An Improved Last-Iterate Convergence Rate for Anchored Gradient Descent Ascent

Recent work has shown that, for smooth convex optimization, plain gradient descent can be accelerated from its textbook convergence rate of $O(T^{-1})$ (where $T$ denotes the number of iterations) to $O\big(T^{-\log_2(1+\sqrt{2})}\big)$ using carefully designed stepsize schedules alone, without resorting to momentum or other algorithmic modifications. Despite this progress, however, little was known about lower bounds for such methods beyond the classical $Ω(T^{-2})$ benchmark for general first-order methods. In this work, we present a new lower bound of $Ω(T^{-1.9319})$ for the last-iterate convergence rate of gradient descent with predetermined nonnegative stepsize schedules. This result provides rigorous evidence that stepsize schedules alone cannot accelerate plain GD to the optimal $O(T^{-2})$ convergence rate. The proof was developed by GPT-5.6 Sol Pro under the authors' guidance.

Efficient computation of min-max problems is a central question in optimization, learning, games, and control. Arguably the most natural algorithm is gradient-descent-ascent (GDA). However, since the 1970s, conventional wisdom has argued that GDA fails to converge even on simple problems. This failure spurred an extensive literature on modifying GDA with additional building blocks such as extragradients, optimism, momentum, anchoring, etc. In contrast, we show that GDA converges in its original form by simply using a judicious choice of stepsizes. The key innovation is the proposal of unconventional stepsize schedules (dubbed slingshot stepsize schedules) that are time-varying, asymmetric, and periodically negative. We show that all three properties are necessary for convergence, and that altogether this enables GDA to converge on the classical counterexamples (e.g., unconstrained convex-concave problems). The core algorithmic intuition is that although negative stepsizes make backward progress, they de-synchronize the min and max variables (overcoming the cycling issue of GDA), and lead to a slingshot phenomenon in which the forward progress in the other iterations is overwhelmingly larger. This results in fast overall convergence. Geometrically, the slingshot dynamics leverage the non-reversibility of gradient flow: positive/negative steps cancel to first order, yielding a second-order net movement in a new direction that leads to convergence and is otherwise impossible for GDA to move in. We interpret this as a second-order finite-differencing algorithm and show that, intriguingly, it approximately implements consensus optimization, an empirically popular algorithm for min-max problems involving deep neural networks (e.g., training GANs).

We revisit the convergence guarantees of the Extragradient (EG) method for unconstrained biaffine min-max optimization. It is known that EG with a fixed stepsize achieves a $Θ(T^{-1/2})$ last-iterate convergence rate, which is slower than the optimal $\mathcal{O}(T^{-1})$ rate attainable by incorporating additional mechanisms such as anchoring. Motivated by recent advances showing that dynamic stepsizes alone can significantly accelerate gradient descent, we ask whether dynamic stepsizes can similarly accelerate the last-iterate convergence of EG. We present the first positive result in this direction. Specifically, we provide a deterministic dynamic stepsize schedule that accelerates the convergence rate of EG to $\mathcal{O}(T^{-2/3+\varepsilon})$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$. We also show that this rate is tight when the extrapolation and update steps of EG use the same stepsize. We then show that allowing different stepsizes for the extrapolation and update steps further improves the convergence rate to the near-optimal $\mathcal{O}(T^{-1+\varepsilon})$. Our analysis reduces stepsize scheduling to an optimization problem, whose solution leads to a stepsize schedule that follows (a discretization of) a power-law distribution. Our proposed stepsize schedules and analysis extend to other methods, such as Optimistic Gradient (OG), and suggest broader applicability to general min-max optimization problems.