arXiv reader

Stochastic variance reduced extragradient methods for solving hierarchical variational inequalities

Pavel Dvurechensky, Andrea Ebner, Johannes Carl Schnebel, Shimrit Shtern and Mathias Staudigl

arXiv
2602.13510v1 · PDF · 13 February 2026
Categories
math.OC, cs.GT, cs.LG
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We are concerned with optimization in a broad sense through the lens of solving variational inequalities (VIs) – a class of problems that are so general that they cover as particular cases minimization of functions, saddle-point (minimax) problems, Nash equilibrium problems, and many others. The key challenges in our problem formulation are the two-level hierarchical structure and finite-sum representation of the smooth operators in each level. For this setting, we are the first to prove convergence rates and complexity statements for variance-reduced stochastic algorithms approaching the solution of hierarchical VIs in Euclidean and Bregman setups.

Items 34

Example

Example 1.1 (equilibrium selection)

5YZ4

An important class of problems falling in the domain of (?) is the equilibrium selection problem

\min_{x} f_{1}(x) +g_{1}(x) \quad\text{s.t. }x\in \textnormal{SOL}({\mathsf{F}}_{2},\mathcal{K})

where f_{1}:\mathcal{X}\to\varmathbb{R} is Lipschitz smooth and g_1:\mathcal{X}\to(-\infty,\infty] is a proper closed convex function, and \mathcal{K}\subseteq\mathcal{X} a nonempty closed convex set. In this formulation, the composite convex function in the upper level defines a design criterion, used to select among the solution set of a variational inequality problem

\text{ Find }y\in\mathcal{K}\text{ s.t. : } \inner{{\mathsf{F}}_{2}(y),x-y}\geq 0\qquad\forall x\in\mathcal{K}.

In this case, finite-sum representation on the lower level naturally appears when this VI comes from matrix games or constrained optimization reformulated as a saddle-point problem [alacaoglu2022stochastic, nesterovNemirovski13acta]. Stochastic versions of the equilibrium selection problem have only been studied so far in [jalilzadeh2024stochastic]. They develop a stochastic approximation algorithm based on the extragradient method, and show an O(1/\varepsilon^{4}) iteration complexity at both levels. This rate is inferior to our scheme, which can achieve O(1/\varepsilon^{3}) iteration complexity. If {\mathsf{F}}_{2}=\nabla f_{2}, for a convex smooth and real-valued function f_{2}, we recover the simple bilevel optimization problem [Solodov:2007aa, Dempe:2021aa]. As far as we know, the only analysis of stochastic versions of the simple bilevel optimization problem is reported in [cao2023projection], where a stochastic Frank-Wolfe method is shown to display an O(1/\varepsilon) iteration complexity.

Example

Example 1.2 (Hierarchical games)

EWD2

Hierarchical games are a useful model template for computational approaches to competitive mechanism design and certain dynamic games. The key goal of mechanism design is to implement a desired Nash equilibrium in a population of agents. Hence, the designers need to anticipate the equilibrium conditions of the lower level problem. For concreteness, we consider the situation in which two upper level players manage the strategies of N lower-level players. The lower level players engage in a Nash game, characterized by local minimisation problems

\min_{y^{\nu}\in\mathcal{Y}^{\nu}}\{h^{\ell}_{\nu}(y^{\nu},y^{-\nu})+\varphi^{\ell}_{\nu}(y^{\nu})\}.

Under standard differentiability and monotonicity assumptions on the data of the game, we can characterize equilibria of this lower level game in terms the variational inequality \mathcal{S}_{2}=\operatorname{zer}({\mathsf{F}}_{2}+\partial g_{2}), where {\mathsf{F}}_{2}(y)=(\nabla_{y^{1}}h^{\ell}_{1}(y),\ldots,\nabla_{y^{N}}h^{\ell}_{N}(y)). The problem of the upper level players is to select a Nash equilibrium in the lower level game by itself being engaged in a strategic optimisation problem of the form

\min_{x^{\mu}\in\mathcal{X}^{mu}}\{h^{u}_{\mu}(x^{\mu},x^{-\mu})+\varphi^{u}_{\mu}(x^{\mu})\}\quad \text{s.t.: }(x^{\mu},x^{-\mu})\in\mathcal{S}_{2},\mu\in\{1,2\}.

The strategy x^{\mu}=(y^{\nu})_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_{\mu}} consists of the actions of the adjunct lower level players. Writing the equilibrium conditions for the resulting hierarchical games leads to the problem formulation (?).

Assumption

Assumption 1

SM3U

The following hypothesis are assumed to hold throughout the paper:

  • (i) The solution set \mathcal{S}_{1} of (?) is nonempty. In particular, \mathcal{S}_{2}\triangleq \operatorname{zer}({\mathsf{F}}_{2}+\partial g_{2})\neq\varnothing.

  • (ii) The functions g_{i}:\mathcal{X}\to(-\infty,\infty], i=1,2 are proper convex and lower semi-continuous.

