Stochastic Nested Variance Reduction for Nonconvex Optimizationweb.cs.ucla.edu/~qgu/pdf/SNVRG.pdf · 2019-02-23 · to measure the convergence of different ﬁrst-order algorithms.2

Stochastic Nested Variance Reduction forNonconvex Optimization

Dongruo ZhouDepartment of Computer Science

University of California, Los AngelesLos Angeles, CA [email protected]

Pan XuDepartment of Computer Science


Quanquan GuDepartment of Computer Science


Abstract

We study finite-sum nonconvex optimization problems, where the objective func-tion is an average of n nonconvex functions. We propose a new stochastic gradientdescent algorithm based on nested variance reduction. Compared with conventionalstochastic variance reduced gradient (SVRG) algorithm that uses two referencepoints to construct a semi-stochastic gradient with diminishing variance in each it-eration, our algorithm uses K+ 1 nested reference points to build a semi-stochasticgradient to further reduce its variance in each iteration. For smooth nonconvexfunctions, the proposed algorithm converges to an ε-approximate first-order station-ary point (i.e., ‖∇F (x)‖2 ≤ ε) within O(n ∧ ε−2 + ε−3 ∧ n1/2ε−2)1 number ofstochastic gradient evaluations. This improves the best known gradient complexityof SVRG O(n+n2/3ε−2) and that of SCSG O(n∧ ε−2 + ε−10/3 ∧n2/3ε−2). Forgradient dominated functions, our algorithm also achieves better gradient complex-ity than the state-of-the-art algorithms. Thorough experimental results on differentnonconvex optimization problems back up our theory.

1 Introduction

We study the following nonconvex finite-sum problem

minx∈Rd

F (x) :=1

n

n∑

i=1

fi(x), (1.1)

where each component function fi : Rd → R has L-Lipschitz continuous gradient but may benonconvex. A lot of machine learning problems fall into (1.1) such as empirical risk minimization(ERM) with nonconvex loss. Since finding the global minimum of (1.1) is general NP-hard [17], weinstead aim at finding an ε-approximate stationary point x, which satisfies ‖∇F (x)‖2 ≤ ε, where∇F (x) is the gradient of F (x) at x, and ε > 0 is the accuracy parameter.

In this work, we mainly focus on first-order algorithms, which only need the function value andgradient evaluations. We use gradient complexity, the number of stochastic gradient evaluations,

1O(·) hides the logarithmic factors, and a ∧ b means min(a, b).

32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018), Montréal, Canada.

to measure the convergence of different first-order algorithms.2 For nonconvex optimization, it iswell-known that Gradient Descent (GD) can converge to an ε-approximate stationary point withO(n · ε−2) [32] number of stochastic gradient evaluations. It can be seen that GD needs to calculatethe full gradient at each iteration, which is a heavy load when n 1. Stochastic Gradient Descent(SGD) has O(ε−4) gradient complexity to an ε-approximate stationary point under the assumptionthat the stochastic gradient has a bounded variance [15]. While SGD only needs to calculate amini-batch of stochastic gradients in each iteration, due to the noise brought by stochastic gradients,its gradient complexity has a worse dependency on ε. In order to improve the dependence of thegradient complexity of SGD on n and ε for nonconvex optimization, variance reduction techniquewas firstly proposed in [43, 19, 48, 10, 30, 6, 47, 11, 16, 34, 35] for convex finite-sum optimization.Representative algorithms include Stochastic Average Gradient (SAG) [43], Stochastic VarianceReduced Gradient (SVRG) [19], SAGA [10], Stochastic Dual Coordinate Ascent (SDCA) [47], Finito[11], Batching SVRG [16] and SARAH [34, 35], to mention a few. The key idea behind variancereduction is that the gradient complexity can be saved if the algorithm use history information asreference. For instance, one representative variance reduction method is SVRG, which is based ona semi-stochastic gradient that is defined by two reference points. Since the the variance of thissemi-stochastic gradient will diminish when the iterate gets closer to the minimizer, it thereforeaccelerates the convergence of stochastic gradient method. Later on, Harikandeh et al. [16] proposedBatching SVRG which also enjoys fast convergence property of SVRG without computing the fullgradient. The convergence of SVRG under nonconvex setting was first analyzed in [13, 46], whereF is still convex but each component function fi can be nonconvex. The analysis for the generalnonconvex function F was done by [40, 5], which shows that SVRG can converge to an ε-approximatestationary point with O(n2/3 · ε−2) number of stochastic gradient evaluations. This result is strictlybetter than that of GD. Recently, Lei et al. [26] proposed a Stochastically Controlled StochasticGradient (SCSG) based on variance reduction, which further reduces the gradient complexity ofSVRG to O(n ∧ ε−2 + ε−10/3 ∧ (n2/3ε−2)). This result outperforms both GD and SGD strictly. Tothe best of our knowledge, this is the state-of-art gradient complexity under the smoothness (i.e.,gradient lipschitz) and bounded stochastic gradient variance assumptions. A natural and long standingquestion is:

Is there still room for improvement in nonconvex finite-sum optimization without making additionalassumptions beyond smoothness and bounded stochastic gradient variance?

In this paper, we provide an affirmative answer to the above question, by showing that the dependenceon n in the gradient complexity of SVRG [40, 5] and SCSG [26] can be further reduced. We proposea novel algorithm namely Stochastic Nested Variance-Reduced Gradient descent (SNVRG). Similarto SVRG and SCSG, our proposed algorithm works in a multi-epoch way. Nevertheless, the techniquewe developed is highly nontrivial. At the core of our algorithm is the multiple reference points-basedvariance reduction technique in each iteration. In detail, inspired by SVRG and SCSG, which usestwo reference points to construct a semi-stochastic gradient with diminishing variance, our algorithmuses K + 1 reference points to construct a semi-stochastic gradient, whose variance decays fasterthan that of the semi-stochastic gradient used in SVRG and SCSG.

1.1 Our Contributions

Our major contributions are summarized as follows:

• We propose a stochastic nested variance reduction technique for stochastic gradient method, whichreduces the dependence of the gradient complexity on n compared with SVRG and SCSG.

• We show that our proposed algorithm is able to achieve an ε-approximate stationary point withO(n ∧ ε−2 + ε−3 ∧ n1/2ε−2) stochastic gradient evaluations, which outperforms all existingfirst-order algorithms such as GD, SGD, SVRG and SCSG.

• As a by-product, when F is a τ -gradient dominated function, a variant of our algorithm can achievean ε-approximate global minimizer (i.e., F (x) −miny F (y) ≤ ε) within O

(n ∧ τε−1 + τ(n ∧

τε−1)1/2)

stochastic gradient evaluations, which also outperforms the state-of-the-art.

2While we use gradient complexity as in [26] to present our result, it is basically the same if we useincremental first-order oracle (IFO) complexity used by [40]. In other words, these are directly comparable.

2

1.2 Additional Related Work

Since it is hardly possible to review the huge body of literature on convex and nonconvex optimizationdue to space limit, here we review some additional most related work on accelerating nonconvex(finite-sum) optimization.

SNVRGSCSGSVRG

GradientComplexity

n2

3

10/3

12

n1/2

2

n2/3

2

n2/3

2

Figure 1: Comparison of gradientcomplexities.

Acceleration by high-order smoothness assumption Withonly Lipschitz continuous gradient assumption, Carmon et al.[9] showed that the lower bound for both deterministic andstochastic algorithms to achieve an ε-approximate stationarypoint is Ω(ε−2). With high-order smoothness assumptions,i.e., Hessian Lipschitzness, Hessian smoothness etc., a seriesof work have shown the existence of acceleration. For in-stance, Agarwal et al. [1] gave an algorithm based on Fast-PCAwhich can achieve an ε-approximate stationary point with gra-dient complexity O(nε−3/2 + n3/4ε−7/4) Carmon et al. [7, 8]showed two algorithms based on finding exact or inexact neg-ative curvature which can achieve an ε-approximate stationarypoint with gradient complexity O(nε−7/4). In this work, weonly consider gradient Lipschitz without assuming Hessian Lipschitz or Hessian smooth. Therefore,our result is not directly comparable to the methods in this category.

Acceleration by momentum The fact that using momentum is able to accelerate algorithms has beenshown both in theory and practice in convex optimization [37, 31, 18, 23, 14, 32, 29, 2]. However,there is no evidence that such acceleration exists in nonconvex optimization with only Lipschitzcontinuous gradient assumption [15, 27, 36, 28, 24]. If F satisfies λ-strongly nonconvex, i.e.,∇2F −λI, Allen-Zhu [3] proved that Natasha 1, an algorithm based on nonconvex momentum, isable to find an ε-approximate stationary point in O(n2/3L2/3λ1/3ε−2). Later, Allen-Zhu [3] furthershowed that Natasha 2, an online version of Natasha 1, is able to achieve an ε-approximate stationarypoint within O(ε−3.25) stochastic gradient evaluations3.

After our paper was submitted to NIPS and released on arXiv, a paper [12] was released on arXiv afterour work, which independently proposes a different algorithm and achieves the same convergencerate for finding an ε-approximate stationary point.

To give a thorough comparison of our proposed algorithm with existing first-order algorithms fornonconvex finite-sum optimization, we summarize the gradient complexity of the most relevantalgorithms in Table 1. We also plot the gradient complexities of different algorithms in Figure 1for nonconvex smooth functions. Note that GD and SGD are always worse than SVRG and SCSGaccording to Table 1. In addition, GNC-AGD and Natasha2 needs additional Hessian Lipschitzcondition. Therefore, we only plot the gradient complexity of SVRG, SCSG and our proposedSNVRG in Figure 1.

Notation: Let A = [Aij ] ∈ Rd×d be a matrix and x = (x1, ..., xd)> ∈ Rd be a vector. I denotes anidentity matrix. We use ‖v‖2 to denote the 2-norm of vector v ∈ Rd. We use 〈·, ·〉 to represent theinner product of two vectors. Given two sequences an and bn, we write an = O(bn) if thereexists a constant 0 < C < +∞ such that an ≤ C bn. We write an = Ω(bn) if there exists a constant0 < C < +∞, such that an ≥ C bn. We use notation O(·) to hide logarithmic factors. We also makeuse of the notation fn . gn (fn & gn) if fn is less than (larger than) gn up to a constant. We useproductive symbol

∏bi=a ci to denote caca+1 . . . cb. Moreover, if a > b, we take the product as 1.

