AI-Assisted Discovery and Construction of a Counterexample to the Convergence of Three-Block ADMM with the Identity Matrix as its Third Constraint Block
Organizations: School of Mathematical Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, P.R. China. · Key Laboratory of Mathematics and Engineering Applications (MoE) and School of Mathematical Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, P.R. China.
Abstract
The alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), as a landmark algorithm, has attracted tremendous research attention and extensive practical applications over the past two decades. It is well known that, although the two-block ADMM enjoys well-established theoretical convergence guarantees, its direct extension to the three-block case may fail to converge, as demonstrated by existing counterexamples [5]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the case in which the third constraint block is the identity remains unresolved: the existing literature gives neither a general convergence proof nor a counterexample for this subclass. In this paper, we give a negative answer: direct three-block ADMM may fail even when the first two blocks are strongly convex quadratics. Using Codex with GPT-5.6 Sol, we construct an explicit rational counterexample candidate and verify it along a piecewise-affine reduction path; exact checks show that direct three-block ADMM on this instance produces a bounded nonconvergent orbit of period 66. Within the same Codex workflow, we further guide a study of multiplier relaxation and clarify when convergence can be restored at the fixed-instance and class levels: a problem-dependent small dual step can restore convergence, whereas no positive relative step works uniformly over the whole class. Furthermore, we also test the recent Kimi Code with Kimi K3 model without the Codex candidate or project-specific route guidance; along a different path it produces an exact locally attracting period-23 certificate, convertible to an equivalent all-identity instance. The comparison suggests that different research-harness configurations can shape the mathematical objects explored and the certificates pursued.
Figures & tables
| Aspect | Codex / GPT-5.6 Sol route | Kimi Code / Kimi K3 route |
|---|---|---|
| Harness configuration | Long-running project workspace; project-specific ADMM skill and experiment toolchain; persistent research artifacts; iterative human steering | Frozen blind workspace; generic research skills with shell/Python tools; isolated route state; few continue-search instructions |
| Main search object | Resolvent parameters and realizable active-set itinerary | KKT-compatible QP data and projection itinerary |
| Reduced state | , ; direct all-identity model | , ; model, equivalently convertible to all-identity form |
| Construction style | Mechanism-driven: state reduction, branch-spectrum analysis, and near-rotation/reset itinerary design | Inverse design: jointly synthesize problem data, projection itinerary, and return-map fixed point |
| Main certificate | Exact period closure, strict branch checks, raw ADMM replay, and minimal-period verification | Exact period closure, strict projection checks, discrete Lyapunov inequality, and invariant ellipsoid |
| Dynamical conclusion | Minimal period- non-KKT orbit; exposes active-set switching instability | Minimal period- locally attracting non-KKT orbit; certified open attracting basin |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Stage | Human input | AI output | Promotion condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem setup | Identity-slack question; evidence requirements | Proof and counterexample route proposals | Correct literature boundary |
| State-space reduction | Request for a certifiable representation | Signed reduced state , (jointly refined) | Equivalence to raw ADMM |
| Candidate screening | Requirement that fixed-branch instability alone is insufficient | Fixed-branch spectra; near-rotation heuristic | Projection itinerary must be realizable |
| Period search | Requirement of a strict exact counterexample | Rational data ( 2.3 )–( 2.5 ) and word | Exact rational closure and strict signs ( – ) |
| Relaxation extension | Frozen QP and initialization; vary only ; quantifier gates | Parameterized branch maps; candidate step regimes; certificate routes | Quantifier audit and exact certificates |