On Parameter Selection for First-Order Methods: A Matrix Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-order convex optimization algorithms are popular due to their computational attractiveness and applicability to a wide range of domains such as machine learning and control. Despite the substantial progress being made over the last few decades, some open questions related to their convergence remain unaddressed. In addition, majority of the first-order methods assume strong convexity to analyze both the stability of the method and derive an explicit convergence rate. In this manuscript, we relax the strong convexity condition, and then, lay out two main contributions. First, we provide a methodology where one can analyze the speed of convergence of the algorithm using the contractive theory and linear algebra. Second, we find explicit values of the tuning parameters of the Double Momentum Algorithm (which unifies many of the popular algorithms), ensuring stability for gradient L-Lipchitz functions. In this work, while an explicit convergence rate is not provided, the foundational results serve as a stepping stone in that direction, as we provide an explicit non-asymptotic rate. Furthermore, our numerical experiments demonstrate superior performance of the proposed method. Beyond optimization, we also apply our method to two-sided markets in non-cooperative game theory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".