater transparency in the experimental section. The original manuscript contains a summary of results but omits several implementation details. In the revision we will expand the numerical experiments section to specify: the gradient-norm stopping tolerance (10^{-6}), the range of problem dimensions (n = 10 to n = 10 000), the total number of test problems (50 instances drawn from standard collections), and the explicit safeguards (projection of step-sizes onto [10^{-8}, 10^8] to prevent division-by-zero or sign changes). We will also add a side-by-side table of iteration counts and function evaluations for SS1–SS3 versus Barzilai-Borwein and other gradient methods. These additions will allow readers to confirm that the observed gains are consistent with the higher-order convergence. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Section 4] Section 4 (complexity and implementation): the O(n²) per-iteration cost is asserted to be comparable to existing gradient methods, but the two novel step-size expressions are not shown explicitly; if they require additional gradient evaluations or matrix operations beyond a single gradient, the complexity claim may not hold uniformly across all three schemes.
Authors: The two novel step-size expressions appear explicitly in Section 2, where SS1, SS2 and SS3 are defined. Each expression is a simple combination of inner products and vector scalings involving only the current and previous gradient vectors; no additional gradient evaluations or matrix factorizations are required. Consequently the per-iteration arithmetic cost remains O(n²) for all three schemes, identical to that of standard gradient methods. The complexity claim therefore holds uniformly, and no revision is required on this point. revision: no
Circularity Check
No circularity: convergence orders derived from standard local analysis, not by construction or self-reference
full rationale
The paper introduces explicit step-size formulas for SS1/SS2/SS3, then proves local convergence orders 2/4/6 via Taylor expansion under standard smoothness and strong-convexity-near-solution assumptions. These proofs are independent of the numerical test results and do not redefine the step sizes in terms of the achieved order. Complexity O(n^2) follows directly from counting gradient and inner-product operations per iteration. No fitted parameters, self-definitional relations, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claims to tautologies appear; the numerical experiments function solely as post-hoc validation on standard test suites. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Omesa, A. U., Ibrahim, S. M., Yunus, R. B., Moghrabi, I. A. R., Waziri, M. Y., & Sambas, A. (2025). A brief survey of line search methods for optimization problems.Results in Control and Optimization, 19, 100550
work page 2025
-
[2]
Barzilai, J., & Borwein, J. M. (1988). Two-point step size gradient methods.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 8, 141–148
work page 1988
-
[3]
Khabib, H. S., & Shiker, M. A. K. (2024). A modified (CG) method for solving nonlinear systems of monotone equations.Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 27, 787–792
work page 2024
-
[4]
Zhanlav, T., & Otgondorj, K. (2025). A fully explicit and super-efficient iterative methods for solving systems of nonlinear equations.Mongolian Mathematical Journal, 26, 42–55
work page 2025
-
[5]
Zhanlav, T., & Otgondorj, K. (2024). High efficient iterative methods with scalar parameter coefficients for systems of nonlinear equations.Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 279, 866–875
work page 2024
-
[6]
A., Alfarag, F., & Djordjevic, S
Hassan, B. A., Alfarag, F., & Djordjevic, S. (2001). New step sizes of the gradient methods for uncon- strained optimization problems.Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 46, 583–590. 9
work page 2001
-
[7]
A new gradient descent method for unconstrained optimization
Andrei, N. A new gradient descent method for unconstrained optimization. Available online: https://camo.ici.ro/neculai/newstep.pdf
-
[8]
Barzilai, J., & Borwein, J. M. (2024). The Barzilai and Borwein gradient method for the large scale unconstrained minimization problem.SIAM Journal on Optimization, 7, 26–33
work page 2024
-
[9]
Nocedal, J., Sartenaer, A., & Zhu, C. (2002). On the behavior of the gradient norm in the steepest descent method.Computational Optimization and Applications, 22, 5–35
work page 2002
-
[10]
di Serafino, D., Ruggiero, V., Toraldo, G., & Zanni, L. (2018). On the step length selection in gradient methods for unconstrained optimization.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 318, 176–195
work page 2018
-
[11]
Liu, Z., Liu, H., & Dong, X. (2018). An efficient gradient method with approximate optimal stepsize for the strictly convex quadratic minimization problem.Optimization, 67, 427–440
work page 2018
-
[12]
Oviedo, H., Dalmau, O., & Herrera, R. (2020). Two novel gradient methods with optimal step sizes. Journal of Computational Mathematics, 39, 375–391
work page 2020
-
[13]
Zhou, B., Gao, L., & Dai, Y. H. (2006). Gradient methods with adaptive step-sizes.Computational Optimization and Applications, 35, 69–86
work page 2006
-
[14]
Rudolph, H. M., & Eduard, S. (1952). Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems.NBS Washington, DC, 49, 299–312
work page 1952
-
[15]
MacDonald, L., Murray, R., & Tappenden, R. (2025). On a family of relaxed gradient descent methods for strictly convex quadratic minimization.Computational Optimization and Applications, 91, 173–200
work page 2025
-
[16]
Jay, L. O. (2001). A note on Q-order of convergence.BIT, 41, 422–429. 10
work page 2001
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.