All issues

We consider strongly-convex-strongly-concave saddle-point problems with general non-bilinear objective and different condition numbers with respect to the primal and dual variables. First, we consider such problems with smooth composite terms, one of which has finite-sum structure. For this setting we propose a variance reduction algorithm with complexity estimates superior to the existing bounds in the literature. Second, we consider finite-sum saddle-point problems with composite terms and propose several algorithms depending on the properties of the composite terms. When the composite terms are smooth we obtain better complexity bounds than the ones in the literature, including the bounds of a recently proposed nearly-optimal algorithms which do not consider the composite structure of the problem. If the composite terms are prox-friendly, we propose a variance reduction algorithm that, on the one hand, is accelerated compared to existing variance reduction algorithms and, on the other hand, provides in the composite setting similar complexity bounds to the nearly-optimal algorithm which is designed for noncomposite setting. Besides, our algorithms allow one to separate the complexity bounds, i. e. estimate, for each part of the objective separately, the number of oracle calls that is sufficient to achieve a given accuracy. This is important since different parts can have different arithmetic complexity of the oracle, and it is desired to call expensive oracles less often than cheap oracles. The key thing to all these results is our general framework for saddle-point problems, which may be of independent interest. This framework, in turn is based on our proposed Accelerated Meta-Algorithm for composite optimization with probabilistic inexact oracles and probabilistic inexactness in the proximal mapping, which may be of independent interest as well.

In the first part of the paper we present convergence analysis of AGMsDR method on a new class of functions — in general non-convex with $M$-Lipschitz-continuous gradients that satisfy Polyak – Lojasiewicz condition. Method does not need the value of $\mu^{PL}>0$ in the condition and converges linearly with a scale factor $\left(1 - \frac{\mu^{PL}}{M}\right)$. It was previously proved that method converges as $O\left(\frac1{k^2}\right)$ if a function is convex and has $M$-Lipschitz-continuous gradient and converges linearly with a~scale factor $\left(1 - \sqrt{\frac{\mu^{SC}}{M}}\right)$ if the value of strong convexity parameter $\mu^{SC}>0$ is known. The novelty is that one can save linear convergence if $\frac{\mu^{PL}}{\mu^{SC}}$ is not known, but without square root in the scale factor.

The second part presents modification of AGMsDR method for solving problems that allow alternating minimization (Alternating AGMsDR). The similar results are proved.

As the result, we present adaptive accelerated methods that converge as $O\left(\min\left\lbrace\frac{M}{k^2},\,\left(1-{\frac{\mu^{PL}}{M}}\right)^{(k-1)}\right\rbrace\right)$ on a class of convex functions with $M$-Lipschitz-continuous gradient that satisfy Polyak – Lojasiewicz condition. Algorithms do not need values of $M$ and $\mu^{PL}$. If Polyak – Lojasiewicz condition does not hold, the convergence is $O\left(\frac1{k^2}\right)$, but no tuning needed.

We also consider the adaptive catalyst envelope of non-accelerated gradient methods. The envelope allows acceleration up to $O\left(\frac1{k^2}\right)$. We present numerical comparison of non-accelerated adaptive gradient descent which is accelerated using adaptive catalyst envelope with AGMsDR, Alternating AGMsDR, APDAGD (Adaptive Primal-Dual Accelerated Gradient Descent) and Sinkhorn's algorithm on the problem dual to the optimal transport problem.

Conducted experiments show faster convergence of alternating AGMsDR in comparison with described catalyst approach and AGMsDR, despite the same asymptotic rate $O\left(\frac1{k^2}\right)$. Such behavior can be explained by linear convergence of AGMsDR method and was tested on quadratic functions. Alternating AGMsDR demonstrated better performance in comparison with AGMsDR.