  • (iii) The operators {\mathsf{F}}_{i},i=1,2, are monotone and L_{{\mathsf{F}}_{i}}-Lipschtiz.

  • (iv) The operators {\mathsf{F}}_{i} admit a finite sum representation {\mathsf{F}}_{i}=\sum_{\mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}}{\mathsf{F}}_{i}^{\mathtt{a}}, where \mathcal{A} is a finite index set, and {\mathsf{F}}_{i}^{\mathtt{a}}:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X} are given mappings.

Used by Definition 2.1, Definition 2.2, Lemma 2.3
Remark

Remark 2.1

35DN

The assumption that both operators {\mathsf{F}}_{1},{\mathsf{F}}_{2} can be represented as a finite sum with indices coming from a common index set \mathcal{A} is without loss of generality. Indeed, if we would have the representation {\mathsf{F}}_{i}=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}_{i}}{\mathsf{F}}_{i}^{\mathtt{a}}, then define \mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}_{1}\cup\mathcal{A}_{2}, and declare for example \mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}_{i}\setminus \mathcal{A}_{j} the operator {\mathsf{F}}_{j}^{\mathtt{a}}=0. Alternatively, we could label the mappings with a double index \mathtt{a}=(\mathtt{a}_{1},\mathtt{a}_{2})\in\mathcal{A}_{1}\times\mathcal{A}_{2}\equiv\mathcal{A}.

Assumption

Assumption 2

UUKI

The set \operatorname{dom}(g_1)\cap \operatorname{dom}(g_2) is closed, and for any compact sets \mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}\subset\mathcal{Z} satisfying \mathcal{B},\mathcal{C} \subset\operatorname{dom}(g_{1})\cap\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}), we have \operatorname{\mathsf{Var}}(g_{1}\vert \mathcal{B}\times\mathcal{C})<\infty.

Used by Definition 2.1, Definition 2.2, Lemma 2.3
Assumption

Assumption 4

RE0M

For all k\in\varmathbb{N}, the operator {\mathsf{V}}_{k} admits a stochastic oracle {\mathsf{V}}^{\xi}_{k} such that \varmathbb{E}[{\mathsf{V}}_{k}^{\xi}(x)]={\mathsf{V}}_{k}(x) for all x\in\mathcal{X}. There exists \mathcal{L}_{k}>0 such that \sup_{k\geq 0}\mathcal{L}_{k}\leq L_{1} and

\varmathbb{E} \left[\, \norm{{\mathsf{V}}^{\xi}_k(x) - {\mathsf{V}} _k^{\xi}(y)}\right] \leq \mathcal{L}_k \norm{x-y}\qquad \forall x,y \in \mathcal{X}.
Used by Definition 2.1, Definition 2.2, Lemma 2.3
Example

Example 2.1

5OZO

Working in a finite sum setting, we can construct different stochastic oracles. Since {\mathsf{V}}_{k}=\sum_{\mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}}{\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k}, if each {\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k} is L_{k,\mathtt{a}}-Lipschitz, then the triangle inequality gives L_{{\mathsf{V}}_{k}}\leq\sum_{\mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}}L_{k,\mathtt{a}}. The two simplest stochastic oracles can be defined as follows:

  1. {\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k}(x)=\abs{\mathcal{A}}{\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k}(x) and \xi:\Omega\to\mathcal{A} is the uniformly distributed random variable with law Q_{\mathtt{a}}\triangleq\varmathbb{P}(\xi=\mathtt{a})=\frac{1}{\abs{\mathcal{A}}}. In this case \mathcal{L}_{k}=\sqrt{\abs{\mathcal{A}}\sum_{\mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}}L_{k,a}^{2}}. Since \beta_{k}\leq \beta_{1}, we can take as upper bound on the Lipschitz modulus L_{1}=\mathcal{L}_{1}.

  2. Let \xi:\Omega\to\mathcal{A} be the random variable with law Q_{\mathtt{a}}\triangleq\varmathbb{P}(\xi=\mathtt{a})=\frac{L_{1,\mathtt{a}}}{\sum_{\mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}}L_{1,\mathtt{a}}}. Set {\mathsf{V}}^{\xi}_{k}(x)=\frac{1}{q_{a}}{\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k} on the event \{\xi=\mathtt{a}\}. In this case, we have \mathcal{L}_{k}=\sum_{\mathtt{a}\in\mathcal{A}}L_{1,\mathtt{a}}=L_{1}.

