MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414845944 · doi:10.1080/10556788.2025.2545846

Near-optimal algorithm with complexity separation for strongly convex-strongly concave composite saddle point problems

2025· article· en· W4414845944 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptimization methods & software · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
FundersMinistry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation
KeywordsSaddle pointSeparation (statistics)Point (geometry)Composite numberComputational complexity theorySeparation method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we revisit the saddle point problem minxmaxyp(x)+R(x,y)−q(y), where the function R(x,y) is LR-smooth, μx-strongly convex, and μy-strongly concave, and the functions p(x),q(y) are convex and Lp,Lq-smooth, respectively. We develop a new algorithm that achieves separation of complexities with respect to the computation of the gradients ∇R(x,y) and ∇p(x), ∇q(y). In particular, our algorithm requires O((LRμxμy+Lpμx+Lqμy4LRμx+LRμy+Lpμx+Lqμy)log⁡LRmin{μx,μy}log⁡1ε) computations of the gradient ∇R(x,y) and O((Lpμx+Lqμy)log⁡1ε) computations of the gradients ∇p(x), ∇q(y) to find an ϵ-accurate solution to the problem. Moreover, under the condition LR≥(μx+μy)μxμyμxLq+μyLp, the algorithm becomes optimal (up to logarithmic factors), i.e. it cannot be improved due to the existing lower complexity bounds. To the best of our knowledge, our algorithm is the first to achieve near-optimal complexity separation in the case when μx≠μy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it