We use b·c as the floor function. We use log(x) to represent the logarithm of x to base 2. a ∧ b is ashorthand notation for min(a, b).

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we present some definitions that will be used throughout our analysis.

3In fact, Natasha 2 is guaranteed to converge to an (ε,√ε)-approximate second-order stationary point with

O(ε−3.25) gradient complexity, which implies the convergence to an ε-approximate stationary point.

3

Table 1: Comparisons on gradient complexity of different algorithms. The second column shows thegradient complexity for a nonconvex and smooth function to achieve an ε-approximate stationarypoint (i.e., ‖∇F (x)‖2 ≤ ε). The third column presents the gradient complexity for a gradientdominant function to achieve an ε-approximate global minimizer (i.e., F (x)−minx F (x) ≤ ε). Thelast column presents the space complexity of all algorithms.

Algorithm nonconvex gradient dominant Hessian Lipschitz

GD O(nε2

)O(τn) No

SGD O(

1ε4

)O(

1ε4

)No

SVRG [40] O(n2/3

ε2

)O(n+ τn2/3) No

SCSG [26] O(

1

ε10/3∧ n2/3

ε2

)O(n ∧ τ

ε+ τ(n ∧ τ

ε

)2/3) No

GNC-AGD [8] O(

nε1.75

)N/A Needed

Natasha 2 [3] O(

1ε3.25

)N/A Needed

SNVRG (this paper) O(

1ε3∧ n1/2

ε2

)O(n ∧ τ

ε+ τ(n ∧ τ

ε

)1/2) No

Definition 2.1. A function f is L-smooth, if for any x,y ∈ Rd, we have

‖∇f(x)−∇f(y)‖2 ≤ L‖x− y‖2. (2.1)

Definition 2.1 implies that if f is L-smooth, we have for any x,h ∈ Rd

f(x + h) ≤ f(x) + 〈∇f(x),h〉+L

2‖h‖22. (2.2)

Definition 2.2. A function f is λ-strongly convex, if for any x,y ∈ Rd, we have

f(x + h) ≥ f(x) + 〈∇f(x),h〉+λ

2‖h‖22. (2.3)

Definition 2.3. A function F with finite-sum structure in (1.1) is said to have stochastic gradientswith bounded variance σ2, if for any x ∈ Rd, we have

Ei‖∇fi(x)−∇F (x)‖22 ≤ σ2, (2.4)

where i a random index uniformly chosen from [n] and Ei denotes the expectation over such i.

σ2 is called the upper bound on the variance of stochastic gradients [26].

Definition 2.4. A function F with finite-sum structure in (1.1) is said to have averaged L-Lipschitzgradient, if for any x,y ∈ Rd, we have

Ei‖∇fi(x)−∇fi(y)‖22 ≤ L2‖x− y‖22, (2.5)

where i is a random index uniformly chosen from [n] and Ei denotes the expectation over the choice.

Definition 2.5. We say a function f is lower-bounded by f∗ if for any x ∈ Rd, f(x) ≥ f∗.

We also consider a class of functions namely gradient dominated functions [38], which is formallydefined as follows:

Definition 2.6. We say function f is τ -gradient dominated if for any x ∈ Rd, we have

f(x)− f(x∗) ≤ τ · ‖∇f(x)‖22, (2.6)

where x∗ ∈ Rd is the global minimum of f .

Note that gradient dominated condition is also known as the Polyak-Lojasiewicz (P-L) condition [38],and is not necessarily convex. It is weaker than strong convexity as well as other popular conditionsthat appear in the optimization literature [20].

4

Algorithm 1 One-epoch-SNVRG(x0, F,K,M, Tl, Bl, B)1: Input: initial point x0, function F , loop number K, step size parameter M , loop parametersTl, l ∈ [K], batch parameters Bl, l ∈ [K], base batch size B > 0.

2: x(l)0 ← x0, g(l)

0 ← 0, 0 ≤ l ≤ K3: Uniformly generate index set I ⊂ [n] without replacement, |I| = B

4: g(0)0 ← 1/B

∑i∈I ∇fi(x0)

5: v0 ←∑K

l=0 g(l)0

6: x1 = x0 − 1/(10M) · v0

7: for t = 1, ...,∏K

l=1 Tl − 1 do8: r = minj : 0 = (t mod

∏Kl=j+1 Tl), 0 ≤ j ≤ K

9: x(l)t ← Update_reference_points(x(l)

t−1,xt, r), 0 ≤ l ≤ K.10: g(l)

t ← Update_reference_gradients(g(l)t−1, x

(l)t , r), 0 ≤ l ≤ K.

11: vt ←∑K

l=0 g(l)t

12: xt+1 ← xt − 1/(10M) · vt

13: end for14: xout ← uniformly random choice from xt, where 0 ≤ t <∏K

l=1 Tl15: T =

∏Kl=1 Tl

16: Output: [xout,xT ]

17: Function: Update_reference_points(x(l)old,x, r)

18: x(l)new ← x

(l)old, 0 ≤ l ≤ r − 1; x(l)

new ← x, r ≤ l ≤ K19: return x(l)

new

20: Function: Update_reference_gradients(g(l)old, x

(l)new, r)

21: g(l)new ← g

(l)old, 0 ≤ l < r

22: for r ≤ l ≤ K do23: Uniformly generate index set I ⊂ [n] without replacement, |I| = Bl

24: g(l)new ← 1/Bl

∑i∈I[∇fi(x(l)

new)−∇fi(x(l−1)new )

]25: end for26: return g(l)

new.

3 The Proposed Algorithm

In this section, we present our nested stochastic variance reduction algorithm, namely, SNVRG.

One-epoch-SNVRG: We first present the key component of our main algorithm, One-epoch-SNVRG, which is displayed in Algorithm 1. The most innovative part of Algorithm 1 attributes to theK + 1 reference points and K + 1 reference gradients. Note that when K = 1, Algorithm 1 reducesto one epoch of SVRG algorithm [19, 40, 5]. To better understand our One-epoch SNVRG algorithm,it would be helpful to revisit the original SVRG which is a special case of our algorithm. For thefinite-sum optimization problem in (1.1), the original SVRG takes the following updating formula

xt+1 = xt − ηvt = xt − η(∇F (x) +∇fit(xt)−∇fit(x)

),

where η > 0 is the step size, it is a random index uniformly chosen from [n] and x is a snapshot forxt after every T1 iterations. There are two reference points in the update formula at xt: x

(0)t = x

and x(1)t = xt. Note that x is updated every T1 iterations, namely, x is set to be xt only when (t

mod T1) = 0. Moreover, in the semi-stochastic gradient vt, there are also two reference gradientsand we denote them by g

(0)t = ∇F (x) and g

(1)t = ∇fit(xt)−∇fit(x) = ∇fit(x(1)

t )−∇fit(x(0)t ).

Back to our One-epoch-SNVRG, we can define similar reference points and reference gradients asthat in the special case of SVRG. Specifically, for t = 0, . . . ,

∏Kl=1 Tl − 1, each point xt has K + 1

5

reference points x(l)t , l = 0, . . . ,K, which is set to be x

(l)t = xtl with index tl defined as

tl =

⌊t

∏Kk=l+1 Tk

⌋·

K∏

k=l+1

Tk. (3.1)

Specially, note that we have x(0)t = x0 and x

(K)t = xt for all t = 0, . . . ,

∏Kl=1 Tl − 1. Similarly, xt

also has K + 1 reference gradients g(l)t , which can be defined based on the reference points x(l)

t :

g(0)t =

1

B

∑

i∈I∇fi(x0), g

(l)t =

1

Bl

∑

i∈Il

[∇fi(x(l)

t )−∇fi(x(l−1)t )

], l = 1, . . . ,K, (3.2)

where I, Il are random index sets with |I| = B, |Il| = Bl and are uniformly generated from[n] without replacement. Based on the reference points and reference gradients, we then updatext+1 = xt− 1/(10M) ·vt, where vt =

∑Kl=0 g

(l)t and M is the step size parameter. The illustration

of reference points and gradients of SNVRG is displayed in Figure 2.

We remark that it would be a huge waste for us to re-evaluate g(l)t at each iteration. Fortunately, due

to the fact that each reference point is only updated after a long period, we can maintain g(l)t = g

(l)t−1

and only need to update g(l)t when x

(l)t has been updated as is suggested by Line 24 in Algorithm 1.

For t1 = 1, . . . , T1

For tK = 1, . . . , TK

For tK1 = 1, . . . , TK1

x(1)tReference point

x(K1)tReference point

x(K)tReference point

x(0)tReference point

g(K1)tReference gradient

g(K)t

Reference gradient

g(0)tReference gradient

g(1)t

Reference gradient

update

……

......

xt+1 = xt

KX

l=0

g(l)t

Figure 2: Illustration of referencepoints and gradients.

SNVRG: Using One-epoch-SNVRG (Algorithm 1) as a build-ing block, we now present our main algorithm: Algorithm 2for nonconvex finite-sum optimization to find an ε-approximatestationary point. At each iteration of Algorithm 2, it executesOne-epoch-SNVRG (Algorithm 1) which takes zs−1 as its inputand outputs [ys, zs]. We choose yout as the output of Algorithm2 uniformly from ys, for s = 1, . . . , S.

SNVRG-PL: In addition, when function F in (1.1) is gradientdominated as defined in Definition 2.6 (P-L condition), it hasbeen proved that the global minimum can be found by SGD[20], SVRG [40] and SCSG [26] very efficiently. Followinga similar trick used in [40], we present Algorithm 3 on top ofAlgorithm 2, to find the global minimum in this setting. We callAlgorithm 3 SNVRG-PL, because gradient dominated conditionis also known as Polyak-Lojasiewicz (PL) condition [38].

