Near-optimal tensor methods for minimizing the gradient norm of convex functions and accelerated primal–dual tensor methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated, in particular, by the entropy-regularized optimal transport problem, we consider convex optimization problems with linear equality constraints, where the dual objective has Lipschitz pth order derivatives, and develop two approaches for solving such problems. The first approach is based on the minimization of the norm of the gradient in the dual problem and then the reconstruction of an approximate primal solution. Recently, Grapiglia and Nesterov [Tensor methods for finding approximate stationary points of convex functions, Optim. Methods Softw. (2020), pp. 1–34] showed lower complexity bounds for the problem of minimizing the gradient norm of the function with Lipschitz pth order derivatives. Still, the question of optimal or near-optimal methods remained open as the algorithms presented in [Grapiglia and Nesterov, Tensor methods for finding approximate stationary points of convex functions, Optim. Methods Softw. (2020), pp. 1–34] achieve suboptimal bounds only. We close this gap by proposing two near-optimal (up to logarithmic factors) methods with complexity bounds O~(ε−2(p+1)/(3p+1)) and O~(ε−2/(3p+1)) with respect to the initial objective residual and the distance between the starting point and solution, respectively. We then apply these results (having independent interest) to our primal–dual setting. As the second approach, we propose a direct accelerated primal–dual tensor method for convex problems with linear equality constraints, where the dual objective has Lipschitz pth order derivatives. For this algorithm, we prove O~(ε−1/(p+1)) complexity in terms of the duality gap and the residual in the constraints. We illustrate the practical performance of the proposed algorithms in experiments on logistic regression, entropy-regularized optimal transport problem, and the minimal mutual information problem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".