Definition

Definition 2.1

74V4

The feasibility gap and optimality gap for (?) are defined as

\begin{aligned} &\Theta_{\rm Feas}(x\vert\mathcal{C})=\sup_{y\in\mathcal{C}} H^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(x,y) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \Theta_{\rm Opt}(x\vert\mathcal{C}\cap\mathcal{S}_{2})=\sup_{y\in\mathcal{C}\cap\mathcal{S}_{2}} H^{({\mathsf{F}}_{1},g_{1})}(x,y). \end{aligned}
Uses Assumption 1, Assumption 2, Assumption 3, Assumption 4
Definition

Definition 2.2 (Weak Sharpness)

FZUY

Let \mathcal{S} be the solution set of \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g). We say \mathcal{S} is (\kappa,\rho)-weak sharp with \kappa>0 and \rho\in(1,2) if

(\forall z^{\ast}\in\mathcal{S})(\forall z\in\operatorname{dom}(g)):\quad H^{({\mathsf{F}},g)}(z,z^{\ast})\geq\kappa\rho^{-1}\operatorname{dist}(z,\mathcal{S})^{\rho}.
Uses Assumption 1, Assumption 2, Assumption 3, Assumption 4 · Used by Remark 2.2, Remark B.1
Lemma

Lemma 2.3

JD42

Consider problem (?). Let Assumption 1 and 3 hold. Let \mathcal{U}_1\subseteq\operatorname{dom}(g_{1}) be a nonempty compact set with \mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_{1}\neq\varnothing. Then, there exists a constant B_{\mathcal{U}_1}>0 such that

\Theta_{\rm Opt}(x\vert\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_1)\geq-B_{\mathcal{U}_1}\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2}) \quad\forall x\in\mathcal{X}.

Suppose \mathcal{S}_{2} is (\kappa,\rho)-weakly sharp. Then for all nonempty and compact subsets \mathcal{U}_2\subseteq\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}) with \mathcal{U}_{2}\cap\mathcal{S}_{2}\neq\varnothing, and all x\in\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}), we have

\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2})\leq\left[\rho\kappa^{-1}\Theta_{\rm Feas}(x\vert \mathcal{U}_2\cap \mathcal{S}_2)\right]^{1/\rho}.
Uses Assumption 1, Assumption 2, Assumption 3, Assumption 4
Assumption

Assumption 5

ZHTQ

[Attouch-Czarnecki condition] The step size sequence (\tau_{k})_{k\geq 0} and the regularization sequence (\beta_{k})_{k\geq 0} satisfy

(\forall p\in\textnormal{Range}(\operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}_{2}})):\;\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\tau_{k}\left[\sup_{z\in\mathcal{S}_{2}}\varphi^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(z,\beta_{k}p)-\operatorname{\mathtt{s}}(\beta_{k}p\vert\mathcal{S}_{2})\right]<\infty.
Remark

Remark 2.2

13SZ

Assumption 5 looks quite daunting to verify, but as already observed in [boct2025accelerating], it fits very natural to the geometric setting of this paper. Indeed, let us assume that \mathcal{S}_{2} is (\kappa,\rho)-weakly sharp, with \kappa>0 and \rho\in(1,2). According to Definition 2.2, for all x\in\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}) and for all x^{*}\in\mathcal{S}_{2}, we have H^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(x,x^{*})\geq \frac{\kappa}{\rho}\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2})^{\rho}. Hence, eq. (?) yields for all x\in\mathcal{S}_{2}

\begin{aligned} \varphi^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(x,\beta_{k}p^{\ast})-\operatorname{\mathtt{s}}(\beta_{k}p^{\ast}\vert\mathcal{S}_{2})&\leq \left(H^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(\bullet,x)\right)^{\ast}(\beta_{k}p^{\ast})-\operatorname{\mathtt{s}}(\beta_{k}p^{\ast}\vert\mathcal{S}_{2})\leq \kappa^{-\frac{1}{\rho-1}}\left(\frac{\rho-1}{\rho}\right)\beta_{k}^{\frac{\rho}{\rho-1}}\norm{p^{\ast}}^{\frac{\rho}{\rho-1}}. \end{aligned}

This shows that under the (\kappa,\rho)-weak sharpness condition, the summability condition (5) is satisfied whenever \sum_{k\geq 1}\tau_{k}\beta^{\frac{\rho}{\rho-1}}_{k}<\infty. \Diamond

Uses Definition 2.2
Lemma

Lemma 2.4

8NJ4

Let Assumptions 1- 4 hold. Given \alpha\in(0,1],\theta\in (0,1] and \tau_{k}\leq \frac{\sqrt{1-\alpha}}{\mathcal{L}_{k}}\gamma, for \gamma\in(0,1). For any x\in\operatorname{dom}(g_{1})\cap\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}), the iterates produced by Algorithm ? satisfy

\begin{split} \varmathbb{E}[\mathcal{E}_{k+1}(x)\vert\mathcal{H}_{k}]+2\tau_{k}\Psi_{k}(x)&\leq \mathcal{E}_{k}(x)-\alpha\norm{y_{k+1}-x_{k}}^{2}\\ &-(1-\gamma)\left[(1-\alpha)\norm{y_{k+1}-w_{k}}^{2}+\varmathbb{E}\left(\norm{x_{k+1}-y_{k+1}}^{2}\vert\mathcal{H}_{k}\right)\right]. \end{split}
Lemma

Lemma 2.5

KTSO

Let Assumptions 1- 5 hold. Let x^{*}\in\mathcal{S}_{1} be arbitrary. Then, under the same conditions as in Lemma 2.4, the following statements hold true:

  • (i) \lim_{k\to\infty}\mathcal{E}_{k}(x^{*}) exists \varmathbb{P}-a.s.

