Sharp global convergence guarantees for iterative nonconvex optimization with random data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a general class of regression models with normally distributed covariates, and the associated nonconvex problem of fitting these models from data. We develop a general recipe for analyzing the convergence of iterative algorithms for this task from a random initialization. In particular, provided each iteration can be written as the solution to a convex optimization problem satisfying some natural conditions, we leverage Gaussian comparison theorems to derive a deterministic sequence that provides sharp upper and lower bounds on the error of the algorithm with sample splitting. Crucially, this deterministic sequence accurately captures both the convergence rate of the algorithm and the eventual error floor in the finite-sample regime, and is distinct from the commonly used “population” sequence that results from taking the infinite-sample limit. We apply our general framework to derive several concrete consequences for parameter estimation in popular statistical models including phase retrieval and mixtures of regressions. Provided the sample size scales near linearly in the dimension, we show sharp global convergence rates for both higher-order algorithms based on alternating updates and first-order algorithms based on subgradient descent. These corollaries, in turn, reveal multiple nonstandard phenomena that are then corroborated by extensive numerical experiments.
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 | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".