arxiv: 2605.00711 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🧮 math.OC

Recognition: unknown

A Line-search-free Method for Adaptive Decentralized Optimization

Xiaokai Chen , Ilya Kuruzov , Gesualdo Scutari

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC

keywords decentralized optimizationadaptive algorithmsline search freeLyapunov functionconvergence analysissmooth convex optimizationdistributed networks

0 comments

The pith

Each agent adapts its stepsize locally using past gradients without line searches or global tuning in decentralized optimization.

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

Decentralized optimization involves agents minimizing a sum of local smooth convex losses while communicating only with neighbors. Existing methods either require centralized knowledge for stepsize selection or use expensive line-searches. The paper proposes algorithms where each agent chooses its stepsize adaptively from local past iterates and gradients alone. This is enabled by a new Lyapunov function providing a local curvature estimate for descent. The methods achieve sublinear convergence for convex cases and linear convergence for strongly convex cases, with better practical performance.

Core claim

The authors present line-search-free fully decentralized algorithms for smooth (strongly) convex optimization over networks. Each agent adapts its stepsize to the largest value guaranteeing descent based on a local curvature estimate constructed from successive gradients, derived from a novel Lyapunov function. This yields sublinear convergence rates for convex objectives and linear rates under strong convexity without any extra function evaluations or global parameter tuning.

What carries the argument

The new Lyapunov function, which supplies a sufficient local curvature estimate from successive gradients to support the adaptive stepsize selection that ensures descent.

If this is right

No centralized knowledge of problem parameters is needed for stepsize tuning.
No per-iteration line-searches or extra function evaluations are required.
Sublinear convergence holds for merely convex smooth objectives.
Linear convergence is achieved under strong convexity.
Numerical experiments demonstrate consistent improvements over state-of-the-art methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The local adaptation rule may allow the method to handle slowly varying networks without retuning.
Similar Lyapunov constructions could be applied to develop adaptive methods for non-convex decentralized problems.
The approach might integrate with communication-efficient techniques to further reduce network overhead.

Load-bearing premise

The sum of local losses is smooth and convex, and the new Lyapunov function yields a local curvature estimate that is sufficient to guarantee descent under the adaptive stepsize rule.

What would settle it

If the proposed adaptive stepsize does not ensure monotonic descent in the Lyapunov function or if the empirical convergence rates on benchmark problems do not align with the sublinear and linear theoretical bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00711 by Gesualdo Scutari, Ilya Kuruzov, Xiaokai Chen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Logistic regression: 1 m Pm i=1 f(xi) − f(x ∗) v.s. # communications. Comparison of EXTRA, DATOS, DATOS-local, ADOLF and ADOLF-local on a line graph (left) and Erdos-Renyi graphs with different edge-probability: p = 0.1 (middle); and p = 0.9 (right) view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Linear regression with ℓ2 regularization: ∥Xk − X∗∥ 2 v.s. # communications. Comparison of EXTRA, DATOS, DATOS-local, ADOLF, and ADOLF-local on a line graph (left) and Erdos-Renyi graphs with different edge-probability: p = 0.1 (middle); and p = 0.9 (right). [19] D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. [20] S. J. Reddi, S. Kale, and S. Kumar, “On th… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study decentralized optimization over networks where agents cooperatively minimize a smooth (strongly) convex sum of local losses while communicating only with immediate neighbors. Prevailing decentralized methods require either centralized knowledge of global problem and network parameters for stepsize tuning--hence impractical, or costly per-iteration line-searches that demand access to local function values. We propose line-search-free, fully decentralized algorithms in which each agent adapts its stepsize using only past local iterates and gradients--with no extra function evaluations and no global tuning. The key technical ingredient is a new Lyapunov function, from which a natural adaptive stepsize rule emerges: at each iteration, each agent selects the largest stepsize that guarantees descent, based solely on a local curvature estimate built from successive gradients. The proposed algorithms enjoy strong theoretical guarantees: sublinear convergence rates for merely convex objectives and linear rates under strong convexity. Numerical experiments on standard benchmarks show consistent improvements over the state of the art, both adaptive and non-adaptive.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a clean Lyapunov-derived adaptive stepsize rule for decentralized smooth convex optimization that skips line searches and global tuning.