Space complexity: We briefly compare the space complexitybetween our algorithms and other variance reduction based algo-rithms. SVRG and SCSG needs O(d) space complexity to storeone reference gradient, SAGA [10] needs to store reference gra-dients for each component functions, and its space complexity isO(nd) without using any trick. For our algorithm SNVRG, weneed to store K reference gradients, thus its space complexityis O(Kd). In our theory, we will show that K = O(log log n). Therefore, the space complexity ofour algorithm is actually O(d), which is almost comparable to that of SVRG and SCSG.

Algorithm 2 SNVRG1: Input: initial point z0, function F , K, M ,Tl, Bl, batch B, S.

2: for s = 1, . . . , S do3: denote P = (F,K,M, Tl, Bl, B)4: [ys, zs]←One-epoch-SNVRG(zs−1,P)5: end for6: Output: Uniformly choose yout from ys.

Algorithm 3 SNVRG-PL1: Input: initial point z0, function F , K, M ,Tl, Bl, batch B, S, U .

2: for u = 1, . . . , U do3: denote Q = (F,K,M, Tl, Bl, B, S)4: zu = SNVRG(zu−1,Q)5: end for6: Output: zout = zU .

4 Main Theory

In this section, we provide the convergence analysis of SNVRG.

6

4.1 Convergence of SNVRG

We first analyze One-epoch-SNVRG (Algorithm 1) and provide a particular choice of parameters.

Lemma 4.1. Suppose that F has averaged L-Lipschitz gradient, in Algorithm 1, suppose B ≥ 2 andlet the number of nested loops be K = log logB. Choose the step size parameter as M = 6L. Forthe loop and batch parameters, let T1 = 2, B1 = 6K ·B and

Tl = 22l−2

, Bl = 6K−l+1 ·B/22l−1

,

for all 2 ≤ l ≤ K. Then the output of Algorithm 1 [xout,xT ] satisfies

E‖∇F (xout)‖22 ≤ C(

L

B1/2· E[F (x0)− F (xT )

]+σ2

B· 1(B < n)

)(4.1)

within 1∨ (7B log3B) stochastic gradient computations, where T =∏K

l=1 Tl, C = 600 is a constantand 1(·) is the indicator function.

The following theorem shows the gradient complexity for Algorithm 2 to find an ε-approximatestationary point with a constant base batch size B.

Theorem 4.2. Suppose that F has averaged L-Lipschitz gradient and stochastic gradients withbounded variance σ2. In Algorithm 2, let B = n ∧ (2Cσ2/ε2) , S = 1 ∨ (2CL∆F /(B

1/2ε2)) andC = 600. The rest parameters (K,M, Bl, Tl) are chosen the same as in Lemma 4.1. Then theoutput yout of Algorithm 2 satisfies E‖∇F (yout)‖22 ≤ ε2 with less than

O

(log3

(σ2

ε2∧ n)[

σ2

ε2∧ n+

L∆F

ε2

[σ2

ε2∧ n]1/2])

(4.2)

stochastic gradient computations, where ∆F = F (z0)− F ∗.Remark 4.3. If we treat σ2, L and ∆F as constants, and assume ε 1, then (4.2) can be simplifiedto O(ε−3 ∧ n1/2ε−2). This gradient complexity is strictly better than O(ε−10/3 ∧ n2/3ε−2), which isachieved by SCSG [26]. Specifically, when n . 1/ε2, our proposed SNVRG is faster than SCSGby a factor of n1/6; when n & 1/ε2, SNVRG is faster than SCSG by a factor of ε−1/3. Moreover,SNVRG also outperforms Natasha 2 [3] which attains O(ε−3.25) gradient complexity and needs theadditional Hessian Lipschitz condition.

4.2 Convergence of SNVRG-PL

We now consider the case when F is a τ -gradient dominated function. In general, we are able to findan ε-approximate global minimizer of F instead of only an ε-approximate stationary point. Algorithm3 uses Algorithm 2 as a component.

Theorem 4.4. Suppose that F has averaged L-Lipschitz gradient and stochastic gradients withbounded variance σ2, F is a τ -gradient dominated function. In Algorithm 3, let the base batch sizeB = n ∧ (4C1τσ

2/ε), the number of epochs for SNVRG S = 1 ∨ (2C1τL/B1/2) and the number

of epochs U = log(2∆F /ε). The rest parameters (K,M, Bl, Tl) are chosen as the same inLemma 4.1. Then the output zout of Algorithm 3 satisfies E

[F (zout)− F ∗

]≤ ε within

O

(log3

(n ∧ τσ

2

ε

)log

∆F

ε

[n ∧ τσ

2

ε+ τL

[n ∧ τσ

2

ε

]1/2])(4.3)

stochastic gradient computations, where ∆F = F (z0)− F ∗Remark 4.5. If we treat σ2, L and ∆F as constants, then the gradient complexity in (4.3) turnsinto O(n ∧ τε−1 + τ(n ∧ τε−1)1/2). Compared with nonconvex SVRG [41] which achievesO(n + τn2/3) gradient complexity, our SNVRG-PL is strictly better than SVRG in terms of thefirst summand and is faster than SVRG at least by a factor of n1/6 in terms of the second summand.Compared with a more general variant of SVRG, namely, the SCSG algorithm [26], which attainsO(n ∧ τε−1 + τ(n ∧ τε−1)2/3

)gradient complexity, SNVRG-PL also outperforms it by a factor of

(n ∧ τε−1)1/6.

7

If we further assume that F is λ-strongly convex, then it is easy to verify that F is also 1/(2λ)-gradientdominated. As a direct consequence, we have the following corollary:

Corollary 4.6. Under the same conditions and parameter choices as Theorem 4.4. If we additionallyassume that F is λ-strongly convex, then Algorithm 3 will outputs an ε-approximate global minimizerwithin

O

(n ∧ λσ

2

ε+ κ ·

[n ∧ λσ

2

ε

]1/2)(4.4)

stochastic gradient computations, where κ = L/λ is the condition number of F .

Remark 4.7. Corollary 4.6 suggests that when we regard λ and σ2 as constants and set ε 1,Algorithm 3 is able to find an ε-approximate global minimizer within O(n + n1/2κ) stochasticgradient computations, which matches SVRG-lep in Katyusha X [4]. Using catalyst techniques [29]or Katyusha momentum [2], it can be further accelerated to O(n + n3/4

√κ), which matches the

best-known convergence rate [45, 4].

5 Experiments

In this section, we compare our algorithm SNVRG with other baseline algorithms on training aconvolutional neural network for image classification. We compare the performance of the followingalgorithms: SGD; SGD with momentum [39] (denoted by SGD-momentum); ADAM[21]; SCSG [26].It is worth noting that SCSG is a special case of SNVRG when the number of nested loops K = 1.Due to the memory cost, we did not compare GD and SVRG which need to calculate the full gradient.Although our theoretical analysis holds for general K nested loops, it suffices to choose K = 2 inSNVRG to illustrate the effectiveness of the nested structure for the simplification of implementation.In this case, we have 3 reference points and gradients. All experiments are conducted on AmazonAWS p2.xlarge servers which comes with Intel Xeon E5 CPU and NVIDIA Tesla K80 GPU (12GGPU RAM). All algorithm are implemented in Pytorch platform version 0.4.0 within Python 3.6.4.

Datasets We use three image datasets: (1) The MNIST dataset [44] consists of handwritten digitsand has 50, 000 training examples and 10, 000 test examples. The digits have been size-normalizedto fit the network, and each image is 28 pixels by 28 pixels. (2) CIFAR10 dataset [22] consists ofimages in 10 classes and has 50, 000 training examples and 10, 000 test examples. The digits havebeen size-normalized to fit the network, and each image is 32 pixels by 32 pixels. (3) SVHN dataset[33] consists of images of digits and has 531, 131 training examples and 26, 032 test examples. Thedigits have been size-normalized to fit the network, and each image is 32 pixels by 32 pixels.

CNN Architecture We use the standard LeNet [25], which has two convolutional layers with 6 and16 filters of size 5 respectively, followed by three fully-connected layers with output size 120, 84 and10. We apply max pooling after each convolutional layer.

Implementation Details & Parameter Tuning We did not use the random data augmentation whichis set as default by Pytorch, because it will apply random transformation (e.g., clip and rotation) atthe beginning of each epoch on the original image dataset, which will ruin the finite-sum structureof the loss function. We set our grid search rules for all three datasets as follows. For SGD, wesearch the batch size from 256, 512, 1024, 2048 and the initial step sizes from 1, 0.1, 0.01.For SGD-momentum, we set the momentum parameter as 0.9. We search its batch size from256, 512, 1024, 2048 and the initial learning rate from 1, 0.1, 0.01. For ADAM, we search thebatch size from 256, 512, 1024, 2048 and the initial learning rate from 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001. ForSCSG and SNVRG, we choose loop parameters Tl which satisfy Bl ·

∏lj=1 Tj = B automatically.

In addition, for SCSG, we set the batch sizes (B,B1) = (B,B/b), where b is the batch sizeratio parameter. We search B from 256, 512, 1024, 2048 and we search b from 2, 4, 8. Wesearch its initial learning rate from 1, 0.1, 0.01. For our proposed SNVRG, we set the batchsizes (B,B1, B2) = (B,B/b,B/b2), where b is the batch size ratio parameter. We search B from256, 512, 1024, 2048 and b from 2, 4, 8. We search its initial learning rate from 1, 0.1, 0.01.Following the convention of deep learning practice, we apply learning rate decay schedule to eachalgorithm with the learning rate decayed by 0.1 every 20 epochs. We also conducted experimentsbased on plain implementation of different algorithms without learning rate decay, which is deferredto the appendix.

