ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Oracle-Complexity Gap in Derivative-Free Convex Optimization

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

derivative-free-convex-oracle-gapAlgorithms & optimizationposed by Vladimir Protasov (gap since 1996), 1996recorded: solved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

For deterministically minimizing a convex 1-Lipschitz function on the dd-dimensional ball using only exact function values, the query complexity sat between Ω(d)\Omega(d) and O(d2log2d)O(d^2 \log^2 d) since 1996. The paper proves a near-quadratic lower bound Ω(d2/log(d+1))\Omega(d^2 / \log(d+1)), closing the gap: Q(d,d1/2)=Θ(d2)Q(d, \sim d^{-1/2}) = \Theta(d^2), a polynomial separation from full first-order information.

Context

A 30-year oracle-complexity gap in zeroth-order optimization.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptGPT-5.6 Sol Pro with Phillip Kerger ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.6 Sol Pro
    people
    Phillip Kerger

    Kerger reports that GPT-5.6 Sol Pro solved the problem rather than the author, following a workflow like OpenAI's Cycle Double Cover effort. It first proved a Ω~(d2)\tilde{\Omega}(d^2) lower bound at accuracy of order d3d^{-3} (after ~148 minutes), which was then refined to the order-d1/2d^{-1/2} result via a further ~230-minute run. The author verified the arguments by hand and takes full responsibility.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.