On the Hardness of Meaningful Local Guarantees in Nonsmooth Nonconvex Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the oracle complexity of nonsmooth nonconvex optimization, with the algorithm assumed to have access only to local function information. It has been shown by Davis, Drusvyatskiy, and Jiang (2023) that for nonsmooth Lipschitz functions satisfying certain regularity and strictness conditions, perturbed gradient descent converges to local minimizers asymptotically. Motivated by this result and by other recent algorithmic advances in nonconvex nonsmooth optimization concerning Goldstein stationarity, we consider the question of obtaining a non-asymptotic rate of convergence to local minima for this problem class. We provide the following negative answer to this question: Local algorithms acting on regular Lipschitz functions cannot, in the worst case, provide meaningful local guarantees in terms of function value in sub-exponential time, even when all near-stationary points are global minima. This sharply contrasts with the smooth setting, for which it is well-known that standard gradient methods can do so in a dimension-independent rate. Our result complements the rich body of work in the theoretical computer science literature that provide hardness results conditional on conjectures such as $\mathsf{P}\neq\mathsf{NP}$ or cryptographic assumptions, in that ours holds unconditional of any such assumptions.
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 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".