A Novel Analysis Framework of Lower Complexity Bounds for Finite-Sum Optimization

√ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) iterations , where κ is the condition number of the objective function . This lower bound is tighter than previous results and perfectly matches the upper bound of the existing proximal incremental first-order oracle algorithm Point-SAGA . We develop a novel construction to show the above result , which partitions the tridiagonal matrix of classical examples into n groups to make the problem difficult enough to stochastic algorithms . This construction is friendly to the analysis of proximal oracle and also could be used in general convex and average smooth cases naturally . 1 INTRODUCTION We consider the minimization of the following optimization problem min x∈Rd f ( x ) , 1 n n∑ i=1 fi ( x ) , ( 1 ) where the fi ( x ) are L-smooth and µ-strongly convex . Accordingly , the condition number is defined as κ = L/µ , which is typically larger than n in real-world applications . Many machine learning models can be formulated as the above problem such as ridge linear regression , ridge logistic regression , smoothed support vector machines , graphical models , etc . This paper focuses on the first order methods for solving Problem ( 1 ) , which access to the Proximal Incremental First-order Oracle ( PIFO ) for each individual component , that is , hf ( x , i , γ ) , [ fi ( x ) , ∇fi ( x ) , proxγfi ( x ) ] , ( 2 ) where i ∈ { 1 , . . . , n } , γ > 0 , and the proximal operation is defined as proxγfi ( x ) = arg min u { fi ( u ) + 1 2γ ‖x− u‖22 } . We also define the Incremental First-order Oracle ( IFO ) gf ( x , i , γ ) , [ fi ( x ) , ∇fi ( x ) ] . PIFO provides more information than IFO and it would be potentially more powerful than IFO in first order optimization algorithms . Our goal is to find an ε-suboptimal solution x̂ such that f ( x̂ ) − min x∈Rd f ( x ) ≤ ε by using PIFO or IFO . There are several first-order stochastic algorithms to solve Problem ( 1 ) . The key idea to leverage the structure of f is variance reduction which is effective for ill-conditioned problems . For example , SVRG ( Zhang et al. , 2013 ; Johnson and Zhang , 2013 ; Xiao and Zhang , 2014 ) can find an ε-suboptimal solution in O ( ( n+κ ) log ( 1/ε ) ) IFO calls , while the complexity of the classical Nesterov ’ s acceleration ( Nesterov , 1983 ) is O ( n √ κ log ( 1/ε ) ) . Similar results1 also hold for SAG ( Schmidt et al. , 2017 ) and SAGA ( Defazio et al. , 2014 ) . In fact , there exists an accelerated stochastic gradient method with √ κ dependency . Defazio ( 2016 ) introduced a simple and practical accelerated method called Point SAGA , which reduces the iteration complexity to O ( ( n + √ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) . The advantage of Point SAGA is in that it has only one parameter to be tuned , but the iteration depends on PIFO rather than IFO . Allen-Zhu ( 2017 ) proposed the Katyusha momentum to accelerate variance reduction algorithms , which achieves the same iteration complexity as Point-SAGA but only requires IFO calls . The lower bound complexities of IFO algorithms for convex optimization have been well studied ( Agarwal and Bottou , 2015 ; Arjevani and Shamir , 2015 ; Woodworth and Srebro , 2016 ; Carmon et al. , 2017 ; Lan and Zhou , 2017 ; Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . Specifically , Lan and Zhou ( 2017 ) showed that at least Ω ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) IFO calls2 are needed to obtain an ε-suboptimal solution for some complicated objective functions . This lower bound is optimal because it matches the upper bound complexity of Katyusha ( Allen-Zhu , 2017 ) . It would be interesting whether we can establish a more efficient PIFO algorithm than IFO one . Woodworth and Srebro ( 2016 ) provided a lower bound Ω ( n+ √ κn log ( 1/ε ) ) for PIFO algorithms , while the known upper bound of the PIFO algorithm Point SAGA [ 3 ] is O ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) . The difference of dependency on n implies that the existing theory of PIFO algorithm is