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200

Trai

ning

Los

s

SGDSGD-momentumADAMSCSGSNVRG

(a) training loss (MNIST)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Trai

ning

Los

s


(b) training loss (CIFAR10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Trai

ning

Los

s


(c) training loss (SVHN)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Test

Erro

r


(d) test error (MNIST)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

Test

Erro

r


(e) test error (CIFAR10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Test

Erro

r


(f) test error (SVHN)

Figure 3: Experiment results on different datasets with learning rate decay. (a) and (d) depict thetraining loss and test error (top-1 error) v.s. data epochs for training LeNet on MNIST dataset. (b)and (e) depict the training loss and test error v.s. data epochs for training LeNet on CIFAR10 dataset.(c) and (f) depict the training loss and test error v.s. data epochs for training LeNet on SVHN dataset.

We plotted the training loss and test error for different algorithms on each dataset in Figure 3. Theresults on MNIST are presented in Figures 3(a) and 3(d); the results on CIFAR10 are in Figures 3(b)and 3(e); and the results on SVHN dataset are shown in Figures 3(c) and 3(f). It can be seen thatwith learning rate decay schedule, our algorithm SNVRG outperforms all baseline algorithms, whichconfirms that the use of nested reference points and gradients can accelerate the nonconvex finite-sumoptimization.

We would like to emphasize that, while this experiment is on training convolutional neural networks,the major goal of this experiment is to illustrate the advantage of our algorithm and corroborate ourtheory, rather than claiming a state-of-the-art algorithm for training deep neural networks.

6 Conclusions and Future Work

In this paper, we proposed a stochastic nested variance reduced gradient method for finite-sumnonconvex optimization. It achieves substantially better gradient complexity than existing first-orderalgorithms. This partially resolves a long standing question that whether the dependence of gradientcomplexity on n for nonconvex SVRG and SCSG can be further improved. There is still an openquestion: whether O(n∧ ε−2 + ε−3 ∧n1/2ε−2) is the optimal gradient complexity for finite-sum andstochastic nonconvex optimization problem? For finite-sum nonconvex optimization problem, thelower bound has been proved in Fang et al. [12], which suggests that our algorithm is near optimal upto a logarithmic factor. However, for general stochastic problem, the lower bound is still unknown.We plan to derive such lower bound in our future work. On the other hand, our algorithm can also beextended to deal with nonconvex nonsmooth finite-sum optimization using proximal gradient [42].

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research wassponsored in part by the National Science Foundation IIS-1652539 and BIGDATA IIS-1855099.We also thank AWS for providing cloud computing credits associated with the NSF BIGDATAaward. The views and conclusions contained in this paper are those of the authors and should not beinterpreted as representing any funding agencies.

9

References

[1] Naman Agarwal, Zeyuan Allenzhu, Brian Bullins, Elad Hazan, and Tengyu Ma. Findingapproximate local minima for nonconvex optimization in linear time. 2017.

[2] Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. Katyusha: The first direct acceleration of stochastic gradient methods. InProceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages1200–1205. ACM, 2017.

[3] Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. Natasha 2: Faster non-convex optimization than sgd. arXiv preprintarXiv:1708.08694, 2017.

[4] Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. Katyusha x: Simple momentum method for stochastic sum-of-nonconvexoptimization. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning,volume 80, pages 179–185. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018.

[5] Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Elad Hazan. Variance reduction for faster non-convex optimization. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 699–707, 2016.

[6] Alberto Bietti and Julien Mairal. Stochastic optimization with variance reduction for infinitedatasets with finite sum structure. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages1622–1632, 2017.

[7] Yair Carmon, John C. Duchi, Oliver Hinder, and Aaron Sidford. Accelerated methods fornon-convex optimization. 2016.

[8] Yair Carmon, John C Duchi, Oliver Hinder, and Aaron Sidford. “convex until proven guilty":Dimension-free acceleration of gradient descent on non-convex functions. In InternationalConference on Machine Learning, pages 654–663, 2017.

[9] Yair Carmon, John C Duchi, Oliver Hinder, and Aaron Sidford. Lower bounds for findingstationary points of non-convex, smooth high-dimensional functions. 2017.

[10] Aaron Defazio, Francis Bach, and Simon Lacoste-Julien. Saga: A fast incremental gradientmethod with support for non-strongly convex composite objectives. In Advances in NeuralInformation Processing Systems, pages 1646–1654, 2014.

[11] Aaron Defazio, Justin Domke, et al. Finito: A faster, permutable incremental gradient methodfor big data problems. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1125–1133,2014.

[12] Cong Fang, Chris Junchi Li, Zhouchen Lin, and Tong Zhang. Spider: Near-optimal non-convex optimization via stochastic path-integrated differential estimator. In Advances in NeuralInformation Processing Systems, pages 686–696, 2018.

[13] Dan Garber and Elad Hazan. Fast and simple pca via convex optimization. arXiv preprintarXiv:1509.05647, 2015.

[14] Saeed Ghadimi and Guanghui Lan. Optimal stochastic approximation algorithms for stronglyconvex stochastic composite optimization i: A generic algorithmic framework. SIAM Journalon Optimization, 22(4):1469–1492, 2012.

[15] Saeed Ghadimi and Guanghui Lan. Accelerated gradient methods for nonconvex nonlinear andstochastic programming. Mathematical Programming, 156(1-2):59–99, 2016.

[16] Reza Harikandeh, Mohamed Osama Ahmed, Alim Virani, Mark Schmidt, Jakub Konecny, andScott Sallinen. Stopwasting my gradients: Practical svrg. In Advances in Neural InformationProcessing Systems, pages 2251–2259, 2015.

[17] Christopher J Hillar and Lek-Heng Lim. Most tensor problems are np-hard. Journal of the ACM(JACM), 60(6):45, 2013.

[18] Chonghai Hu, Weike Pan, and James T Kwok. Accelerated gradient methods for stochasticoptimization and online learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages781–789, 2009.

10

[19] Rie Johnson and Tong Zhang. Accelerating stochastic gradient descent using predictive variancereduction. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 315–323, 2013.

[20] Hamed Karimi, Julie Nutini, and Mark Schmidt. Linear convergence of gradient and proximal-gradient methods under the polyak-łojasiewicz condition. In Joint European Conference onMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 795–811. Springer, 2016.

[21] Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprintarXiv:1412.6980, 2014.

[22] Alex Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009.

[23] Guanghui Lan. An optimal method for stochastic composite optimization. MathematicalProgramming, 133(1):365–397, 2012.

[24] Guanghui Lan and Yi Zhou. An optimal randomized incremental gradient method. Mathematicalprogramming, pages 1–49, 2017.

[25] Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learningapplied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, 1998.

[26] Lihua Lei, Cheng Ju, Jianbo Chen, and Michael I Jordan. Non-convex finite-sum optimizationvia scsg methods. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2345–2355,2017.

[27] Huan Li and Zhouchen Lin. Accelerated proximal gradient methods for nonconvex program-ming. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 379–387, 2015.

[28] Qunwei Li, Yi Zhou, Yingbin Liang, and Pramod K Varshney. Convergence analysis of proximalgradient with momentum for nonconvex optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04925, 2017.

[29] Hongzhou Lin, Julien Mairal, and Zaid Harchaoui. A universal catalyst for first-order optimiza-tion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3384–3392, 2015.

[30] Julien Mairal. Incremental majorization-minimization optimization with application to large-scale machine learning. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25(2):829–855, 2015.

[31] Yu Nesterov. Smooth minimization of non-smooth functions. Mathematical programming, 103(1):127–152, 2005.

[32] Yurii Nesterov. Introductory Lectures on Convex Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers,2014.

[33] Yuval Netzer, Tao Wang, Adam Coates, Alessandro Bissacco, Bo Wu, and Andrew Y Ng.Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning.

[34] Lam M Nguyen, Jie Liu, Katya Scheinberg, and Martin Takác. Sarah: A novel method formachine learning problems using stochastic recursive gradient. In Proceedings of the 34thInternational Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70, pages 2613–2621. JMLR. org, 2017.

[35] Lam M Nguyen, Jie Liu, Katya Scheinberg, and Martin Takác. Stochastic recursive gradientalgorithm for nonconvex optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07261, 2017.

[36] Courtney Paquette, Hongzhou Lin, Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy, Julien Mairal, and Zaid Har-chaoui. Catalyst acceleration for gradient-based non-convex optimization. arXiv preprintarXiv:1703.10993, 2017.

[37] Boris T Polyak. Some methods of speeding up the convergence of iteration methods. USSRComputational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 4(5):1–17, 1964.

[38] Boris Teodorovich Polyak. Gradient methods for minimizing functionals. Zhurnal Vychisli-tel’noi Matematiki i Matematicheskoi Fiziki, 3(4):643–653, 1963.

[39] Ning Qian. On the momentum term in gradient descent learning algorithms. Neural networks,12(1):145–151, 1999.

11

[40] Sashank J. Reddi, Ahmed Hefny, Suvrit Sra, Barnabas Poczos, and Alex Smola. Stochasticvariance reduction for nonconvex optimization. pages 314–323, 2016.

[41] Sashank J Reddi, Suvrit Sra, Barnabás Póczos, and Alex Smola. Fast incremental method forsmooth nonconvex optimization. In Decision and Control (CDC), 2016 IEEE 55th Conferenceon, pages 1971–1977. IEEE, 2016.

[42] Sashank J Reddi, Suvrit Sra, Barnabas Poczos, and Alexander J Smola. Proximal stochasticmethods for nonsmooth nonconvex finite-sum optimization. In Advances in Neural InformationProcessing Systems, pages 1145–1153, 2016.

[43] Nicolas L Roux, Mark Schmidt, and Francis R Bach. A stochastic gradient method with anexponential convergence _rate for finite training sets. In Advances in Neural InformationProcessing Systems, pages 2663–2671, 2012.

[44] Bernhard Schölkopf and Alexander J Smola. Learning with kernels: support vector machines,regularization, optimization, and beyond. MIT press, 2002.

[45] Shai Shalev-Shwartz. Sdca without duality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.06177, 2015.

[46] Shai Shalev-Shwartz. Sdca without duality, regularization, and individual convexity. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 747–754, 2016.

[47] Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Tong Zhang. Stochastic dual coordinate ascent methods for regularizedloss minimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(Feb):567–599, 2013.