read the letter

The main takeaway is a new way to build a local adaptive stepsize from successive gradients via a tailored Lyapunov function, so each agent can pick its step without extra function calls or network-wide parameters. That construction appears to be the actual novelty relative to earlier decentralized adaptive work. The paper then uses it to get the usual sublinear rate for convex problems and linear rate under strong convexity, plus some benchmark experiments that reportedly beat both adaptive and fixed-step baselines. Those are the parts that hold up on a first read: the high-level argument is consistent, the motivation is practical, and the experiments are at least on standard test problems. The soft spots are mostly about verification. The abstract and stress-test note lay out the logic without visible circularity, but the full derivation of how the local curvature estimate guarantees descent under communication constraints needs to be checked line by line; if any network-dependent constants sneak in, the “fully decentralized, no tuning” claim weakens. Experiments are mentioned but not detailed here, so it is unclear how sensitive the gains are to graph topology or problem conditioning. Overall this is aimed at researchers in distributed convex optimization and federated learning who already know the standard rates and want a practical adaptive variant. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee who can verify the Lyapunov step and the experimental controls.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes line-search-free, fully decentralized algorithms for minimizing a sum of smooth (strongly) convex local losses over a network. Each agent adapts its stepsize using only past local iterates and gradients via a new Lyapunov function that produces a local curvature estimate from successive gradients; this yields an explicit adaptive rule guaranteeing descent without line searches or global parameters. The algorithms are claimed to achieve sublinear convergence for convex objectives and linear convergence under strong convexity, with numerical experiments on standard benchmarks showing improvements over prior adaptive and non-adaptive methods.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant for decentralized optimization because it removes two major practical obstacles—centralized parameter tuning and per-iteration line searches—while retaining strong convergence guarantees. The new Lyapunov function that directly supplies a local curvature estimate is a technically interesting device that extends adaptive-gradient ideas to the decentralized setting without extra communication or function evaluations. The combination of theory and experiments positions the method as a practical advance for distributed machine-learning applications.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the adaptive rule 'emerges' from the Lyapunov function and 'guarantees descent,' yet supplies no high-level expression for the curvature estimate or the resulting stepsize formula; a single displayed equation or inequality in the abstract would make the core mechanism immediately intelligible.
[Numerical Experiments] The numerical-experiments paragraph asserts 'consistent improvements' but does not report concrete metrics (iterations to target accuracy, final objective values, or wall-clock times) or specify the network topologies and problem dimensions used; adding a small table or a few quantitative rows would strengthen the empirical claim.
The phrase 'local curvature estimate built from successive gradients' is used repeatedly without an early, self-contained definition or notation; introducing a compact symbol (e.g., L_k^i) at first appearance would improve readability for readers outside the immediate sub-area.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, significance assessment, and recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs a new Lyapunov function whose monotonic decrease directly supplies a local curvature estimate from successive gradients; the adaptive stepsize is then chosen as the largest value guaranteeing descent under that estimate. This is a standard constructive derivation in optimization (Lyapunov decrease implies stepsize rule), not a self-definition or fitted-input renaming. No load-bearing self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling is visible in the abstract or stated claims. Sublinear and linear rates follow from standard Lyapunov arguments under smoothness/convexity without reducing to the inputs by construction. The approach is externally falsifiable via the stated convergence theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions from convex optimization and network theory; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Local loss functions are smooth and (strongly) convex
Explicitly required for the stated sublinear and linear convergence rates.
domain assumption Agents communicate only with immediate neighbors on a connected network
Fundamental to the decentralized setting described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1255 out tokens · 34820 ms · 2026-05-09T18:43:22.668382+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Next: In-network nonconvex optimiza- tion,

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

2016
[2]

Distributed optimization based on gradient tracking revisited: Enhancing convergence rate via surrogation,

Y . Sun, G. Scutari, and A. Daneshmand, “Distributed optimization based on gradient tracking revisited: Enhancing convergence rate via surrogation,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 354– 385, 2022

2022
[3]

Achieving geometric conver- gence for distributed optimization over time-varying graphs,

A. Nedic, A. Olshevsky, and W. Shi, “Achieving geometric conver- gence for distributed optimization over time-varying graphs,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2597–2633, 2017

2017
[4]

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

2015
[5]

Exact diffusion for dis- tributed optimization and learning—part i: Algorithm development,