  • (ii) \lim_{k\to\infty}\norm{y_{k+1}-w_{k}}^{2}=\lim_{k\to\infty}\norm{y_{k+1}-x_{k+1}}^{2}=0 \varmathbb{P}-a.s.

In particular, the processes (x_{k})_{k},(w_{k})_{k} and (y_{k})_{k} are almost surely bounded, and

\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left((1-\alpha)\varmathbb{E}\left[\norm{y_{k+1}-w_{k}}^{2}\right]+\varmathbb{E}\left[\norm{x_{k+1}-y_{k+1}}^{2}\right]\right)\leq\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\left(\mathcal{E}_{0}(x^{*})+2\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\tau_{k}h_{k}\right),

where h_{k}\triangleq \sup_{x\in\mathcal{S}_{2}}\varphi^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(x,\beta_{k}p^{*})-\operatorname{\mathtt{s}}(\beta_{k}p^{*}\vert\mathcal{S}_{2}) with a certain p^\ast \in \operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}_{2}}(x^\ast).

Theorem

Theorem 2.6

Z7A5

Let Assumptions 1-5 hold. Given \theta\in(0,1],\alpha=1-\theta, and \tau_{k}\leq \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\mathcal{L}_{k}}\gamma for \gamma\in(0,1). Let \mathcal{U}_1, \mathcal{U}_2 as in Lemma 2.3, let x^\ast \in \mathcal{S}_1, and define p^\ast, h_k as in Lemma 2.5. Further, define \bar{y}^{K}\triangleq \frac{\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\tau_{k}y_{k+1}}{T_{k}} and T_{K}\triangleq \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\tau_{k}. Then, there are constants C_{\mathcal{U}_1}, C_{\mathcal{U}_2}, B_{\mathcal{U}_1} > 0 such that we have

\begin{aligned} \varmathbb{E}[\Theta_{\rm Feas}(\bar{y}^{K}\vert\mathcal{U}_{2})]&\leq \frac{7}{4T_{K}}\max_{x\in\mathcal{U}_{2}}\norm{x-x_{0}}^{2}+\frac{7}{2T_{K}(1-\gamma)}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\tau_{k}h_{k}\\ &+C_{\mathcal{U}_{2}}\frac{\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\tau_{k}\beta_{k}}{T_{K}}+\frac{7}{2T_{K}(1-\gamma)}\norm{x^{*}-x_{0}}^{2}\triangleq W_{\rm Feas}(K,x_{0},,x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{2}), \end{aligned}
\begin{aligned} -B_{\mathcal{U}_1}\operatorname{dist}(\bar{y}^{K},\mathcal{S}_{2})&\leq \varmathbb{E} \left[\Theta_{\rm Opt}(\bar{y}^{K}\vert\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_{2})\right] \\ &\quad \leq \frac{C_{\mathcal{U}_1}}{2T_K \beta_K}+\frac{3}{4T_{K}}\max_{x\in \mathcal{U}_1 \cap \mathcal{S}_2} \norm{x-x_0}^2+\frac{7}{2(1-\gamma)T_{K}\beta^{2}_{K}}\norm{x^{*}-x_{0}}^{2}\\ &+\frac{7}{2(1-\gamma)T_{K}\beta^{2}_{K}}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\tau_{k}h_{k}\triangleq W_{\rm Opt}(K,x_{0},x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{1}). \end{aligned}

If the lower level solution set \mathcal{S}_{2} is (\kappa,\rho)-weakly sharp, then we also have the lower bound

-B_{\mathcal{U}_{1}}\left[\frac{\rho}{\kappa}W_{\rm Feas}(K,x_{0},\mathcal{U}_{2})\right]^{1/\rho}\leq \varmathbb{E} \left[\Theta_{\rm Opt}(\bar{y}^{K}\vert\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_{2})\right]
Proposition

Proposition 2.7

TQKC

Assume that \mathcal{S}_{2} is (\kappa,\rho)-weakly sharp. Let Algorithm ? use constant step size \tau_{k}=\bar{\tau}\leq \frac{\sqrt{\theta}\gamma}{L_{1}} and regularization sequence (\beta_{k})_{k\geq 0} of the form (?) with a,b>0 and \delta>1-1/\rho=\frac{1}{\rho^{*}}. Then, we have

W_{\rm Feas}(K,x_{0},x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{2})\leq O((K+b)^{-\delta}), \quad \text{ and } \quad W_{\rm Opt}(K,x_{0},x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{1})\leq O((K+b)^{-(1-2\delta)}).
Remark