[48] Lin Xiao and Tong Zhang. A proximal stochastic gradient method with progressive variancereduction. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 24(4):2057–2075, 2014.

12

A Proof of the Main Theoretical Results

In this section, we provide the proofs of our main theories in Section 4.

A.1 Proof of Lemma 4.1

We first prove our key lemma on One-epoch-SNVRG. In order to prove Lemma 4.1, we need thefollowing supporting lemma:

Lemma A.1. Let T =∏K

l=1 Tl. If the step size and batch size parameters in Algorithm 1 satisfyM ≥ 6L and Bl ≥ 6K−l+1(

∏Ks=l Ts)

2, then the output of Algorithm 1 satisfies

E‖∇F (xout)‖22 ≤ C(M

T· E[F (x0)− F (xT )

]+

2σ2

B· 1(B < n)

), (A.1)

where C = 100 is a constant.

Proof of Lemma 4.1. Note that B = 22K

, we can easily check that the choice of M, Tl, Bl inLemma 4.1 satisfies the assumption of Lemma A.1. Moreover, we have

T =

K∏

l=1

Tl = B1/2. (A.2)

We now submit (A.2) into (A.1), which immediately implies (4.1).

Next we compute how many stochastic gradient computations we need in total after we run One-epoch-SNVRG once. According to the update of reference gradients in Algorithm 1, we only updateg(0)t once at the beginning of Algorithm 1 (Line 4), which needs B stochastic gradient computations.

For g(l)t , we only need to update it when 0 = (t mod

∏Kj=l+1 Tj), and thus we need to sample

g(l)t for T/

∏Kj=l+1 Tj =

∏lj=1 Tj times. We need 2Bl stochastic gradient computations for each

sampling procedure (Line 24 in Algorithm 1). We use T to represent the total number of stochasticgradient computations, then based on above arguments we have

T = B + 2

K∑

l=1

Bl ·l∏

j=1

Tj . (A.3)

Now we calculate T under the parameter choice of Lemma 4.1. Note that we can easily verify thefollowing results:

l∏

j=1

Tj = 22l−1

= B2l

2K+1 , B1 ·1∏

j=1

Tj = 2× 6KB, Bl ·l∏

j=1

Tj = 6K−l+1B. (A.4)

Submit (A.4) into (A.3) yields the following results:

T = B + 2

(2× 6KB +

K∑

l=2

6K−l+1B

)

< B + 6× 6KB

= B + 6× 6log logBB

< B + 6B log3B. (A.5)

Therefore, the total gradient complexity T is bounded as follows.

T ≤ B + 6B log3B ≤ 7B log3B. (A.6)

13

A.2 Proof of Theorem 4.2

Now we prove our main theorem which spells out the gradient complexity of SNVRG.

Proof of Theorem 4.2. By (4.1) we have

E‖∇F (ys)‖22 ≤ C(

L

B1/2· E[F (zs−1)− F (zs)

]+σ2

B· 1(B < n)

), (A.7)

where C = 600. Taking summation for (A.7) over s from 1 to S, we haveS∑

s=1

E‖∇F (ys)‖22 ≤ C(

L

B1/2· E[F (z0)− F (zS)

]+σ2

B· 1(B < n) · S

). (A.8)

Dividing both sides of (A.8) by S, we immediately obtain

E‖∇F (yout)‖22 ≤ C(LE[F (z0)− F ∗

]

SB1/2+σ2

B· 1(B < n)

)(A.9)

= C

(L∆F

SB1/2+σ2

B· 1(B < n)

), (A.10)

where (A.9) holds because F (zS) ≥ F ∗ and by the definition ∆F = F (z0) − F ∗. By the choiceof parameters in Theorem 4.2, we have B = n ∧ (2Cσ2/ε2), S = 1 ∨ (2CL∆F /(B

1/2ε2)), whichimplies

1(B < n) · σ2/B ≤ ε2/(2C), and L∆F /(SB1/2) ≤ ε2/(2C). (A.11)

Submitting (A.11) into (A.10), we have E‖∇F (yout)‖22 ≤ 2Cε2/(2C) = ε2. By Lemma 4.1, wehave that each One-epoch-SNVRG takes less than 7B log3B stochastic gradient computations. Sincewe have total S epochs, so the total gradient complexity of Algorithm 2 is less than

S · 7B log3B ≤ 7B log3B +L∆F

ε2· 7B1/2 log3B

= O

(log3

(σ2

ε2∧ n)[

σ2

ε2∧ n+

L∆F

ε2

[σ2

ε2∧ n]1/2])

, (A.12)

which leads to the conclusion.

A.3 Proof of Theorem 4.4

We then prove the main theorem on gradient complexity of SNVRG under gradient dominancecondition (Algorithm 3).

Proof of Theorem 4.4. Following the proof of Theorem 4.2, we obtain a similar inequality with(A.9):

E‖∇F (zu+1)‖22 ≤ C(LE[F (zu)− F ∗]

SB1/2+σ2

B· 1(B < n)

). (A.13)

Since F is a τ -gradient dominated function, we have E‖∇F (zu+1)‖22 ≥ 1/τ · E[F (zu+1)− F ∗] byDefinition 2.6. Plugging this inequality into (A.13) yields

E[F (zu+1)− F ∗

]≤ CτL

SB1/2· E[F (zu)− F ∗

]+Cτσ2

B· 1(B < n)

≤ 1

2E[F (zu)− F ∗

]+ε

4, (A.14)

where the second inequality holds due to the choice of parameters B = n ∧ (4C1τσ2/ε) and

S = 1 ∨ (2C1τL/B1/2) for Algorithm 3 in Theorem 4.4. By (A.14) we can derive

E[F (zu+1)− F ∗

]− ε

2≤ 1

2

(E[F (zu)− F ∗

]− ε

2

),

14

which immediately implies

E[F (zU )− F ∗

]− ε

2≤ 1

2U

(∆F −

ε

2

)≤ ∆F

2U. (A.15)

Plugging the number of epochs U = log(2∆F /ε) into (A.15), we obtain E[F (zU )− F ∗

]≤ ε. Note

that each epoch of Algorithm 3 needs at most S · 7B log3B stochastic gradient computations byTheorem 4.2 and Algorithm 3 has U epochs, which implies the total stochastic gradient complexity

U · S · 7B log3B = O

(log3

(n ∧ τσ

2

ε

)log

∆F

ε

[n ∧ τσ

2

ε+ τL

[n ∧ τσ

2

ε

]1/2]). (A.16)

B Proof of Key Lemma A.1

In this section, we focus on proving Lemma A.1 which plays a pivotal role in proving our maintheorems. Let M, Ti, Bi, B be the parameters as defined in Algorithm 1. We denote T =∏K

l=1 Tl. We define filtration Ft = σ(x0, . . . ,xt). Let x(l)t , g(l)

t be the reference points andreference gradients in Algorithm 1. We define v

(l)t as

v(l)t :=

l∑

j=0

g(j)t , for 0 ≤ l ≤ K. (B.1)

We first present the following definition and two technical lemmas for the purpose of our analysis.

Definition B.1. We define constant series c(s)j as the following. For each s, we define c(s)Tsas

c(s)Ts

=M

6K−s+1∏K

l=s Tl. (B.2)

When 0 ≤ j < Ts, we define c(s)j by induction:

c(s)j =

(1 +

1

Ts

)c(s)j+1 +

3L2

M·∏K

l=s+1 Tl

Bs. (B.3)

Lemma B.2. For any p, s, where 1 ≤ s ≤ K and 0 ≤ p∏K

j=s Tj < (p + 1)∏K

j=s Tj ≤∏K

j=1 Tj ,we define

start = p ·K∏

j=s

Tj , end = start +

K∏

j=s

Tj ,

for simplification. Then we have the following results:

E[ end−1∑

j=start

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ F (xend) + c(s)Ts· ‖xend − xstart‖22

∣∣Fstart

]

≤ F (xstart) +2

M· E[‖∇F (xstart)− vstart‖22

∣∣Fstart]·

K∏

j=s

Tj .

Lemma B.3 (Lei et al. [26]). Let ai be vectors satisfying∑N

i=1 ai = 0. Let J be a uniform randomsubset of 1, . . . , N with size m, then

E∥∥∥∥

1

m

∑

j∈Jaj

∥∥∥∥2

2

≤ 1(|J | < N)

mN

N∑

j=1

‖aj‖22.

15

Proof of Lemma A.1. We haveT−1∑

j=0

E‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ E[F (xT )

]≤

T−1∑

j=0

E‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ E[F (xT ) + c

(1)T1· ‖xT − x0‖22

]

≤ E[F (x0)

]+

2

M· E‖∇F (x0)− g0‖22 · T, (B.4)

where the second inequality comes from Lemma B.2 with we take s = 1, p = 0. Moreover we have

E‖∇F (x0)− g0‖22 = E∥∥∥∥

1

B

∑

i∈I

[∇fi(x0)−∇F (x0)

]∥∥∥∥2

2

≤ 1(B < n) · 1

B· 1

n

n∑

i=1

∥∥∇fi(x0)−∇F (x0)∥∥22

(B.5)

≤ 1(B < n) · σ2

B, (B.6)

where (B.5) holds because of Lemma B.3. Plug (B.6) into (B.4) and note that we have M = 6L, andthen we obtain

T−1∑

j=0

E‖∇F (xj)‖22 ≤ C(ME

[F (x0)− F (xT )

]+

2Tσ2

B· 1(B < n)

), (B.7)

where C = 100. Divide both sides of (B.7) by T , then Lemma A.1 holds trivially.

C Proof of Technical Lemmas

In this section, we provide the proofs of technical lemmas used in Appendix B.

C.1 Proof of Lemma B.2

Let M, Tl, Bl, B be the parameters defined in Algorithm 1 and x(l)t , g(l)

t be the referencepoints and reference gradients defined in Algorithm 1. Let v(l)

t ,Ft be the variables and filtrationdefined in Appendix B and let c(s)j be the constant series defined in Definition B.1.

