alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

A simple adaptive accelerated optimistic dual averaging method for unconstrained convex optimization in pp-norm geometry

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

Efficient preconditioning plays an important role in large-scale first-order optimization. In this paper, we propose an adaptive accelerated optimistic dual averaging (A2\text{A}^2ODA) method for unconstrained convex optimization that adopts low-cost preconditioning based on pp-norm geometry for p∈[2,∞]p\in[2,\infty]. The method is line-search-free and employs a new stepsize selection technique based on an aggregated affine lower model. Its update structure is simple and unified across p∈[2,∞]p\in[2,\infty], with the case p>2p>2 requiring no more elaborate updates than the Euclidean case p=2p=2. Under a generalized local smoothness condition, we derive a convergence bound that separates the effects of constant and gap-dependent curvature, with the latter potentially yielding faster-decaying terms. In the special case of local smoothness, this bound recovers a nearly optimal convergence rate.

Introduction

In this paper, we consider the unconstrained convex optimization problem

min⁡x∈Rnf(x),(1)\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} f(x), \tag*{(1)}

where f:Rn→Rf:\mathbb{R}^{n}\to\mathbb{R} is a continuously differentiable convex function. We assume that problem (1) has at least one optimal solution. Since the seminal work on accelerated gradient methods [27], the development of fast first-order methods has remained a central focus in the study of smooth convex optimization. In practice, the performance of first-order methods is influenced by many factors, including the acceleration mechanism, the parameter selection, and the underlying geometry. The goal of this paper is to develop an accelerated first-order method in pp-norm geometry that adapts its parameters to the optimization trajectory and achieves a unified convergence bound for all p∈[2,∞]p\in[2,\infty].

In recent years, there has been fruitful research on first-order methods for smooth convex optimization [1, 28, 29]. In particular, many recent efforts have focused on parameter selection in first-order methods, which is often guided by estimates of the Lipschitz constant of the objective gradient. Instead of fixing the parameters based on a global Lipschitz constant, adapting them to local curvature typically leads to much faster practical progress. In this direction, there has recently been growing interest in first-order methods that adapt their parameters based on local curvature without requiring costly line searches. The use of local curvature to select stepsizes has a long history, as exemplified by the well-known Barzilai-Borwein (BB) stepsize [2]. However, directly applying the BB stepsize without line searches does not generally yield convergence guarantees for smooth convex problems. Recently, several studies have proposed novel stepsize schemes for line-search-free gradient methods and established provable convergence guarantees for solving problem (1); see, e.g., [17, 24, 36]. In addition, notable adaptive accelerated gradient methods, including AC-FGM [18] and AdaNAG [33], achieve optimal convergence rates for smooth convex optimization without requiring line searches.

Beyond parameter selection, the choice of geometry is another important aspect of first-order method design. For many constrained problems, replacing the Euclidean squared distance with a suitable Bregman divergence in first-order method design allows the resulting updates to reflect the intrinsic geometry of the feasible region. Well-known examples include the Kullback-Leibler divergence on the probability simplex [4] and the Itakura-Saito divergence on the positive orthant [3]. These examples can be unified under the general mirror descent framework [4, 26], whose update takes the form:

xk+1∈arg min⁡x∈X{⟨∇f(xk),x−xk⟩+γkDh(x,xk)}.x_{k+1} \in\mathop{\operatorname{arg\,min}}_{x\in X} \left\{ \langle\nabla f(x_k),x-x_k\rangle+\gamma_k D_h(x,x_k) \right\}.

where γk>0\gamma_k > 0, XX denotes the feasible region, and Dh(x,y):=h(x)−h(y)−⟨∇h(y),x−y⟩D_h(x,y) := h(x)-h(y)-\langle\nabla h(y),x-y\rangle is the Bregman divergence generated by hh. When h(x)=∥x∥22/2h(x)=\lVert x\rVert_2^2/2, the update reduces to projected gradient descent. More generally, suitable choices of hh allow mirror descent to exploit non-Euclidean geometry. Under the relative smoothness condition

Df(x,y)≤LDh(x,y)∀x,y∈ΩD_f(x,y) \le L D_h(x,y) \qquad\forall x,y \in\Omega

for some L>0L>0, convergence bounds of mirror descent methods can be established in terms of DhD_h, where Ω\Omega is a suitable convex set containing the iterates and relevant comparison points [4, 20]. Mirror descent and relative smoothness extend gradient descent and Lipschitz smoothness in the Euclidean norm, respectively, to non-Euclidean settings. Nonetheless, extending accelerated gradient methods to non-Euclidean mirror descent is nontrivial. There have been many recent studies on acceleration in mirror descent, including both specific accelerated variants [12, 16, 25] and lower bounds on achievable convergence rates [11]. In addition, adaptive mirror descent methods have also been developed [30].