K. Yuan, B. Ying, X. Zhao, and A. H. Sayed, “Exact diffusion for dis- tributed optimization and learning—part i: Algorithm development,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 708–723, 2018

2018
[6]

Network topology and communication-computation tradeoffs in decentralized optimization,

A. Nedi ´c, A. Olshevsky, and M. G. Rabbat, “Network topology and communication-computation tradeoffs in decentralized optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 953–976, 2018

2018
[7]

Adaptation, learning, and optimization over networks,

A. H. Sayedet al., “Adaptation, learning, and optimization over networks,”Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, vol. 7, no. 4-5, pp. 311–801, 2014

2014
[8]

Fast distributed first-order methods,

A. I.-A. Chen, “Fast distributed first-order methods,”. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012

2012
[9]

Distributed optimization over time- varying directed graphs,

A. Nedi ´c and A. Olshevsky, “Distributed optimization over time- varying directed graphs,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 601–615, 2014

2014
[10]

On the convergence of decentralized gra- dient descent with diminishing stepsize, revisited,

W. Choi and J. Kim, “On the convergence of decentralized gra- dient descent with diminishing stepsize, revisited,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09079, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[11]

Nonlinear programming,

D. P. Bertsekas, “Nonlinear programming,”Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 334–334, 1997

1997
[12]

Two-point step size gradient methods,

J. Barzilai and J. M. Borwein, “Two-point step size gradient methods,” IMA journal of numerical analysis, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 141–148, 1988

1988
[13]

Adabb: Adaptive barzilai-borwein method for convex optimization,

D. Zhou, S. Ma, and J. Yang, “Adabb: Adaptive barzilai-borwein method for convex optimization,”Mathematics of Operations Re- search, 2025

2025
[14]

Minimization of unsmooth functionals,

B. T. Polyak, “Minimization of unsmooth functionals,”USSR Compu- tational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 14– 29, 1969

1969
[15]

Adaptive gradient descent without descent,

Y . Malitsky and K. Mishchenko, “Adaptive gradient descent without descent,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09529, 2019

work page arXiv 1910
[16]

Adaptive proximal gradient method for convex optimization,

Y . Malitsky and K. Mishchenko, “Adaptive proximal gradient method for convex optimization,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 100670–100697, 2024

2024
[17]

A first-order primal-dual algorithm with linesearch,

Y . Malitsky and T. Pock, “A first-order primal-dual algorithm with linesearch,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 411– 432, 2018

2018
[18]

Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization.,

J. Duchi, E. Hazan, and Y . Singer, “Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization.,”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 12, no. 7, 2011. Fig. 1. Logistic regression: 1 m Pm i=1 f(x i)−f(x ∗)v.s. # communications. Comparison of EXTRA, DATOS, DATOS-local, ADOLF and ADOLF-local on a line graph (left) and Erdos-Renyi gra...

2011
[19]

Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[20]

On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond

S. J. Reddi, S. Kale, and S. Kumar, “On the convergence of adam and beyond,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09237, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1904
[21]

On the convergence of stochastic gradient descent with adaptive stepsizes,

X. Li and F. Orabona, “On the convergence of stochastic gradient descent with adaptive stepsizes,” inThe 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pp. 983–992, PMLR, 2019

2019
[22]

Adagrad stepsizes: Sharp con- vergence over nonconvex landscapes,

R. Ward, X. Wu, and L. Bottou, “Adagrad stepsizes: Sharp con- vergence over nonconvex landscapes,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 21, no. 219, pp. 1–30, 2020

2020
[23]

Adaptive proximal algorithms for convex optimization under local lipschitz continuity of the gradient,

P. Latafat, A. Themelis, L. Stella, and P. Patrinos, “Adaptive proximal algorithms for convex optimization under local lipschitz continuity of the gradient,”Mathematical Programming, pp. 1–39, 2024

2024
[24]

A parameter-free decentralized algorithm for composite convex optimization,

X. Chen, I. Kuruzov, G. Scutari, and A. Gasnikov, “A parameter-free decentralized algorithm for composite convex optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01466, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

A distributed proximal splitting method with linesearch for locally lipschitz gradients,

F. Atenas, M. N. Dao, and M. K. Tam, “A distributed proximal splitting method with linesearch for locally lipschitz gradients,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15583, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[26]