In order to prove Lemma B.2, we will need the following supporting propositions and lemmas. Wefirst state the proposition about the relationship among x

(s)t ,g

(s)t and v

(s)t :

Proposition C.1. Let v(l)t be defined as in (B.1). Let p, s satisfy 0 ≤ p ·∏K

j=s+1 Tj < (p + 1) ·∏Kj=s+1 Tj < T . For any t, t′ satisfying p ·∏K

j=s+1 Tj ≤ t < t′ < (p+ 1) ·∏Kj=s+1 Tj , it holds that

x(s)t = x

(s)t′ = xp

∏Kj=s+1 Tj

, (C.1)

g(s′)t = g

(s′)t′ , for any s′ that satisfies 0 ≤ s′ ≤ s, (C.2)

v(s)t = v

(s)t′ = vp

∏Kj=s+1 Tj

. (C.3)

The following lemma spells out the relationship between c(s−1)j and c(s)Ts. In a word, c(s−1)j is about

1 + Ts−1 times less than c(s)Ts:

Lemma C.2. If Bs ≥ 6K−s+1(∏K

l=s Tl)2, Tl ≥ 1 and M ≥ 6L, then it holds that

c(s−1)j · (1 + Ts−1) < c

(s)Ts, for 2 ≤ s ≤ K, 0 ≤ j ≤ Ts−1, (C.4)

and

c(K)j · (1 + TK) < M, for 0 ≤ j ≤ TK . (C.5)

Next lemma is a special case of Lemma B.2 with s = K:

16

Lemma C.3. Suppose p satisfies 0 ≤ pTK < (p+ 1)TK ≤∏K

i=1 Ti. If M > L, then we have

E

[F(x(p+1)·TK

)+ c

(K)TK·∥∥x(p+1)·TK

− xp·TK

∥∥22

+

TK−1∑

j=0

∥∥∇F (xp·TK+j)∥∥22

100M

∣∣∣∣Fp·TK

]

≤ F (xp·TK) +

2

M· E[∥∥∇F (xp·TK

)− vp·TK

∥∥22

∣∣Fp·TK

]· TK . (C.6)

The following lemma provides an upper bound of E[∥∥∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t

∥∥22

], which plays an important

role in our proof of Lemma B.2.

Lemma C.4. Let tl be as defined in (3.1), then we have x(l)t = xtl , and

E[∥∥∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t

∥∥22

∣∣Ftl]≤ L2

Bl

∥∥x(l)t − x

(l−1)t

∥∥22

+∥∥∇F (x

(l−1)t )− v

(l−1)t

∥∥22. (C.7)

Proof of Lemma B.2. We use mathematical induction to prove that Lemma B.2 holds for any 1 ≤s ≤ K. When s = K, the statement holds because of Lemma C.3. Suppose that for s+ 1, LemmaB.2 holds for any p′ which satisfies 0 ≤ p′∏K

j=s+1 Tj < (p′ + 1)∏K

j=s+1 Tj ≤∏K

j=1 Tj . We need

to prove Lemma B.2 still holds for s and p, where p satisfies 0 ≤ p∏Kj=s Tj < (p+ 1)

∏Kj=s Tj ≤∏K

j=1 Tj . We first define m =∏K

j=s+1 Tj for simplification, then we choose p′ = pTs + u, and weset indices startu and endu as

startu = p′K∏

j=s+1

Tj , endu = startu +

K∏

j=s+1

Tj .

It can be easily verified that the following relationship also holds:startu = start + um, endu = start + (u+ 1)m. (C.8)

Based on (C.8), we have

E[ endu−1∑

j=startu

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ F (xstart+(u+1)m) + c(s+1)Ts+1

· ‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart+um‖22∣∣Fstartu

]

= E[ endu−1∑

j=startu

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ F (xendu) + c(s+1)Ts+1

· ‖xendu − xstartu‖22∣∣Fstartu

]

≤ F (xstartu) +2

M· E[∥∥∇F (xstartu)− vstartu

∥∥22

∣∣Fstartu

]·

K∏

j=s+1

Tj , (C.9)

where the last inequality holds because of the induction hypothesis that Lemma B.2 holds for s+ 1

and p′. Note that we have xstartu = xstart+u·m = x(s)startu from Proposition C.1, which implies

E[∥∥∇F (xstartu)− vstartu

∥∥22

∣∣Fstartu

]= E

[∥∥∇F (x(s)startu)− v

(s)startu

∥∥22

∣∣Fstartu

]

≤ L2

Bs

∥∥x(s)startu − x

(s−1)startu

∥∥22

+∥∥∇F (x

(s−1)startu )− v

(s−1)startu

∥∥22

(C.10)

=L2

Bs‖xstart+u·m − xstart‖22 +

∥∥∇F (xstart)− vstart∥∥22, (C.11)

where (C.10) holds because of Lemma C.4 and (C.11) holds due to Proposition C.1. Plugging (C.11)into (C.9) and taking expectation E[·|Fstart] for (C.9), we have

E[ endu−1∑

j=startu

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ F (xstart+(u+1)m) + c(s+1)Ts+1

‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart+um‖22∣∣Fstart

]

≤ E[F (xstart+um) +

2L2

MBs‖xstart+um − xstart‖22 ·

K∏

j=s+1

Tj +2

M

∥∥∇F (xstart)− vstart∥∥22·

K∏

j=s+1

Tj

∣∣∣∣Fstart

].

(C.12)

17

Next we bound ‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart‖22 as the following:

‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart‖22= ‖xstart+u·m − xstart‖22 + ‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart+u·m‖22

+ 2〈xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart+u·m,xstart+u·m − xstart〉≤ ‖xstart+u·m − xstart‖22 + ‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart+u·m‖22

+1

Ts· ‖xstart+u·m − xstart‖22 + Ts · ‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart+u·m‖22 (C.13)

=

(1 +

1

Ts

)· ‖xstart+u·m − xstart‖22 + (1 + Ts) · ‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart+u·m‖22, (C.14)

where (C.13) holds because of Young’s inequality. Taking expectation E[·|Fstart] over (C.14) andmultiplying c(s)u+1 on both sides, we obtain

c(s)u+1E

[‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart‖22

∣∣Fstart]≤ c(s)u+1

(1 +

1

Ts

)E[‖xstart+u·m − xstart‖22

∣∣Fstart]

+ c(s)u+1(1 + Ts)E

[‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart+um‖22

∣∣Fstart].

(C.15)

Adding up inequalities(C.15) and (C.12) together yields

E[ endu−1∑

j=startu

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M

+ F (xstart+(u+1)m) + c(s)u+1‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart‖22

+ c(s+1)Ts+1

‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart+um‖22∣∣Fstart

]

≤ E[F (xstart+um) + ‖xstart+um − xstart‖22

[c(s)u+1

(1 +

1

Ts

)+

3L2

BsM

K∏

j=s+1

Tj

]∣∣∣∣Fstart

]

+2

ME[∥∥∇F (xstart)− vstart

∥∥22

∣∣Fstart] K∏

j=s+1

Tj

+ c(s)u+1(1 + Ts)E

[‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart+um‖22

∣∣Fstart]

< E[F (xstart+um) + c(s)u ‖xstart+um − xstart‖22

∣∣Fstart]

+2


∥∥22

∣∣Fstart] K∏

j=s+1

Tj

+ c(s+1)Ts+1

E[‖xstart+(u+1)m − xstart+um‖22

∣∣Fstart], (C.16)

where the last inequality holds due to the fact that c(s)u = c(s)u+1(1+1/Ts)+3L2/(BsM) ·∏K

j=s+1 Tj

by Definition B.1 and c(s)u+1 · (1 + Ts) < c(s+1)Ts+1

by Lemma C.2. Cancelling out the term c(s+1)Ts+1

·E[‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart+u·m‖22

∣∣Fstart]

from both sides of (C.16), we get

endu−1∑

j=startu

E[‖∇F (xj)‖22

100M

∣∣∣∣Fstart

]+ E

[F (xstart+(u+1)·m) + c

(s)u+1 · ‖xstart+(u+1)·m − xstart‖22

∣∣Fstart]

≤ E[F (xstart+um) + c(s)u ‖xstart+um − xstart‖22

∣∣Fstart]

+2


∥∥22

∣∣Fstart] K∏

j=s+1

Tj .

18

We now telescope the above inequality for u = 0 to Ts − 1, then we have

E[ Ts−1∑

u=0

endu−1∑

j=startu

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M


∣∣Fstart

]

≤ F (xstart) +2TsM· E[∥∥∇F (xstart)− vstart

∥∥22

∣∣Fstart]·

K∏

j=s+1

Tj .

Since startu = endu−1, start0 = start, and endTs−1 = end, we have

E[ end−1∑

j=start

‖∇F (xj)‖22100M


∣∣Fstart

]

≤ F (xstart) +2

M· E[∥∥∇F (xstart)− vstart

∥∥22

∣∣Fstart]·

K∏

j=s

Tj . (C.17)

Therefore, we have proved that Lemma B.2 still holds for s and p. Then by mathematical induction,we have for all 1 ≤ s ≤ K and p which satisfy 0 ≤ p ·∏K

j=s Tj < (p+ 1) ·∏Kj=s Tj ≤

∏Kj=1 Tj ,

Lemma B.2 holds.

C.2 Proof of Lemma B.3

The following proof is adapted from that of Lemma A.1 in Lei et al. [26]. We provide the proof herefor the self-containedness of our paper.

Proof of Lemma B.3. We only consider the case when m < N . Let Wj = 1(j ∈ J ), then we have

EW 2j = EWj =

m

N,EWjWj′ =

m(m− 1)

N(N − 1). (C.18)

Thus we can rewrite the sample mean as

1

m

∑

j∈Jaj =

1

m

N∑

i=1

Wiai, (C.19)


E∥∥∥∥

1

m

∑

j∈Jaj

∥∥∥∥2

=1

m2

( N∑

j=1

EW 2j ‖aj‖22 +

∑

j 6=j′

EWjWj′〈aj ,aj′〉)

=1

m2

(m

N

N∑

j=1

‖aj‖22 +m(m− 1)

N(N − 1)

∑

j 6=j′

〈aj ,aj′〉

=1

m2

((m

N− m(m− 1)

N(N − 1)

) N∑

j=1

‖aj‖22 +m(m− 1)

N(N − 1)

∥∥∥∥N∑

j=1

aj

∥∥∥∥2

2

)

=1

m2

(m

N− m(m− 1)

N(N − 1)

) N∑

j=1

‖aj‖22

≤ 1

m· 1

N

N∑

j=1

‖aj‖22.