Another line of research explores first-order methods that directly exploit norm geometry to shape search directions. In particular, replacing the squared Euclidean distance with the squared distance induced by a general norm yields the dual preconditioned gradient update [15]:

xk+1=xk−1γkJ∗(∇f(xk))∈arg min⁡x∈Rn{⟨∇f(xk),x−xk⟩+γk2∥x−xk∥∗2}.x_{k+1}=x_k-\frac{1}{\gamma_k}J_*(\nabla f(x_k))\in\mathop{\operatorname{arg\,min}}_{x\in\mathbb{R}^n}\left\{\langle\nabla f(x_k),x-x_k\rangle+\frac{\gamma_k}{2}\lVert x-x_k\rVert_*^2\right\}.

where γk>0\gamma_k>0, ∥⋅∥\lVert\cdot\rVert and ∥⋅∥∗\lVert\cdot\rVert_* denote a general norm and its dual, respectively, and J∗(g)∈∂(∥⋅∥∗2/2)(g)J_*(g)\in\partial(\lVert\cdot\rVert_*^2/2)(g) for all g∈Rng\in\mathbb{R}^n. For convex problems, this preconditioned method achieves an O(T−1)\mathcal{O}(T^{-1}) convergence rate in the objective gap under a Lipschitz gradient condition defined using the general norm and its dual, together with a level-boundedness assumption [15], where TT denotes the number of iterations. This bound is analogous to that of classical gradient descent. Moreover, this preconditioned gradient descent has also been analyzed under a dual relative smoothness condition [23]. This condition serves as a dual counterpart to the primal relative smoothness condition used to analyze mirror descent [20]. In addition, accelerated variants of preconditioned gradient descent in general norm geometries have been developed in [6, 8]. In particular, when the primal and dual norms are the pp- and qq-norms, respectively, with 1/p+1/q=11/p+1/q=1 and 2≤p<∞2\le p<\infty, these methods achieve an O(T−(1+2/p))\mathcal{O}(T^{-(1+2/p)}) convergence rate in the objective gap, matching the lower bounds up to logarithmic factors [7]. From a technical standpoint, these methods rely on the uniform convexity of the proximal regularizer to control linearization errors in their accelerated updates [6, 8]. For the case p>2p>2, the resulting ppth-power proximal terms interact with the quadratic terms arising from Lipschitz smoothness, making parameter selection and the convergence analysis more involved than in the case p=2p = 2 (see Remark 1). It is also noteworthy that pp-norm geometry has attracted significant recent interest in the design of deep learning optimizers, particularly in the endpoint case p=∞p = \infty, which leads to sign-based update directions; see, e.g., [5, 10, 13, 22, 31]. These theoretical advances and growing practical interest motivate the following natural question:

Can we design a line-search-free accelerated first-order method for smooth convex optimization that exploits pp-norm geometry for preconditioning throughout the range p∈[2,∞]p \in[2,\infty]?

This paper provides an affirmative answer to this question. Specifically, our proposed method employs an acceleration mechanism that combines optimistic dual averaging [32] in pp-norm geometry with weighted iterate averaging [14]. To adapt the regularization parameters, we aggregate past linearizations into an affine model and use this model to derive a new parameter selection rule that directly controls a Lyapunov potential. This construction differs fundamentally from the parameter selection rules used by existing line-search-free accelerated gradient methods in the case p=2p = 2 [18, 33].

Moreover, our analysis relies on the relaxed dual-potential expansion inequality in Lemma 1, which avoids the need for a uniform convexity inequality for the proximal regularizer. Consequently, our method directly uses the squared pp-norm as the proximal regularizer for p>2p > 2, in contrast to existing accelerated methods that rely on pp-uniformly convex regularizers [6, 8] (see Remark 1). On the theoretical side, we establish an accelerated convergence rate for the proposed method under a generalized local smoothness condition (see Assumption 1(b)). This condition incorporates gap-dependent curvature into the local smoothness condition and allows us to distinguish the contributions of the constant and gap-dependent curvature terms to the convergence bound. Our main contributions are summarized below.

  • We develop an adaptive accelerated optimistic dual averaging (A2A^{2}ODA) method under pp-norm geometry for solving problem (1). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first line-search-free first-order method that combines adaptive acceleration with squared pp-norm regularization in a unified framework covering all p∈[2,∞]p \in[2,\infty].

  • Under the generalized local smoothness condition (Assumption 1(b)), we establish a unified convergence bound for Algorithm 1 across all p∈[2,∞]p \in[2,\infty] that explicitly separates the contributions of constant and gap-dependent curvature (see Theorem 2). In the special case of local smoothness, this bound recovers a nearly optimal convergence rate (see § 3.4).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In § 2, we introduce the notation and preliminary results. In § 3, we present the proposed algorithm and state its convergence guarantees. The proof of our main convergence result is presented in § 4. Additional lemmas and proofs are deferred to the appendix.