Remark 2.3

KKKU

Consider the bound on W_{\rm Feas}, where we substitute \bar{\tau}= \frac{\sqrt{\theta}\gamma}{L_{1}}. Omitting numerical constants, we obtain the bound

\begin{aligned} W_{\rm Feas}(K,x_{0},x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{2}) &\leq \frac{L_1\max_{x\in\mathcal{U}_{2}}\norm{x-x_{0}}^{2}+L_1\norm{x^{*}-x_{0}}^{2}}{\gamma(1-\gamma)\sqrt{\theta}K}+\frac{\bar{h}_{\rho}+ C_{\mathcal{U}_{2}} }{(1-\gamma)K^{\delta}}, \end{aligned}

where we’ve used \gamma,\theta\in (0,1) and hence 1\leq 1/(1-\gamma) and 1\leq 1/(\gamma \sqrt{\theta}), as well as 1/K\leq 1/K^{\delta} for K\geq 1. Thus, to attain an \varepsilon-optimal solution in terms of the feasibility gap, it is sufficient to take K=O\left(\max\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}\varepsilon},\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{1/\delta}}\right\}\right) iterations. Each iteration on average requires \theta |\mathcal{A}|+2 evaluations of {\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k}. Thus, to reach accuracy \varepsilon on average the algorithm needs O\left(\max\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta}\varepsilon},\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{1/\delta}}\right\}\right) \cdot (\theta |\mathcal{A}|+2) evaluations of the stochastic oracle. Optimizing this estimate with respect to \theta gives \theta=2/|\mathcal{A}|, and the total complexity becomes O\left(\max\left\{\frac{\sqrt{|\mathcal{A}|}}{\varepsilon},\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{1/\delta}}\right\}\right). Note that existing (deterministic) algorithms would require |\mathcal{A}| evaluations of {\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k} per iteration, and the total complexity is |\mathcal{A}|\max\{1/\varepsilon,1/\varepsilon^{1/\delta}\} evaluations of {\mathsf{V}}^{\mathtt{a}}_{k}. This demonstrates the potential effectiveness of variance reduction. We also note that each term in the maximum has a natural interpretation. The first term corresponds to the standard single-level setting and is the same as in [alacaoglu2022stochastic]; The second term stems from the hierarchical tructure of our problem and indicates the intrinsic complexity of the bilevel problem.

Assumption

Assumption 6

S6TE

For all s=0,1,\ldots,S-1, we have access to a stochastic oracle {\mathsf{V}}^{\xi}_{s} such that for all x,y\in \operatorname{dom}(g_{1})\cap\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}) there exists a distribution Q_{x,y} for which {\mathsf{V}}_{s}(x)=\varmathbb{E}_{\xi\sim Q_{x,y}}[{\mathsf{V}}_{s}^{\xi}(x))] and \varmathbb{E}_{\xi\sim Q_{x,y}}[\norm{{\mathsf{V}}^{\xi}_{s}(x)-{\mathsf{V}}_{s}^{\xi}(y)}^{2}_{*}]\leq L^{2}_{s}\norm{x-y}^{2}.

Used by Lemma 3.1, Theorem 3.2
Lemma

Lemma 3.1

EJF7

Let Assumptions 1-3 and 6 hold. Consider Algorithm ?, run with \tau_{s}\leq \frac{\sqrt{1-\alpha}}{2L_{s}}. Let x^\ast \in \mathcal{S}_1 with corresponding p^\ast \in \operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}_{2}}(x^\ast) and assume that \sum_{s=0}^{\infty} \tau_{s}h(\beta_{s}p^{*})<\infty. Then

  1. \lim_{s\to\infty}\mathcal{E}^{s}(x^{*}) exists \varmathbb{P}-a.s. for all x^{*}\in\mathcal{S}_{1}.

  2. \sum_{s=0}^{\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\norm{y^{s}_{k+1}-w^{s}}^2<\infty and \sum_{s=0}^{\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\norm{x^{s}_{k+1}-y^{s}_{k+1}}^{2}<\infty \varmathbb{P}-a.s.

  3. \displaystyle \sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1} \Big((1-\alpha)\varmathbb{E}[\norm{y^{s}_{k+1}-w^{s}}^{2}] + \varmathbb{E}[\norm{x^{s}_{k+1}-y^{s}_{k+1}}^{2}]\Big) \leq 4\mathcal{E}^{0}(x^{*})+4K\sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\tau_{s}h(\beta_{s}p^{*}).

Uses Assumption 6 · Used by Theorem 3.2
Theorem

Theorem 3.2

Q4M8

Let conditions of Lemma 3.1 hold, \mathcal{U}_1, \mathcal{U}_2 be subsets, chosen as in Lemma 2.3. Fix x^{*}\in\mathcal{S}_{1} and corresponding p^{*}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}_{2}}(x^{*}). Set T_S \triangleq \sum_{s=0}^{S-1} \tau_s, \, \hat{x}^S \triangleq \frac{1}{K T_S} \sum_{s=0}^{S-1} \tau_s \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} y_{k+1}^s, R^2(x^{*},x_0^0)\triangleq\sup_{x \in \mathcal{U}_2}\mathcal{E}^{0}(x)+\sup_{x \in \mathcal{U}_2}D(x,x_0^0)+\mathcal{E}^{0}(x^{*}).

