Asymmetric Perturbation in Solving Bilinear Saddle-Point Optimization
Kenshi Abe, Mitsuki Sakamoto, Kaito Ariu, Atsushi Iwasaki

TL;DR
This paper introduces an asymmetric perturbation method for bilinear saddle-point problems, enabling faster convergence to equilibria by perturbing only one player's payoff, with theoretical guarantees and empirical validation.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel asymmetric perturbation technique that achieves linear convergence rates in solving bilinear saddle-point problems, improving over traditional symmetric methods.
Findings
Achieves linear last-iterate convergence rate.
Perturbation of only one player's payoff suffices.
Empirical results show fast convergence in games.
Abstract
This paper proposes an asymmetric perturbation technique for solving bilinear saddle-point optimization problems, commonly arising in minimax problems, game theory, and constrained optimization. Perturbing payoffs or values is known to be effective in stabilizing learning dynamics and equilibrium computation. However, it requires decreasing perturbation magnitudes to ensure convergence to an equilibrium in the underlying game, resulting in a slower rate. To overcome this, we introduce an asymmetric perturbation approach, where only one player's payoff function is perturbed. Exploiting the near-linear structure of bilinear problems, we show that, for a sufficiently small perturbation, the equilibrium strategy of the asymmetrically perturbed game coincides with an equilibrium strategy of the original game. Building on this property, we develop a perturbation-based learning algorithm with…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1. The asymmetric perturbation modification introduced is quite simple and elegant and yields the desired convergence behavior. 2. Many zero-sum methods do give similar guarantees, but implementing them in practice requires a painful tuning of some parameters. In contrast, I really appreciate the ability of not having to tune a parameter to use AsymPGDA which the paper proposes.
1. The proposed approach can be viewed as an instance of a more general framework where both the agents' objective can be perturbed, and these perturbations need not necessarily be equal for both agents. My only concern is that given the classical nature of the setting, and the vast literature on perturbations in minimal optimization/game theory in general, whether such a framework already exists? To be fair to the authors, this field has received so much attention that I acknowledge that answe
The paper examines an important problem at the heart of game theory and optimization---namely, solving zero-sum games. The proposed method is, to my knowledge, new and fairly natural. A standard approach is to add a perturbation to both players; this modification proposed by the paper has been unexplored. It is also interesting to see that the proposed method performs very well in extensive-form games, in fact much better than the symmetric counterpart. This is a surprising finding. The paper is
On the negative side, the paper has some significant limitations and issues. First of all, I don't really agree with the main theoretical claim. The whole premise of the theory is that a symmetric perturbation only leads to an approximate equilibrium while an asymmetric one leads to an exact equilibrium. I don't see that. A symmetric perturbation leads arbitrarily close to an equilibrium. Furthermore, using standard LP arguments, there is an equilibrium whose bit complexity is polynomial in the
+ In general the paper is well presented and the main technical ideas are easy to follow. + Obtaining a last-iterate convergence rate in the bilinear zero-sum game setting *without* optimism is significant, despite the fact that the O(1/T) rate in this setting is suboptimal (compared to OGDA).
+ The "equilibrium invariance" property of Theorem 3.1 requires a sufficiently small perturbation weight \mu, and the upper bound on \mu depends on some game-dependent constant, which in general could be very small. (See also several of the questions below). + The main equilibrium invariance and last-iterate convergence results are limited to the asymmetric perturbation setting using the squared euclidean norm regularizer. This raises the question of whether similar results could be establishe
- The observation that the Nash equilibrium is not changed for small amounts of asymmetric perturbation is nice; I have not seen this observation before, and it is definitely neat. - The overall topic of the paper is interesting
- The approach is very similar in flavor to Nesterov smoothing (which constructs the same approximation), yet Nesterov smoothing is not discussed at all. The difference between the two approaches are that Nesterov smoothing applies an accelerated method to the non-smoothed player's objective, which is now smooth, whereas the present paper applies GDA to each of the two players. The rate achieved by Nesterov smoothing is $O(1/T)$, by choosing the smoothing parameter $\mu$ optimally relative to th
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research · Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques · Optimization and Variational Analysis