Towards parameter-free distributed optimization: a port- hamiltonian approach,

R. Aldana-L ´opez, A. Macchelli, G. Notarstefano, R. Arag ¨u´es, and C. Sag ¨u´es, “Towards parameter-free distributed optimization: a port- hamiltonian approach,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13529, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

Adaptive polyak stepsize with level-value adjustment for distributed optimization,

C. Ouyang, Y . Xiong, J. Xu, K. You, and Y . Shi, “Adaptive polyak stepsize with level-value adjustment for distributed optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09097, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[28]

Dadam: A consensus- based distributed adaptive gradient method for online optimization,

P. Nazari, D. A. Tarzanagh, and G. Michailidis, “Dadam: A consensus- based distributed adaptive gradient method for online optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 70, pp. 6065–6079, 2022

2022
[29]

On the convergence of decentralized adaptive gradient methods,

X. Chen, B. Karimi, W. Zhao, and P. Li, “On the convergence of decentralized adaptive gradient methods,” inAsian Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 217–232, PMLR, 2023

2023
[30]

Problem-parameter-free decentralized nonconvex stochastic optimization,

J. Li, X. Chen, S. Ma, and M. Hong, “Problem-parameter-free decentralized nonconvex stochastic optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08821, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

Adaptive step- size selection in decentralized convex optimization,

I. Kuruzov, X. Chen, G. Scutari, and A. Gasnikov, “Adaptive step- size selection in decentralized convex optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23725, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Achieving linear con- vergence with parameter-free algorithms in decentralized optimiza- tion,

I. Kuruzov, G. Scutari, and A. Gasnikov, “Achieving linear con- vergence with parameter-free algorithms in decentralized optimiza- tion,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 96011–96044, 2024

2024
[33]

Adaptive decentralized composite optimization via three-operator splitting,

X. Chen, I. Kuruzov, and G. Scutari, “Adaptive decentralized composite optimization via three-operator splitting,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17545, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[34]

An accelerated primal dual algorithm with backtracking for decentralized constrained opti- mization,

Q. Xu, N. S. Aybat, and M. Gurbuzbalaban, “An accelerated primal dual algorithm with backtracking for decentralized constrained opti- mization,”Journal of Nonlinear and Variational Analysis, 2025

2025
[35]

A primal–dual splitting method for convex optimization involving lipschitzian, proximable and linear composite terms,

L. Condat, “A primal–dual splitting method for convex optimization involving lipschitzian, proximable and linear composite terms,”Jour- nal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 158, no. 2, pp. 460– 479, 2013

2013
[36]

A variable metric extension of the forward–backward– forward algorithm for monotone operators,

B. C. V ˜u, “A variable metric extension of the forward–backward– forward algorithm for monotone operators,”Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1050–1065, 2013

2013
[37]

A descent lemma beyond lipschitz gradient continuity: first-order methods revisited and applications,

H. H. Bauschke, J. Bolte, and M. Teboulle, “A descent lemma beyond lipschitz gradient continuity: first-order methods revisited and applications,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 330–348, 2017

2017
[38]

A distributed proximal split- ting method with linesearch for locally lipschitz gradients,

F. Atenas, M. N. Dao, and M. K. Tam, “A distributed proximal split- ting method with linesearch for locally lipschitz gradients,”Journal of Global Optimization, pp. 1–32, 2025

2025
[39]

Distributed gradient methods for convex machine learning problems in networks: Distributed optimization,

A. Nedic, “Distributed gradient methods for convex machine learning problems in networks: Distributed optimization,”IEEE Signal Pro- cessing Magazine, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 92–101, 2020

2020
[40]

E. K. Ryu and W. Yin,Large-scale convex optimization: algorithms & analyses via monotone operators. Cambridge University Press, 2022

2022
[41]

Lora 2.4 ghz communication link and range,

T. Janssen, N. BniLam, M. Aernouts, R. Berkvens, and M. Weyn, “Lora 2.4 ghz communication link and range,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 16, p. 4366, 2020

2020
[42]

Network topology and communication-computation tradeoffs in decentralized optimization,

A. Nedi ´c, A. Olshevsky, and M. Rabbat, “Network topology and communication-computation tradeoffs in decentralized optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, pp. 953–976, 2018

2018