Then, there are constants C_{\mathcal{U}_1}, C_{\mathcal{U}_2}, B_{\mathcal{U}_1} > 0 s.t.

\begin{aligned} \varmathbb{E}[\Theta_{\rm Feas}(\hat{x}^S\vert\mathcal{U}_{2})]&\leq \frac{R^2(x^{*},x_0^0)}{KT_{S}}+\frac{\sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\tau_sh(\beta_{s}p^{*})}{2T_{S}}+\frac{\sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\beta_{s}\tau_{s}}{T_{S}}C_{\mathcal{U}_{2}}\triangleq W^B_{\rm Feas}(K,S,x_{0}^0,x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{2}) \\ -B_{\mathcal{U}_1}\operatorname{dist}(\hat{x}^S,\mathcal{S}_{2})& \leq \varmathbb{E}[\Theta_{\rm Opt}(\hat{x}^S\vert\mathcal{U}_{1}\cap \mathcal{S}_2)] \leq\frac{C_{\mathcal{U}_1}}{\beta_SK T_S} + \frac{\sup_{x \in \mathcal{U}_{1}\cap \mathcal{S}_2} D(x,x_0^0)}{K T_S}+ \frac{ \mathcal{E}^{0}(x^{*})}{2 K\beta_S^2 T_S} \\ & \hspace{10em}+\frac{\sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\tau_{s}h(\beta_{s}p^{*})}{2 \beta_S^2 T_S} \triangleq W^B_{\rm Opt}(K,S,x_{0}^0,x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{1}) . \end{aligned}

If the lower level solution set \mathcal{S}_{2} is (\kappa,\rho)-weakly sharp, then we also have the lower bound

-B_{\mathcal{U}_{1}}\left[\rho\kappa^{-1}W^B_{\rm Feas}(K,S,x_{0}^0,x^{*},\mathcal{U}_{2})\right]^{1/\rho}\leq \varmathbb{E} \left[\Theta_{\rm Opt}(\hat{x}^S\vert\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_{2})\right].
Uses Assumption 6, Lemma 3.1
Lemma

Lemma A.1 (Theorem 1)

TPYG

Let {\varmathbb{F}}=(\mathcal{F}_{k})_{k\in\varmathbb{N}} be a filtration. Let (\mathcal{E}_{k})_{k}\in\ell_{+}({\varmathbb{F}}),(\gamma_{k})_{k}\in\ell^{1}_{+}({\varmathbb{F}}),(D_{k})_{k}\in\ell_{+}({\varmathbb{F}}) and (\eta_{k})_{k}\in\ell^{1}_{+}({\varmathbb{F}}) be such that

\varmathbb{E}(\mathcal{E}_{k+1}\vert\mathcal{F}_{k})+D_{k}\leq(1+\gamma_{k})\mathcal{E}_{k}+\eta_{k}\quad\forall k\in\varmathbb{N},\varmathbb{P}-\text{a.s.}

Then (D_{k})_{k\in\varmathbb{N}}\in\ell^{1}_{+}({\varmathbb{F}}) and (\mathcal{E}_{k})_{k\in\varmathbb{N}} converges \varmathbb{P}-a.s. to a [0,\infty)-valued random variable.

Lemma

Lemma A.2

HCL5

Let {\varmathbb{F}}=(\mathcal{F}_{k})_{k\in\varmathbb{N}} be a filtration and (Z_{k})_{k\in\varmathbb{N}} an {\varmathbb{F}}-adapted stochastic process with values in \mathcal{X} and \varmathbb{E}[Z_{k+1}\vert\mathcal{F}_{k}]=0. Then, for any K\geq 1,x_{0}\in\mathcal{X} and any compact set \mathcal{C}\subset\mathcal{X},

\varmathbb{E}\left[\max_{x\in\mathcal{C}}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\inner{Z_{k+1},x}\right]\leq\max_{x\in\mathcal{C}}\frac{1}{2}\norm{x_{0}-x}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\varmathbb{E}[\norm{Z_{k+1}}^{2}].
Lemma

Lemma A.3

QJFO

Let {\varmathbb{F}}=(\mathcal{F}_{k}^{s})_{s\geq 0, k\in[0,K-1]} be a filtration and (Z_{k}^{s})_{s\geq 0, k\in[0,K-1]} an {\varmathbb{F}}-adapted stochastic process with values in \mathcal{X} and \varmathbb{E}[Z_{k+1}^{s}\vert\mathcal{F}_{k}^{s}]=0. Then, for any S\geq 0,x_{0}\in\mathcal{X} and any compact set \mathcal{C}\subset\mathcal{X},

