Divergence of the ADAM algorithm with fixed-stepsize: a (very) simple example

A very simple unidimensional function with Lipschitz continuous gradient is constructed such that the ADAM algorithm with constant stepsize, started from the origin, diverges when applied to minimize this function in the absence of noise on the gradient. Divergence occurs irrespective of the choice of the method parameters

Adaptive Regularization for Nonconvex Optimization Using Inexact Function Values and Randomly Perturbed Derivatives

A regularization algorithm allowing random noise in derivatives and inexact function values is proposed for computing approximate local critical points of any order for smooth unconstrained optimization problems. For an objective function with Lipschitz continuous $p$-th derivative and given an arbitrary optimality order $q \leq p$, it is shown that this algorithm will, in expectation, compute such a point in at most $O\left(\left(\min_{j\in\{1,\ldots,q\}}\epsilon_j\right)^{-\frac{p+1}{p-q+1}}\right)$ inexact evaluations of $f$ and its derivatives whenever $q\in\{1,2\}$, where $\epsilon_j$ is the tolerance for $j$th order accuracy. This bound becomes at most $O\left(\left(\min_{j\in\{1,\ldots,q\}}\epsilon_j\right)^{-\frac{q(p+1)}{p}}\right)$ inexact evaluations if $q>2$ and all derivatives are Lipschitz continuous. Moreover these bounds are sharp in the order of the accuracy tolerances. An extension to convexly constrained problems is also outlined.Comment: 22 page

Adaptive Regularization Algorithms with Inexact Evaluations for Nonconvex Optimization

A regularization algorithm using inexact function values and inexact derivatives is proposed and its evaluation complexity analyzed. This algorithm is applicable to unconstrained problems and to problems with inexpensive constraints (that is constraints whose evaluation and enforcement has negligible cost) under the assumption that the derivative of highest degree is $\beta$-H\"{o}lder continuous. It features a very flexible adaptive mechanism for determining the inexactness which is allowed, at each iteration, when computing objective function values and derivatives. The complexity analysis covers arbitrary optimality order and arbitrary degree of available approximate derivatives. It extends results of Cartis, Gould and Toint (2018) on the evaluation complexity to the inexact case: if a $q$th order minimizer is sought using approximations to the first $p$ derivatives, it is proved that a suitable approximate minimizer within $\epsilon$ is computed by the proposed algorithm in at most $O(\epsilon^{-\frac{p+\beta}{p-q+\beta}})$ iterations and at most $O(|\log(\epsilon)|\epsilon^{-\frac{p+\beta}{p-q+\beta}})$ approximate evaluations. An algorithmic variant, although more rigid in practice, can be proved to find such an approximate minimizer in $O(|\log(\epsilon)|+\epsilon^{-\frac{p+\beta}{p-q+\beta}})$ evaluations.While the proposed framework remains so far conceptual for high degrees and orders, it is shown to yield simple and computationally realistic inexact methods when specialized to the unconstrained and bound-constrained first- and second-order cases. The deterministic complexity results are finally extended to the stochastic context, yielding adaptive sample-size rules for subsampling methods typical of machine learning.Comment: 32 page

OFFO minimization algorithms for second-order optimality and their complexity

An Adagrad-inspired class of algorithms for smooth unconstrained optimization is presented in which the objective function is never evaluated and yet the gradient norms decrease at least as fast as \calO(1/\sqrt{k+1}) while second-order optimality measures converge to zero at least as fast as \calO(1/(k+1)^{1/3}). This latter rate of convergence is shown to be essentially sharp and is identical to that known for more standard algorithms (like trust-region or adaptive-regularization methods) using both function and derivatives' evaluations. A related "divergent stepsize" method is also described, whose essentially sharp rate of convergence is slighly inferior. It is finally discussed how to obtain weaker second-order optimality guarantees at a (much) reduced computional cost