Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 28, 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.
This paper studies convex optimization when the gradient cannot be evaluated exactly, but only approximated by a hierarchy of algorithms whose compute grows like $δ^{-γ}$ in the accuracy $δ$. When $γ>2$, falling into the Harder-Than-Monte-Carlo (HTMC) regime, the price of accuracy outruns the variance reduction that Monte Carlo would buy and we show that minimizing a loss function costs no more, up to a factor depending only on $γ$, than a single evaluation of its gradient at the accuracy the problem demands. A randomized multilevel oracle replaces the deterministic approximation of accuracy $δ$ by an unbiased estimator of it, whose variance $σ^2$ becomes a second, independently priced dial: the cost of one call drops from $δ^{-γ}$ to $δ^{2-γ}σ^{-2}$. Plain inexact gradient descent driven by that oracle reaches loss $\varepsilon$ at expected compute $Θ(\varepsilon^{-γ})$ in the convex case, against $Θ(\varepsilon^{-(γ+1)})$ for the same method run at a fixed accuracy: randomization buys a full power of $\varepsilon$. Under $μ$-strong convexity the exponent halves, to $\varepsilon^{-γ/2}$, because the iterates settle at a noise floor and the bias budget relaxes accordingly. Both bounds are independent of the step size, and hence of the smoothness constant, and we show that the cost is a functional of the underlying gradient flow rather than of any discretization of it.