\varmathbb{E}\left[\max_{x\in\mathcal{C}}\sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\inner{Z_{k+1}^{s},x}\right]\leq\max_{x\in\mathcal{C}}D(x,x_{0})+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s=0}^{S-1}\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\varmathbb{E}[\norm{Z_{k+1}^{s}}^{2}_{*}].
Lemma

Lemma A.4

QH7H

Let \mathsf{d} be a distance generating function, inducing the Bregman divergence D. We have

\begin{aligned} \inner{\nabla \mathsf{d}(x) - \nabla \mathsf{d}(y),z-x} = D(z,y) - D(z,x) - D(x,y)\quad \forall x,y,z \in \mathcal{X} \end{aligned}
Used by Proof
Lemma

Lemma A.5

398X

Let g be a proper convex and lower semi-continuous function and

\begin{aligned} x^+ = \operatorname*{argmin}_z \left\{g(z) + \inner{v,z} + \alpha D(z,x_1)+ (1-\alpha) D(z,x_2)\right\}. \end{aligned}

Then for any x \in \mathcal{X} the following inequality holds:

\begin{aligned} g(x) - g(x^+) + \inner{v,x-x^+} \geq &\ D(x,x^+) + \alpha (D(x^+,x_1) - D(x,x_1))\\ &\quad+(1-\alpha)(D(x^+,x_2) + (1-\alpha)D(x,x_2)) \end{aligned}
Proof of Lemma A.5

By the optimality condition we have for x^+

\begin{aligned} 0 \in \partial g(x^+) + v + \alpha (\nabla \mathsf{d}(x^+) - \nabla \mathsf{d}(x_1)) + (1-\alpha) (\nabla \mathsf{d}(x^+) - \nabla \mathsf{d}(x_2)). \end{aligned}

By the subgradient inequality for g, we get

\begin{aligned} g(x) - g(x^+) \geq \inner{v + \alpha(\nabla \mathsf{d}(x^+) - \nabla \mathsf{d}(x_1)) + (1-\alpha)(\nabla \mathsf{d}(x^+) - \nabla \mathsf{d}(x_2)), x^+ - x}. \end{aligned}

The result follows then from applying the three point identity Lemma A.4 twice to the gradient terms.

Uses Lemma A.4
Lemma

Lemma B.1

TPKF

Let \mathcal{C}\subset\operatorname{dom}(g) be a nonempty compact convex set. Consider problem \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g) with {\mathsf{F}}:\mathcal{Z}\to\mathcal{Z} monotone and Lipschitz continuous. The function x\mapsto \Theta(x\vert{\mathsf{F}},g,\mathcal{C}) is well-defined and convex on \mathcal{Z}. For any x\in\mathcal{C} we have \Theta(x\vert {\mathsf{F}},g,\mathcal{C})\geq 0. Moreover, if x\in\mathcal{C} is a solution to \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g), then \Theta(x\vert{\mathsf{F}},g,\mathcal{C})=0. Conversely, if \Theta(x\vert{\mathsf{F}},g,\mathcal{C})=0 for some x\in\mathcal{C} for which there exists an \varepsilon>0 such that \varmathbb{B}(x,\varepsilon)\cap\mathcal{C}=\varmathbb{B}(x,\varepsilon)\cap\operatorname{dom}(g), then x is a solution of \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g).

Definition

Definition B.2

GJFR

Let {\mathsf{F}}:\mathcal{Z}\to\mathcal{Z} be continuous and monotone over \operatorname{dom}(g)\subset\mathcal{Z}. Assume \operatorname{dom}(g) is closed. The solution set \mathcal{S} of \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g) is weakly sharp if there exists \tau>0 such that

(\forall z^{\ast}\in\mathcal{S}):\quad \tau\varmathbb{B}(0,1)\subseteq{\mathsf{F}}(z^{\ast})+\partial g(z^{\ast})+[\operatorname{\mathsf{TC}}_{\operatorname{dom}(g)}(z^{\ast})\cap\operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}}(z^{\ast})]^{\circ}
Used by Proposition B.3, Lemma B.5
Proposition

Proposition B.3

TNZV

Consider problem \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g) with \operatorname{dom}(g) a closed, convex, and nonempty subset of \mathcal{Z}. If \mathcal{S}=\operatorname{zer}({\mathsf{F}}+\partial g) is weakly sharp, then

(\forall z\in\operatorname{dom}(g)):\quad \Theta(z\vert{\mathsf{F}},g,\operatorname{dom}(g))\geq \tau\operatorname{dist}(z,\mathcal{S}).
Uses Definition B.2
Definition

Definition B.4 (Weak Sharpness)

H89S

Let \mathcal{S} be the nonempty solution set of \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g). We say \mathcal{S} is (\kappa,\rho)-weak sharp with \kappa>0 and \rho\geq 1 if

(\forall z^{\ast}\in\mathcal{S})(\forall z\in \operatorname{dom}(g)):\quad H^{({\mathsf{F}},g)}(z,z^{\ast})\geq\kappa\rho^{-1}\operatorname{dist}(z,\mathcal{S})^{\rho}.
Used by Proof
Remark