not perfect . This gap can not be ignored because the number of components n is typically very large in many machine learning problems . A natural question is can we design a PIFO algorithm whose upper bound complexity matches Woodworth and Srebro ’ s lower bound , or can we improve the lower bound complexity of PIFO to match the upper bound of Point SAGA . In this paper , we prove the lower bound complexity of PIFO algorithm is Ω ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) for smooth and strongly-convex fi , which means the existing Point-SAGA ( Defazio , 2016 ) has achieved optimal complexity and PIFO can not lead to a tighter upper bound than IFO . We provide a novel construction , showing the above result by decomposing the classical tridiagonal matrix ( Nesterov , 2013 ) into n groups . This technique is quite different from the previous lower bound complexity analysis ( Agarwal and Bottou , 2015 ; Woodworth and Srebro , 2016 ; Lan and Zhou , 2017 ; Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . Moreover , it is very friendly to the analysis of proximal operation and easy to follow . We also use this technique to study general convex and average smooth cases ( Allen-Zhu , 2018 ; Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) , and extend our result to non-convex problems ( see Appendix J ) . 2 OUR ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK In this paper , we consider the Proximal Incremental First-order Oracle ( PIFO ) algorithm for smooth convex finite-sum optimization . All proofs in this section can be found in Appendices C and D for a detailed version . We analyze the lower bounds of the algorithms when the objective functions are respectively strongly convex , general convex , smooth and average smooth ( Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . Definition 2.1 . For any differentiable function f : Rm → R , • f is convex , if for any x , y ∈ Rm it satisfies f ( y ) ≥ f ( x ) + 〈∇f ( x ) , y − x〉 . • f is µ-strongly convex , if for any x , y ∈ Rm it satisfies f ( y ) ≥ f ( x ) + 〈∇f ( x ) , y − x〉+ µ 2 ‖x− y‖22 . • f is L-smooth , if for any x , y ∈ Rm it satisfies ‖∇f ( x ) −∇f ( y ) ‖2 ≤ L‖x− y‖2 . 1SVRG , SAG and SAGA only need to introduce the proximal operation for composite objective , that is , fi ( x ) = gi ( x ) + h ( x ) , where h may be non-smooth . Their iterations only depend on IFO when all the fi ( x ) are smooth . Hence , we regard these algorithms only require IFO calls in this paper . 2Lan and Zhou ’ s construction requires f to be µ-strongly convex and every fi to be convex , while this paper studies the lower bound with stronger condition that is every fi is µ-strongly convex . For the same lower bound complexity , the result with stronger assumptions on the objective functions is stronger . Definition 2.2 . We say differentiable functions { fi } ni=1 , fi : Rm → R , to be L-average smooth if for any x , y ∈ Rm , they satisfy 1 n n∑ i=1 ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖22 ≤ L 2 ‖x− y‖22 . ( 3 ) Remark 2.3 . We point out that 1. if each fi is L-smooth , then { fi } ni=1 are L-average smooth . 2. if { fi } ni=1 are L-average smooth , then f ( x ) = 1n ∑n i=1 fi ( x ) is L-smooth . We present the formal definition for PIFO algorithm . Definition 2.4 . Consider a stochastic optimization algorithm A to solve Problem ( 1 ) . Let xt be the point obtained at time-step t and the algorithm starts with x0 . The algorithmA is said to be a PIFO algorithm if for any t ≥ 0 , we have xt ∈ span { x0 , . . . , xt−1 , ∇fi1 ( x0 ) , · · · , ∇fit ( xt−1 ) , prox γ1 fi1 ( x0 ) , · · · , proxγtfit ( xt−1 ) } , ( 4 ) where it is a random variable supported on [ n ] and takes P ( it = j ) = pj for each t ≥ 0 and 1 ≤ j ≤ n where ∑n j=1 pj = 1 . Without loss of generality , we assume x0 = 0 and p1 ≤ p2 ≤ · · · ≤ pn to simplify our analysis . Otherwise , we can take { f̂i ( x ) = fi ( x + x0 ) } ni=1 into consideration . On the other hand , suppose that ps1 ≤ ps2 ≤ · · · ≤ psn where { si } ni=1 is a permutation of [ n ] . Define { f̃i } ni=1 such that f̃si = fi , then A takes component f̃si in probability