Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 20, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
We study the complexity of finding $(δ,ε)$-Goldstein stationary points of nonsmooth nonconvex Lipschitz functions. By now, it is known that randomized first-order algorithms can solve this task with a dimension-free oracle complexity [Zhang et al., 2020], whereas deterministic algorithms cannot, as their complexity must scale at least linearly with the dimension $d$ [Jordan et al., 2023, Tian and So, 2024]. This leaves open whether deterministic algorithms can nevertheless solve the problem with oracle complexity polynomial in $d$. We answer this question negatively by proving a lower bound of order $(1/ε)^{Ω(d)}$ for deterministic algorithm, closing the exponential gap between the previously known lower and upper bounds and resolving an open problem posed by Jordan et al. [2023]. We further discuss several extensions and implications of this result to weaker stationarity notions, finding a descent direction and deterministic smoothing. Overall, our results establish an exponential computational advantage in nonsmooth nonconvex optimization offered by randomization.