Remark B.1

Y9BF

An important class of examples arises when \rho=1, notably in monotone linear complementarity problems in finite dimensions under nondegeneracy conditions [burke1993weak, pang1997error]. In the case where the \operatorname{HVI}({\mathsf{F}},g) reduces to a convex optimization problem, weak-sharpness implies an Hölderian errror bound, an assumption already imposed by [Cabot2005] in the context of hierarchical minimization. Specifically, let us assume that {\mathsf{F}}=0 and g\in\Gamma_{0}(\mathcal{Z}). Then \mathcal{S}=\operatorname*{argmin} g, and acordingly, H^{(0,g)}(z,z^{*})=g(z)-\min g for z^{*}\in\mathcal{S}. Hence, (2.2) implies

\frac{\kappa}{\rho}\operatorname{dist}(u,\operatorname*{argmin} g)^{\rho}\leq g(u)-\min g\qquad \forall u\in\mathcal{Z}.

If \rho=1, this is the weak-sharpness condition of [burke1993weak]. The case \rho=2 corresponds to the "quadratic growth" condition of [drusvyatskiy2018error].\Diamond

Uses Definition 2.2
Lemma

Lemma B.5

9263

Consider problem (?). Let Assumption 1 and 3 hold. Let \mathcal{U}_1\subseteq\operatorname{dom}(g_{1}) be a nonempty compact set with \mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_{1}\neq\varnothing. Then, there exists a constant B_{\mathcal{U}_1}>0 such that

\Theta_{\rm Opt}(z\vert\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_1)\geq-B_{\mathcal{U}_1}\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2}), \quad\forall x\in\mathcal{X}.

Suppose \mathcal{S}_{2} is (\kappa,\rho)-weakly sharp. Then for all nonempty and compact subsets \mathcal{U}_2\subseteq\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}) with \mathcal{U}_{2}\cap\mathcal{S}_{2} and all x\in\operatorname{dom}(g_{2}), we have

\operatorname{dist}(z,\mathcal{S}_{2})\leq\left[\frac{\rho}{\kappa}\Theta_{\rm Feas}(x\vert \mathcal{U}_2\cap \mathcal{S}_2)\right]^{1/\rho}.
Uses Definition B.2
Proof of Lemma B.5

Let x^{*}\in\mathcal{S}_{1}=\operatorname{zer}({\mathsf{F}}_{1}+\partial g_{1}+\operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}_{2}})\subset\mathcal{S}_{2}. Then, there exists p^{*}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{NC}}_{\mathcal{S}_{2}}(x^{*}) such that -{\mathsf{F}}_{1}(x^{*})-p^{*}\in\partial g_{1}(x^{*}). By the convex sugradient inequality, this implies

\inner{{\mathsf{F}}_{1}(z^{*}),x-x^{*}}+g_{1}(x)-g_{1}(x^{*})\geq \inner{-p^{*},x-x^{*}}\qquad\forall x\in\mathcal{X}.

Take x\in \mathcal{X} and let \hat{x}=\Pi_{\mathcal{S}_{2}}(x) be the orthogonal projector of x onto \mathcal{S}_{2}. Thus, \inner{p^{*},\hat{x}-x^*}\leq 0, resulting in

\inner{p^{*},\hat{x}-x}\leq\inner{p^{*},x^{*}-x},

which implies when combined with (Proof)

\begin{aligned} \inner{{\mathsf{F}}_{1}(x^{*}),x-x^{*}}+&g_{1}(x)-g_{1}(x^{*})\geq \inner{p^{*},\hat{x}-x}\geq -\norm{p^{*}}\cdot\norm{\hat{x}-x}=-\norm{p^{*}}\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2}). \end{aligned}

Hence, for all compact \mathcal{U}_1\subset\operatorname{dom}(g_{1}) with x^*\in\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_{1}\neq\varnothing, we conclude \Theta_{\rm Opt}(x\vert\mathcal{U}_1\cap\mathcal{S}_1)\geq-B_{\mathcal{U}_1}\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2}), where B_{\mathcal{U}_1}=\norm{p^{*}}.

To show (B.5), we can directly use Definition B.4, to conclude

\begin{aligned} \Theta_{\rm Feas}(x\vert\mathcal{U}_2\cap\mathcal{S}_2)=\sup_{x^{*}\in\mathcal{U}_2\cap\mathcal{S}_2}H^{({\mathsf{F}}_{2},g_{2})}(x,x^{*})\geq \frac{\kappa}{\rho}\operatorname{dist}(x,\mathcal{S}_{2})^{\rho}. \end{aligned}
Uses Definition B.4

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2602.13510v1 by Pavel Dvurechensky, Andrea Ebner, Johannes Carl Schnebel, Shimrit Shtern and Mathias Staudigl, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2602/2602.13510.jsonl.