Notation and preliminaries

Throughout this paper, we use Rn\mathbb{R}^{n} and R+\mathbb{R}_{+} to denote the nn-dimensional Euclidean space and the set of nonnegative real numbers, respectively, and ⟨⋅,⋅⟩\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle to denote the standard inner product. We adopt the convention 00=10^{0}=1 and 1/∞=01/\infty=0. For a positive integer NN, we define [N]:={1,2,…,N}[N] := \{1,2,\ldots,N\}. For any p∈[1,∞)p \in[1,\infty) and z∈Rnz \in\mathbb{R}^{n}, we define ∥z∥p:=(∑i=1n∣zi∣p)1/p\|z\|_{p} := \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|z_{i}|^{p}\right)^{1/p} and ∥z∥∞:=max⁡1≤i≤n∣zi∣\|z\|_{\infty} := \max_{1\leq i\leq n}|z_{i}|. For any A∈Rn×nA \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n} and any p,q∈[1,∞]p,q \in[1,\infty], the induced pp-to-qq operator norm is defined by ∥A∥p→q:=sup⁡∥x∥p≤1∥Ax∥q\|A\|_{p\to q} := \sup_{\|x\|_{p}\leq1}\|Ax\|_{q}. For any convex function h:Rn→Rh:\mathbb{R}^{n}\to\mathbb{R}, its Fenchel conjugate is defined by h∗(u):=sup⁡x∈Rn{⟨x,u⟩−h(x)}h^{*}(u) := \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}}\{\langle x,u\rangle-h(x)\} for every u∈Rnu \in\mathbb{R}^n. Let ∂h(x)\partial h(x) denote the convex subdifferential of hh at xx. The Fenchel-Young equality holds if and only if u∈∂h(x)u \in\partial h(x):

h(x)+h∗(u)=⟨x,u⟩.(2)h(x) + h^*(u) = \langle x,u\rangle. \tag*{(2)}

For x,y∈Rnx,y \in\mathbb{R}^n and gy∈∂h(y)g_y \in\partial h(y), define the generalized Bregman divergence by Dhgy(x,y):=h(x)−h(y)−⟨gy,x−y⟩D_h^{g_y}(x,y) := h(x) - h(y) - \langle g_y,x-y\rangle. When hh is differentiable at yy, we omit the superscript and denote the Bregman divergence by Dh(x,y)D_h(x,y). In addition, we use O(⋅)O(\cdot) and Θ(⋅)\Theta(\cdot) to denote asymptotic upper and two-sided bounds, respectively.

For conjugate exponents p∈[2,∞]p \in[2,\infty] and q∈[1,2]q \in[1,2] satisfying 1/p+1/q=11/p + 1/q = 1, define the primal and dual regularizers by

