cs.LGJun 3, 2026

Sharp First-Order Lower Bounds for Higher-Order Smooth Nonconvex Optimization

Authors: Dongruo Zhou

Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47408, USA

Abstract

We study the deterministic first-order oracle complexity of finding εε-stationary points in smooth nonconvex optimization when the objective satisfies higher-order smoothness assumptions. While the classical ε2ε^{-2} rate is optimal under only Lipschitz gradients, higher-order smoothness leads to accelerated first-order upper bounds, most notably the ε7/4ε^{-7/4} rate under Lipschitz Hessians and the ε5/3ε^{-5/3} rate under Lipschitz third derivatives. The matching lower bounds, however, have remained open. We resolve this gap by proving a new dimension-free first-order lower bound for higher-order smooth nonconvex functions, valid for every finite smoothness order. In particular, our construction gives a matching Ω(ε7/4)Ω(ε^{-7/4}) lower bound in the Hessian-Lipschitz case and a matching Ω(ε5/3)Ω(ε^{-5/3}) lower bound in the third-order-smooth regime. The hard instance is based on a \emph{block-chain} mechanism that enforces blockwise oracle revelation while preserving the smoothness structure needed for the scalar hard instance. The lower-bound construction was discovered with the assistance of ChatGPT 5.5 Pro and subsequently verified by the authors.

Explore similar work

May 23, 2026cs.LG

Zeroth-Order Nonconvex Nonsmooth Optimization with Heavy-Tailed Noise

This paper considers the nonconvex nonsmooth problem in which the objective function is Lipschitz continuous. We focus on the stochastic setting where the algorithm can access stochastic function value evaluations with heavy-tailed noise, which is prevalent in many popular machine learning applications. We propose a stochastic zeroth-order algorithm that refines the framework of online-to-nonconvex conversion by clipping the two-point gradient estimator. The theoretical analysis shows that our algorithm can find a (δ,ε)(δ, ε)-Goldstein stationary point with zeroth-order oracle complexity of O(dp2(p1)δ1ε2p1p1){\mathcal O}(d^{\frac{p}{2(p-1)}}δ^{-1}ε^{-\frac{2p-1}{p-1}}), where dd is the problem dimension and p(1,2]p\in(1,2] is the order of bounded moments. Note that our dependence on dimension dd matches the best-known results of stochastic zeroth-order optimization for finding the sub-optimal solution of a stochastic convex nonsmooth problem. In addition, our dependence on accuracy parameters δδ and εε is consistent with that of the best-known stochastic first-order algorithms for stochastic nonconvex nonsmooth problems. Finally, we conduct numerical experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Zhuanghua Liu, Luo Luo
Jul 21, 2026cs.DS

Stronger Memory-Query Tradeoffs for Convex Optimization: The Limitations of Subquadratic Memory

We prove two lower bounds for the first order oracle complexity of minimizing a dd-dimensional 11-Lipschitz convex function over the unit ball with mm bits of memory. We first show that any such (possibly randomized) algorithm must make Ω~(d2m)\tildeΩ(\frac{d^2}{\sqrt{m}}) oracle queries. For deterministic optimization algorithms, we show that Ω~(min{d1.6,d8/3m2/3})\tildeΩ(\min\{d^{1.6},\frac{d^{8/3}}{m^{2/3}}\}) queries are required. For all memory regimes of interest, these improves upon the previous best known lower bounds of Ω~(max{d8/3m4/3,d4/3m1/6})\tildeΩ(\max\{\frac{d^{8/3}}{m^{4/3}},\frac{d^{4/3}}{m^{1/6}}\}) and Ω~(d5/3m1/3)\tildeΩ(\frac{d^{5/3}}{m^{1/3}}) for randomized and deterministic algorithms respectively. Notably, due to existing upper bounds, our lower bound for deterministic algorithms is the first to show a sharp oracle complexity phase transition around md2m\approx d^2, where a polylogarithmic change in memory leads to a poly(d)\mathsf{poly}(d) change in the number of required oracle calls. Further, when the suboptimality is polynomially small in dd, our lower bound randomized algorithms is the first to show that Ω~(d2)\tildeΩ(d^2) memory is necessary to nearly match the optimal query complexity among algorithms without memory constraints. Previously, such a result was only known for the regime where the suboptimality is quasipolynomially small in dd.
Michael Menart, Aleksandar Nikolov, Ohad Shamir
Nov 27, 2025math.OC

On the Condition Number Dependency in Bilevel Optimization

Bilevel optimization minimizes an objective function, defined by an upper-level problem whose feasible region is the solution of a lower-level problem. We study the oracle complexity of finding an εε-stationary point with first-order methods when the upper-level problem is nonconvex, and the lower-level problem is strongly convex. Recent works (Ji et al., ICML 2021; Arbel and Mairal, ICLR 2022; Chen et al., JMLR 2025) achieve a O~(κˉy4ε2)\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\bar κ_y^4 ε^{-2}) upper bound that is near-optimal in εε, which can be reduced to O~(κˉy7/2ε2)\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\bar κ_y^{7/2} ε^{-2}) by a naive application of Nesterov acceleration in the inner loop, where κˉy\bar κ_y is the global condition number. However, the optimal dependency on the condition number is unknown. In this work, we establish a new Ω(κy5/2ε2)Ω(κ_y^{5/2} ε^{-2}) lower bound, where κy<κˉyκ_y < \bar κ_y is the lower-level condition number that is of the same order as κˉy\bar κ_y when the smoothness constants are O(1)\mathcal{O}(1). Our lower bound establishes the first provable gap in terms of condition number dependency between bilevel problems and minimax problems in this setup. Our lower bounds can be extended to various settings, including high-order smooth functions, stochastic oracles, and convex hyper-objectives: (1) For second-order and arbitrarily smooth problems, we show lower bounds of Ω(κy31/14ε12/7)Ω({κ_y^{31/14}} ε^{-12/7}) and Ω(κy21/10ε8/5)Ω(κ_y^{21/10} ε^{-8/5}), respectively. (2) For convex-strongly-convex problems, we improve the previously best lower bound (Ji and Liang, JMLR 2022) from Ω(κy/ε)Ω(κ_y /\sqrtε) to Ω(κy3/2/ε)Ω(κ_y^{3/2} / \sqrtε). (3) For smooth stochastic problems, we also show a lower bound of Ω(κy4ε4)Ω(κ_y^4 ε^{-4}).
Lesi Chen, Jingzhao Zhang