A Novel Unified Parametric Assumption for Nonconvex Optimization
Artem Riabinin, Ahmed Khaled, Peter Richt\'arik

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new unified parametric assumption for nonconvex functions, enabling a general convergence analysis for gradient methods and bridging the gap between theory and practice in nonconvex optimization.
Contribution
The paper proposes a versatile parametric assumption that generalizes many nonconvex function classes, facilitating a unified convergence analysis for gradient-based algorithms.
Findings
The assumption recovers several existing function classes as special cases.
A unified convergence theorem is derived for both deterministic and stochastic methods.
Experiments show the assumption holds in practical optimization trajectories.
Abstract
Nonconvex optimization is central to modern machine learning, but the general framework of nonconvex optimization yields weak convergence guarantees that are too pessimistic compared to practice. On the other hand, while convexity enables efficient optimization, it is of limited applicability to many practical problems. To bridge this gap and better understand the practical success of optimization algorithms in nonconvex settings, we introduce a novel unified parametric assumption. Our assumption is general enough to encompass a broad class of nonconvex functions while also being specific enough to enable the derivation of a unified convergence theorem for gradient-based methods. Notably, by tuning the parameters of our assumption, we demonstrate its versatility in recovering several existing function classes as special cases and in identifying functions amenable to efficient…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
1. The paper generalized previously considered assumptions and provide unified analysis of gradient method under this assumption. For different choices of $c_1, c_2, P$ they recover some existing convergence rates.
1. It seems that the paper generalizes some previously considered conditions but does not provide a practical applications of the new assumption. 3. Most of the rates are recovered for the case when $c_2 = 0$, which, as presented in Table 1 of the paper, are already satisfied by previous conditions. 4. Assumption 2 is characterized by the set $X$ , but the set $X$ is not defined in any of the examples. Please provide a discussion on the set $X$. 5. In Section 2 of the paper, Examples 1–3 recove
- Explores a direction of closing the gap between empirical and theoretical optimization in NN training. - The idea of allowing outlier points in the assumption and getting bound based on the occurrence of those is interesting.
- The presentation and flaw of the paper can be improved. - I am not sure the theoretical contribution is novel. The main theorem is a direct application of descent lemma. - The subsequent corollaries give existing standard results including a penalty term of outliers. - I am not convinced by the experimental results.
* They introduce a novel unified parametric assumption that can encompass a wide range of nonconvex functions, offering a fresh theoretical perspective. * They provide convergence guarantees for both deterministic and stochastic gradient-based methods. * The examples and discussion help illustrate the practical relevance of the proposed assumption.
* Could the authors clarify the meaning of the set $\mathcal{X}$ in Assumption 2? Is there a relationship between $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{S}$? It would be helpful to provide intuition for why $\mathcal{X}$ is introduced and how it should be chosen in practice. * The progress function $P(x;\tilde{\mathcal{S}})$ (even the set $\mathcal{X}$) depends on $\mathcal{S}$. However, for functions satisfying Assumption 1, finding the global minimizer is NP-hard. How can Assumption 2 be verified in pra
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research · Optimization and Variational Analysis