References

  1. [1]Z. Allen-Zhu and L. Orecchia. Linear coupling: An ultimate unification of gradient and mirror descent. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2017.
  2. [2]J. Barzilai and J. M. Borwein. Two-point step size gradient methods. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 8(1):141–148, 1988.DOI
  3. [3]H. H. Bauschke and J. M. Borwein. Legendre functions and the method of random Bregman projections. Journal of Convex Analysis, 4(1):27–67, 1997.DOI
  4. [4]A. Beck and M. Teboulle. Mirror descent and nonlinear projected subgradient methods for convex optimization. Operations Research Letters, 31(3):167–175, 2003.DOI
  5. [5]J. Bernstein, Y.-X. Wang, K. Aziz zad esheneli, and A. Anandkumar. signSGD: Compressed optimisation for non-convex problems. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 560–569. PMLR, 2018.arxiv.org/abs/1802.04434
  6. [6]A. d’Aspremont, C. Guzman, and M. Jaggi. Optimal affine-invariant smooth minimization algorithms. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 28(3):2384–2405, 2018.DOI
  7. [7]J. Diakonikolas and C. Guzmán. Lower bounds for parallel and randomized convex optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(5):1–31, 2020.
  8. [8]J. Diakonikolas and C. Guzmán. Complementary composite minimization, small gradients in general norms, and applications. Mathematical Programming, 208(1–2):319–363, 2024.arxiv.org/abs/2101.11041
  9. [9]J. Diakonikolas and L. Orecchia. The approximate duality gap technique: A unified theory of first-order methods. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 29(1):660–689, 2019.DOI
  10. [10]Y. Dong and W. Sawin. MuonP: Muon with fractional spectral powers. arXiv:2606.13867, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2606.13867
  11. [11]R.-A. Dragomir, A. B. Taylor, A. d’Aspremont, and J. Bolte. Optimal complexity and certification of Bregman first-order methods. Mathematical Programming, 194:41–83, 2022.DOI
  12. [12]F. Hanzely, P. Richtárik, and L. Xiao. Accelerated Bregman proximal gradient methods for relatively smooth convex optimization. Computational Optimization and Applications, 79(2):405–440, 2021.arxiv.org/abs/1808.03045
  13. [13]K. Jordan, Y. Jin, V. Boza, J. You, F. Cesista, L. Newhouse, and J. Bernstein. Muon: An optimizer for hidden layers in neural networks, 2024. Technical write-up, December 8, 2024.
  14. [14]P. Joulani, A. Raj, A. György, and C. Szepesvári. A simpler approach to accelerated optimization: Iterative averaging meets optimism. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4984–4993, 2020.
  15. [15]J. A. Kelner, Y. T. Lee, L. Orecchia, and A. Sidford. An almost-linear-time algorithm for approximate max flow in undirected graphs, and its multicommodity generalizations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 217–226. SIAM, 2014.
  16. [16]W. Krichene, A. M. Bayen, and P. L. Bartlett. Accelerated mirror descent in continuous and discrete time. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28, 2015.
  17. [17]P. Latafat, A. Themelis, and P. Patrinos. On the convergence of adaptive first order methods: proximal gradient and alternating minimization algorithms. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, volume 242 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 197–208. PMLR, 2024.arxiv.org/abs/2311.18431
  18. [18]T. Li and G. Lan. A simple uniformly optimal method without line search for convex optimization. Mathematical Programming, 219:219–256, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2310.10082
  19. [19]A. Lobanov. A few accelerated algorithms for convex optimization under $(H_0,H_1)$-smoothness. arXiv:2608.04884, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2608.04884
  20. [20]H. Lu, R. M. Freund, and Y. Nesterov. Relatively smooth convex optimization by first-order methods, and applications. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 28(1):333–354, 2018.arxiv.org/abs/1610.05708
  21. [21]Z. Lu and S. Mei. Accelerated first-order methods for convex optimization with locally Lipschitz continuous gradient. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33(3):2275–2310, 2023.arxiv.org/abs/2206.01209
  22. [22]B. Ma, J. Zhang, and C. He. Schattor: Schatten-family methods for deep learning optimization. arXiv:2606.15702, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2606.15702
  23. [23]C. J. Maddison, D. Paulin, Y. W. Teh, and A. Doucet. Dual space preconditioning for gradient descent. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 31(1):991–1016, 2021.arxiv.org/abs/1902.02257
  24. [24]Y. Malitsky and K. Mishchenko. Adaptive gradient descent without descent. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 6702–6712. PMLR, 2020.arxiv.org/abs/1910.09529
  25. [25]R. Merchav, S. Sabach, and M. Teboulle. The adaptive integrated mean: A novel perspective for acceleration and its extension to Bregman first-order methods. Mathematical Programming, 2026.DOI
  26. [26]A. Nemirovski and D. B. Yudin. Problem Complexity and Method Efficiency in Optimization. Wiley, New York, 1983.
  27. [27]Y. Nesterov. A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate O(1/k²). Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 27:372–376, 1983.
  28. [28]Y. Nesterov. Introductory Lectures on Convex Optimization: A Basic Course, volume 87 of Applied Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
  29. [29]Y. Nesterov. Universal gradient methods for convex optimization problems. Math. Program., 152(1-2):381–404, 2015.DOI
  30. [30]H. Ou, P. Latafat, and A. Themelis. Linesearch-free adaptive Bregman proximal gradient for convex minimization under local relative smoothness. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 210(3), 2026. Article 68.arxiv.org/abs/2508.01353
  31. [31]T. Pethick. When to use what Schatten-p norm in deep learning? arXiv:2606.15268, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2606.15268
  32. [32]A. Rakhlin and K. Sridharan. Online learning with predictable sequences. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Learning Theory, volume 30, pages 993–1019, 2013.arxiv.org/abs/1208.3728
  33. [33]J. J. Suh and S. Ma. An adaptive and parameter-free Nesterov’s accelerated gradient method for convex optimization. arXiv:2505.11670, 2025.arxiv.org/abs/2505.11670
  34. [34]A. Wibisono and A. C. Wilson. On accelerated methods in optimization. arXiv:1509.03616, 2015.arxiv.org/abs/1509.03616
  35. [35]L. Xiao. Dual averaging methods for regularized stochastic learning and online optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:2543–2596, 2010.
  36. [36]D. Zhou, S. Ma, and J. Yang. AdaBB: Adaptive Barzilai–Borwein method for convex optimization. Mathematics of Operations Research, 51(1):715–745, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2401.08024

Paper details

vlnc:W_sfw7bvsr
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents