The complexity of constrained min-max optimization

By Constantinos Daskalakis, Stratis Skoulakis, Manolis Zampetakis. 2020

169 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Despite its important applications in Machine Learning, min-max optimization of objective functions that are nonconvex-nonconcave remains elusive. Not only are there no known first-order methods converging to even approximate local min-max equilibria (a.k.a. approximate saddle points), but the computational complexity of identifying them is also poorly understood. In this paper, we provide a characterization of the computational complexity as well as of the limitations of first-order methods in this problem. Specifically, we show that in linearly constrained min-max optimization problems with nonconvex-nonconcave objectives an approximate local min-max equilibrium of large enough approximation is guaranteed to exist, but computing such a point is PPAD-complete. The same is true of computing an approximate fixed point of the (Projected) Gradient Descent/Ascent update dynamics, which is computationally equivalent to computing approximate local min-max equilibria. An important byproduct of our proof is to establish an unconditional hardness result in the Nemirovsky-Yudin 1983 oracle optimization model, where we are given oracle access to the values of some function f : P → [−1, 1] and its gradient ∇ f, where P ⊆ [0, 1]d is a known convex polytope. We show that any algorithm that uses such first-order oracle access to f and finds an ε-approximate local min-max equilibrium needs to make a number of oracle queries that is exponential in at least one of 1/ε, L, G, or d, where L and G are respectively the smoothness and Lipschitzness of f. This comes in sharp contrast to minimization problems, where finding approximate local minima in the same setting can be done with Projected Gradient Descent using O(L/ε) many queries. Our result is the first to show an exponential separation between these two fundamental optimization problems in the oracle model.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Mechanics, Management Science and Operations Research, Mathematical Optimization

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Simon Lacoste-Julien
  2. Gauthier Gidel
  3. Nicolas Loizou
  4. Peter Richtárik
  5. Ioannis Mitliagkas
  6. Hugo Berard
  7. Michael I. Jordan
  8. Constantinos Daskalakis

In Computational Mechanics

  1. Simon Lacoste-Julien
  2. Gauthier Gidel
  3. Ioannis Mitliagkas
  4. Peter Richtárik
  5. Nicolas Loizou
  6. Hugo Berard
  7. Michael I. Jordan
  8. Constantinos Daskalakis

In Management Science and Operations Research

  1. Simon Lacoste-Julien
  2. Gauthier Gidel
  3. Ioannis Mitliagkas
  4. Michael I. Jordan
  5. Hugo Berard
  6. Jelena Diakonikolas
  7. Nicolas Loizou
  8. Constantinos Daskalakis

In Mathematical Optimization

  1. Simon Lacoste-Julien
  2. Michael I. Jordan
  3. Nicolas Loizou
  4. Ioannis Mitliagkas
  5. Constantinos Daskalakis
  6. Hugo Berard
  7. Gauthier Gidel
  8. Nathan D. Ratliff

Citations in the corpus