19

D Proofs of the Auxiliary Lemmas

In this section, we present the additional proofs of supporting lemmas used in Appendix C. LetM, Tl, Bl and B be the parameters defined in Algorithm 1. Let x(l)

t , g(l)t be the reference

points and reference gradients used in Algorithm 1. Finally, v(l)t ,Ft are the variables and filtration

defined in Appendix B and c(s)j are the constant series defined in Definition B.1.

D.1 Proof of Proposition C.1

Proof of Proposition C.1. By the definition of reference point x(s)t in (3.1), we can easily verify that

(C.1) holds trivially.

Next we prove (C.2). Note that by (C.1) we have x(s)t = x

(s)t′ . For any 0 ≤ s′ ≤ s, it is also true that

x(s′)t = x

(s′)t′ by (3.1), which means xt and xt′ share the same first s+ 1 reference points. Then by

the update rule of g(s′)t in Algorithm 1, we will maintain g

(s′)t unchanged from time step t to t′. In

other worlds, we have g(s′)t = g

(s′)t′ for all 0 ≤ s′ ≤ s.

We now prove the last claim (C.3). Based on (B.1) and (C.2), we have v(s)t =

∑ss′=0 g

(s′)t =∑s

s′=0 g(s′)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

= v(s)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

. Since for any s ≤ s′′ ≤ K, we have the following equations

by the update in Algorithm 1 (Line 18).

x(s′′)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

= xbp·∏Kj=s+1 Tj/

∏Kj=s′′+1

Tjc·∏K

j=s′′+1Tj

= xp·∏Kj=s+1 Tj/

∏Kj=s′′+1

Tj ·∏K

j=s′′+1Tj

= x(s)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

.

Then for any s < s′′ ≤ K, we have

g(s′′)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

=1

Bs′′

∑

i∈I

[∇fi

(x(s′′)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

)−∇fi

(x(s′′−1)p·∏K

j=s+1 Tj

)]= 0. (D.1)

Thus, we have

vp·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

=

K∑

s′′=0

g(s′′)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

=

s∑

s′′=0

g(s′′)

p·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

=

s∑

s′′=0

g(s′′)t = v

(s)t , (D.2)

where the first equality holds because of the definition of vp·∏Kj=s+1 Tj

, the second equality holds dueto (D.1) , the third equality holds due to (C.2) and the last equality holds due to (B.1). This completesthe proof of (C.3).

D.2 Proof of Lemma C.2

Proof of Lemma C.2. For any fixed s, it can be seen that from the definition in (B.3), c(s)j is monoton-

ically decreasing with j. In order to prove (C.4), we only need to compare (1+Ts−1) ·c(s−1)0 and c(s)Ts.

Furthermore, by the definition of series c(s)j in (B.3), it can be inducted that when 0 ≤ j ≤ Ts−1,

c(s−1)j =

(1 +

1

Ts−1

)Ts−1−j· c(s−1)Ts−1

+(1 + 1/Ts−1)Ts−1−j − 1

1/Ts−1· 3L2

M·∏K

l=s TlBs−1

. (D.3)

20

We take j = 0 in (D.3) and obtain

c(s−1)0 =

(1 +

1

Ts−1

)Ts−1

· c(s−1)Ts−1+

(1 + 1/Ts−1)Ts−1 − 1

1/Ts−1· 3L2

M·∏K

l=s TlBs−1

< 2.8× c(s−1)Ts−1+

6L2

M·∏K

l=s−1 TlBs−1

(D.4)

≤ 2.8M + 6L2/M

6K−s+2 ·∏Kl=s−1 Tl

(D.5)

<3M

6K−s+2 ·∏Kl=s−1 Tl

, (D.6)

where (D.4) holds because (1 + 1/n)n < 2.8 for any n ≥ 1, (D.5) holds due to the definition ofc(s−1)Ts−1

in (B.2) and Bs−1 ≥ 6K−s+2(∏K

l=s−1 Tl)2 and (D.6) holds because M ≥ 6L. Recall that

c(s)j is monotonically decreasing with j and the inequality in (D.6). Thus for all 2 ≤ s ≤ K and

0 ≤ j ≤ Ts−1, we have

(1 + Ts−1) · c(s−1)j ≤ (1 + Ts−1) · c(s−1)0

≤ (1 + Ts−1) · 3M

6K−s+2 ·∏Kl=s−1 Tl

<6M

6K−s+2 ·∏Kl=s Tl

= c(s)Ts, (D.7)

where the third inequality holds because (1 + Ts−1)/Ts−1 ≤ 2 when Ts−1 ≥ 1 and the last equationcomes from the definition of csTs

in (B.2). This completes the proof of (C.4).

Using similar techniques, we can obtain the upper bound for cK0 which is similar to inequality (D.6)with s− 1 replaced by K. Therefore, we have

(1 + TK) · c(K)j ≤ (1 + TK) · c(K)

0 <6M

6K−K+1 ·∏Kl=K Tl

≤M,

which completes the proof of (C.5).


Now we prove Lemma C.3, which is a special case of Lemma B.2 if we choose s = K.

Proof of Lemma C.3. To simplify notations, we use E[·] to denote the conditional expectationE[·|Fp·TK

] in the rest of this proof. For 0 ≤ j < TK , we denote hp·TK+j = −(10M)−1 · vp·TK+j .According to the update in Algorithm 1 (Line 12), we have

xp·TK+j+1 = xp·TK+j + hp·TK+j , (D.8)


F (xp·TK+j+1) = F (xp·TK+j + hp·TK+j)

≤ F (xp·TK+j) + 〈∇F (xp·TK+j),hp·TK+j〉+L

2‖hp·TK+j‖22 (D.9)

=[〈vp·TK+j ,hp·TK+j〉+ 5M‖hp·TK+j‖22

]+ F (xp·TK+j)

+ 〈∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j ,hp·TK+j〉+

(L

2− 5M

)‖hp·TK+j‖22

≤ F (xp·TK+j) + 〈∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j ,hp·TK+j〉+ (L− 5M)‖hp·TK+j‖22,(D.10)

21

where (D.9) is due to the L-smoothness of F , which can be verified as follows

‖∇F (x)−∇F (y)‖2 = ‖Ei[∇fi(x)−∇fi(y)]‖2≤√

Ei‖∇fi(x)−∇fi(y)‖22≤ L‖x− y‖2.

(D.10) holds because 〈vp·TK+j ,hp·TK+j〉+ 5M‖hp·TK+j‖22 = −5M‖hp·TK+j‖22 ≤ 0. Further byYoung’s inequality, we obtain

F (xp·TK+j+1) ≤ F (xp·TK+j) +1

2M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 +

(M

2+ L− 5M

)‖hp·TK+j‖22

≤ F (xp·TK+j) +1

M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 − 3M‖hp·TK+j‖22, (D.11)

where the second inequality holds because M > L. Now we bound the term c(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j+1 −

xp·TK‖22. By (D.8) we have

c(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j+1 − xp·TK

‖22 = c(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

+ hp·TK+j‖22= c

(K)j+1

[‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

‖22 + ‖hp·TK+j‖22 + 2〈xp·TK+j − xp·TK,hp·TK+j〉

].

Applying Young’s inequality yields

c(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j+1 − xp·TK

‖22 ≤ c(K)j+1

[‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

‖22 + ‖hp·TK+j‖22

+1

TK‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

‖22 + TK‖hp·TK+j‖22]

= c(K)j+1

[(1 +

1

TK

)‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

‖22 + (1 + TK)‖hp·TK+j‖22],

(D.12)

Adding up inequalities (D.12) and (D.11), we get

F (xp·TK+j+1) + c(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j+1 − xp·TK

‖22≤ F (xp·TK+j) +

1

M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 −

[3M − c(K)

j+1(1 + TK)]‖hp·TK+j‖22

+ c(K)j+1

(1 +

1

TK


‖22

≤ F (xp·TK+j) +1

M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 − 2M‖hp·TK+j‖22

+ c(K)j+1

(1 +

1

TK


‖22, (D.13)

where the last inequality holds due to the fact that c(K)j+1(1 + TK) < M by Lemma C.2. Next we

bound ‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22 with ‖hp·TK+j‖22. Note that by (D.8), we have

‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22 =∥∥[∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j

]− 10Mhp·TK+j

∥∥22

≤ 2(‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 + 100M2‖hp·TK+j‖22

),


−2M‖hp·TK+j‖22 ≤2

100M

(‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 −

1

100M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22. (D.14)

22

Plugging (D.14) into (D.13), we have

F (xp·TK+j+1) + c(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j+1 − xp·TK

‖22≤ F (xp·TK+j) +

1

M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 +

1

50M· ‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22

− 1

100M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22 + c

(K)j+1

(1 +

1

TK


‖22

≤ F (xp·TK+j) +2

M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 −

1

100M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22

+ c(K)j+1

(1 +

1

TK


‖22. (D.15)

Next we bound ‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22. First, by Lemma C.4 we have

E∥∥∥∇F (x

(K)p·TK+j)− v

(K)p·TK+j

∥∥∥2

2≤ L2

BKE∥∥∥x(K)

p·TK+j − x(K−1)p·TK+j

∥∥∥2

2+ E

∥∥∥∇F (x(K−1)p·TK+j)− v

(K−1)p·TK+j

∥∥∥2

2.

