On the Complexity of Finite-Sum Nonconvex-Strongly-Concave Minimax Optimization with Exact Proximal Oracles
Organizations: Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Future Networks, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China · Guangdong Key Lab of AI and Multi-Modal Data Processing, Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University, Zhuhai 519087, China
Abstract
Finite-sum nonconvex-strongly-concave minimax problems arise in adversarial training and distributionally robust learning. Their known lower bounds cover only linear-span algorithms, zero-respecting algorithms, or a restricted proximal protocol. They leave open the power of exact component proximal steps, whose responses are global saddle points of regularized component problems and can expose directions that gradients do not reveal. We show that neither unrestricted adaptivity nor exact proximal access improves the polynomial complexity. We consider components with joint mean-squared smoothness and condition number , started from a point with primal gap at most and joint gradient norm at most . For below a universal constant, every randomized adaptive algorithm with exact component values, gradients, and proximal responses needs component queries in the worst case to find an -stationary point of the value function. A method using only component gradients attains this rate up to a factor , including initialization. Zhou (arXiv:2610.04944) concurrently proves the same rate for zero-respecting first-order methods. In our hard instances, every component admits proximal steps with the same step sizes, and a response for a component reveals hidden directions only up to the first one assigned to another component.
Figures & tables
| Oracle | |||
| Algorithm class | Component gradients | Exact values, gradients and proximal responses | Source |
| Linear-span or restricted protocol | , | , | Zhang et al. ; Han et al. |
| Zero-respecting | – | Zhou | |
| Arbitrary randomized adaptive | Thm. 1 | ||
| Matching upper bound | Thm. 2 | ||
| Statement | Proof chain | Appendix |
|---|---|---|
| Theorem 3 , lower bound | Lemmas 5 , 6 7 – 9 10 11 12 – 14 | A – C |
| Theorem 1 , | the same chain with two-node paths Corollary 16 | D.1 |
| Theorem 1 , | Lemmas 17 18 19 20 | D.2 , D.3 |
| Theorem 1 , all | Theorem 3 , Corollary 16 , Lemmas 20 , 21 | D.4 |
| Corollary 4 | Corollary 15 | C.2 |
| Theorem 22 | Lemmas 23 24 initialization, estimators, refinement | E |
Min-Max Optimization
Min-max optimization studies algorithms for objectives where one decision-maker minimizes loss while an adversary or opponent maximizes it.
See all 41 papers