Linear Lower Bounds and Conditioning of Differentiable Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent successes of game-theoretic formulations in ML have caused a resurgence of research interest in differentiable games. Overwhelmingly, that research focuses on methods and upper bounds on their speed of convergence. In this work, we approach the question of fundamental iteration complexity by providing lower bounds to complement the linear (i.e. geometric) upper bounds observed in the literature on a wide class of problems. We cast saddle-point and min-max problems as 2-player games. We leverage tools from single-objective convex optimisation to propose new linear lower bounds for convex-concave games. Notably, we give a linear lower bound for $n$-player differentiable games, by using the spectral properties of the update operator. We then propose a new definition of the condition number arising from our lower bound analysis. Unlike past definitions, our condition number captures the fact that linear rates are possible in games, even in the absence of strong convexity or strong concavity in the variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".