Since x(K)p·TK+j = xp·TK+j ,v

(K)p·TK+j = vp·TK+j , x(K−1)

p·TK+j = xp·TKand v

(K−1)p·TK+j = vp·TK

, we have

E‖∇F (xp·TK+j)− vp·TK+j‖22 ≤L2

BKE‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

‖22 + E‖∇F (xp·TK)− vp·TK

‖22.(D.16)

We now take expectation E[·] with (D.15) and plug (D.16) into (D.15). We obtain that

E[F (xp·TK+j+1) + c

(K)j+1‖xp·TK+j+1 − xp·TK

‖22 +1

100M‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22

]

≤ E[F (xp·TK+j) +

(c(K)j+1

(1 +

1

TK

)+

3L2

BKM


‖22 +2

M‖∇F (xp·TK

)− vp·TK‖22]

= E[F (xp·TK+j) + c

(K)j ‖xp·TK+j − xp·TK

‖22 +2

M· ‖∇F (xp·TK

)− vp·TK‖22], (D.17)

where (D.17) holds because we have c(K)j = c

(K)j+1(1 + 1/TK) + 3L2/(BKM) by Definition B.1.

Telescoping (D.17) for j = 0 to TK − 1, we have

E[F(x(p+1)·TK

)+ c

(K)TK· ‖x(p+1)·TK

− xp·TK‖22]

+1

100M

TK−1∑

j=0

E‖∇F (xp·TK+j)‖22

≤ F (xp·TK) +

2TKM· E‖∇F (xp·TK

)− vp·TK‖22, (D.18)

which completes the proof.


Proof of Lemma C.4. If tl = tl−1, we have x(l)t = x

(l−1)t and v

(l)t = v

(l−1)t . In this case the

statement in Lemma C.4 holds trivially. Therefore, we assume tl 6= tl−1 in the following proof. Notethat

E[∥∥∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t

∥∥22|Ftl

]

= E[∥∥∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t − E

[∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t

]∥∥22|Ftl

]+∥∥E[∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t |Ftl

]∥∥22

= E

[∥∥∥∥∇F (x(l)t )−

l∑

j=0

g(j)t − E

[∇F (x

(l)t )−

l∑

j=0

g(j)t

]∥∥∥∥2

2

∣∣∣∣Ftl

]

︸︷︷︸J1

+

∥∥∥∥E[∇F (x

(l)t )−

l∑

j=0

g(j)t

∣∣∣∣Ftl

]∥∥∥∥2

2︸︷︷︸

J2

,

(D.19)

23

where in the second equation we used the definition v(l)t =

∑li=0 g

(i)t in (B.1). We first upper bound

term J1. According to the update rule in Algorithm 1 (Line 21-25), when j < l, g(j)t will not be

updated at the tl-th iteration. Thus we have E[g(j)t |Ftl ] = g

(j)t for all j < l. In addition, by the

definition of Ftl , we have E[∇F (x(l)t )|Ftl ] = ∇F (x

(l)t ). Then we have the following equation

J1 = E[∥∥g(l)

t − E[g(l)t |Ftl

]∥∥22|Ftl

]. (D.20)

We further have

g(l)t =

1

Bl

∑

i∈I

[∇fi(x(l)

t )−∇fi(x(l−1)t )

], E

[g(l)t

∣∣Ftl]

= ∇F (x(l)t )−∇F (x

(l−1)t ). (D.21)

Therefore, we can apply Lemma B.3 to (D.20) and obtain

J1 ≤1

Bl· 1

n

n∑

i=1

∥∥∇fi(x(l)t )−∇fi(x(l−1)

t )−[∇F (x

(l)t )−∇F (x

(l−1)t )

]∥∥22

≤ 1

Bln

n∑

i=1

∥∥∇fi(x(l)t )−∇fi(x(l−1)

t )∥∥22

≤ L2

Bl

∥∥x(l)t − x

(l−1)t

∥∥22, (D.22)

where the second inequality is due to the fact that E[‖X−E[X]‖22] ≤ E‖X‖22 for any random vectorX and the last inequality holds due to the fact that F has averaged L-Lipschitz gradient.

Next we turn to bound term J2. Note that

E[g(l)t

∣∣Ftl]

= E[

1

Bl

∑

i∈I

[∇fi(x(l)

t )−∇fi(x(l−1)t )

]∣∣∣∣Ftl

]= ∇F (x

(l)t )−∇F (x

(l−1)t ),


E[∇F (x

(l)t )−

l∑

j=0

g(j)t

∣∣∣∣Ftl

]= E

[∇F (x

(l)t )−∇F (x

(l)t ) +∇F (x

(l−1)t )−

l−1∑

j=0

g(j)t

∣∣∣∣Ftl

]

= E[∇F (x

(l−1)t )− v

(l−1)t

∣∣Ftl]

(D.23)

= ∇F (x(l−1)t )− v

(l−1)t ,

where the last equation is due to the definition of Ft. Plugging J1 and J2 into (D.19) yields thefollowing result:

E[∥∥∇F (x

(l)t )− v

(l)t

∥∥22

∣∣Ftl]≤ L2

Bl

∥∥x(l)t − x

(l−1)t

∥∥22

+∥∥∇F (x

(l−1)t )− v

(l−1)t

∥∥22, (D.24)

which completes the proof.

E Additional Experimental Results

We also conducted experiments comparing different algorithms without the learning rate decayschedule. The parameters are tuned by the same grid search described in Section 5. In particular, wesummarize the parameters of different algorithms used in our experiments with and without learningrate decay for MNIST in Table 2, CIFAR10 in Table 3, and SVHN in Table 4. We plotted the trainingloss and test error for each dataset without learning rate decay in Figure 4. The results on MNISTare presented in Figures 4(a) and 4(d); the results on CIFAR10 are in Figures 4(b) and 4(e); and theresults on SVHN dataset are shown in Figures 4(c) and 4(f). It can be seen that without learningdecay, our algorithm SNVRG still outperforms all the baseline algorithms except for the training losson SVHN dataset. However, SNVRG still performs the best in terms of test error on SVHN dataset.These results again suggest that SNVRG can beat the state-of-the-art in practice, which backups ourtheory.

24

Table 2: Parameter settings of all algorithms on MNIST dataset.

AlgorithmWith Learning Rate Decay Without Learning Rate Decay

Initial learning Batch size Batch size learning Batch size Batch sizerate η B ratio b rate η B ratio b

SGD 0.1 1024 N/A 0.01 1024 N/ASGD-momentum 0.01 1024 N/A 0.1 1024 N/A

ADAM 0.001 1024 N/A 0.001 1024 N/ASCSG 0.01 512 8 0.01 512 8

SNVRG 0.01 512 8 0.01 512 8

Table 3: Parameter settings of all algorithms on CIFAR10 dataset.




ADAM 0.001 1024 N/A 0.001 2048 N/ASCSG 0.01 512 8 0.01 512 8

SNVRG 0.01 1024 8 0.01 512 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200

Trai

ning

Los

s


(a) training loss (MNIST)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Trai

ning

Los

s


(b) training loss (CIFAR10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Trai

ning

Los

s


(c) training loss (SVHN)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Test

Erro

r


(d) test error (MNIST)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

Test

Erro

r


(e) test error (CIFAR10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

epochs

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

Test

Erro

r


(f) test error (SVHN)

Figure 4: Experimental results on different datasets without learning rate decay. (a) and (d) depict thetraining loss and test error (top-1 error) v.s. data epochs for training LeNet on MNIST dataset. (b)and (e) depict the training loss and test error v.s. data epochs for training LeNet on CIFAR10 dataset.(c) and (f) depict the training loss and test error v.s. data epochs for training LeNet on SVHN dataset.

F An Equivalent Version of Algorithm 1

Recall the One-epoch-SNVRG algorithm in Algorithm 1. Here we present an equivalent versionof Algorithm 1 using nested loops, which is displayed in Algorithm 4 and is more aligned with theillustration in Figure 2. Note that the notation used in Algorithm 4 is slightly different from that inAlgorithm 1 to avoid confusion.

25

Table 4: Parameter settings of all algorithms on SVHN dataset.




ADAM 0.001 1024 N/A 0.001 512 N/ASCSG 0.01 512 4 0.1 1024 4

SNVRG 0.01 512 8 0.01 512 4

Algorithm 4 One-epoch SNVRG(F,x0,K,M, Ti, Bi, B)1: Input: Function F , starting point x0, loop number K, step size parameter M , loop parametersTi, i ∈ [K], batch parameters Bi, i ∈ [K], base batch B > 0.Output: [xout,xend]

2: T ←∏Kl=1 Tl

3: Uniformly generate index set I ⊂ [n] without replacement4: g

(0)[t0]← 1

B

∑i∈I ∇fid(x0)

5: x(l)[0] ← x0, 0 ≤ l ≤ K,

6: for t1 = 0, . . . , T1 − 1 do7: Uniformly generate index set I ⊂ [n] without replacement, |I| = B1

8: g(1)[t1]← 1

B1

∑i∈I[∇fi(x(1)

[t1])−∇fi(x(0)

[0] )]

9: . . .10: for tl = 0, . . . , Tl − 1 do11: Uniformly generate index set I ⊂ [n] without replacement, |I| = Bl

12: g(l)[tl]← 1

Bl

∑i∈I[∇fi(x(l)

[tl])−∇fi(x(l−1)

[tl−1])]

13: . . .14: for tK = 0, . . . , TK − 1 do15: Uniformly generate index set I ⊂ [n] without replacement, |I| = BK

16: g(K)[tK ] ← 1

BK

∑i∈I[∇fi(x(K)

[tK ])−∇fi(x(K−1)[tK−1]

)]

17: Denote t =∑K

j=1 tj∏K

l=j+1 Tl, then let xt+1 ← xt − 1/(10M) ·∑Kl=0 g

(l)[tl]

18: x(K)[tK+1] ← xt+1

19: end for20: . . .21: x

(l)[tl+1] ← x

(l+1)[Tl+1]

22: end for23: . . .24: x

(1)[t1+1] ← x

(2)[T2]

25: end for26: xout ← a uniformly random choice from x0, ...,xT−127: return [xout,xT ]

26

Documents

Stochastic Nested Variance Reduction for Nonconvex Optimizationweb.cs.ucla.edu/~qgu/pdf/SNVRG.pdf · 2019-02-23 · to measure the convergence of different ﬁrst-order algorithms.2