psi , i.e. , A takes fi in probability psi . To demonstrate the construction of adversarial functions , we first introduce the following class of matrices : B ( m , ω ) = −1 1 −1 1 . . . . . . −1 1 ω ∈ Rm×m . Then we define A ( m , ω ) , B ( m , ω ) > B ( m , ω ) = ω2 + 1 −1 −1 2 −1 . . . . . . −1 2 −1 −1 1 . ( 5 ) The matrix A ( m , ω ) is widely-used in the analysis of lower bounds for convex optimization ( Nesterov , 2013 ; Agarwal and Bottou , 2015 ; Lan and Zhou , 2017 ; Carmon et al. , 2017 ; Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . We now present a decomposition of A ( m , ω ) based on Eq . ( 5 ) . Denote the l-th row of the matrix B ( m , ω ) by bl ( m , ω ) > and let Li = { l : 1 ≤ l ≤ m , l ≡ i− 1 ( mod n ) } , i = 1 , 2 , · · · , n. Our construction is based on the following class of functions r ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) , 1 n n∑ i=1 ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) , where ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) = λ1 ∑ l∈L1 ∥∥bl ( m , ω ) > x∥∥22 + λ2 ‖x‖22 − λ0〈em , x〉 , for i = 1 , λ1 ∑ l∈Li ∥∥bl ( m , ω ) > x∥∥22 + λ2 ‖x‖22 , for i = 2 , 3 , · · · , n. ( 6 ) We can determine the smooth and strongly-convex coefficients of ri as follows . Proposition 2.5 . For any λ1 > 0 , λ2 ≥ 0 , ω < √ 2 , we have that the ri are ( 4λ1 + 2λ2 ) -smooth and λ2-strongly convex , and { ri } ni=1 is L′-average smooth where L′ = 2 √ 4 n [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] + λ 2 2 . We define the subspaces { Fk } mk=0 as Fk = { span { em , em−1 , · · · , em−k+1 } , for 1 ≤ k ≤ m , { 0 } , for k = 0 . The following technical lemma plays a crucial role in our proof . Lemma 2.6 . For any λ0 6= 0 , λ1 > 0 , λ2 ≥ 0 and x ∈ Fk , 0 ≤ k < m , we have that ∇ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) and proxγri ( x ) ∈ { Fk+1 , if k ≡ i− 1 ( mod n ) , Fk , otherwise . In short , if x ∈ Fk and let fi ( x ) , ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , ω ) , then there exists only one i ∈ { 1 , . . . , n } such that hf ( x , i , γ ) could ( and only could ) provide additional information in Fk+1 . The “ only one ” property is important to the lower bound analysis for first order stochastic optimization algorithms ( Lan and Zhou , 2017 ; Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) , but these prior constructions only work for IFO rather than PIFO . Lemma 2.6 implies that xt = 0 will host until algorithm A draws the component f1 . Then , for any t < T1 = mint { t : it = 1 } , we have xt ∈ F0 and xT1 ∈ F1 . The value of T1 can be regarded as the smallest integer such that xT1 could host . Similarly , we can define Tk to be the smallest integer such that xTk ∈ Fk could host . We give the formal definition of Tk recursively and connect it to geometrically distributed random variables in the following corollary . Corollary 2.7 . Let T0 = 0 , and Tk = min t { t : t > Tk−1 , it ≡ k ( mod n ) } for k ≥ 1 . ( 7 ) Then for any k ≥ 1 and t < Tk , we have xt ∈ Fk−1 . Moreover , Tk can be written as sum of k independent random variables { Yl } 1≤l≤k , i.e. , Tk = ∑k l=1 Yl , where Yl follows a geometric distribution with success probability ql = pl′ where l′ ≡ l ( mod n ) , 1 ≤ l′ ≤ n. The basic idea of our analysis is that we guarantee the minimizer of r lies in Fm and assure the PIFO algorithm extend the space of span { x0 , x1 , . . . , xt } slowly with t increasing . We know that span { x0 , x1 , . . . , xTk } ⊆ Fk by Corollary 2.7 . Hence , Tk is just the quantity that reflects how span { x0 , x1 , . . . , xt } verifies . Because Tk can be written as the sum of geometrically distributed random variables , we needs to introduce some properties of such random variables which derive the lower bounds of our construction . Lemma 2.8 . Let { Yi } 1≤i≤N be independent random variables , and Yi follows a geometric distribution with success probability pi . Then P ( N∑ i=1 Yi > N2 4 ( ∑N i=1 pi ) ) ≥ 1− 16 9N . ( 8 ) From Lemma 2.8 , the following result implies how many PIFO calls we need . Lemma 2.9 . If M ≥ 1 satisfies minx∈FM f ( x ) − minx∈Rm f ( x ) ≥ 9ε and N = n ( M + 1 ) /4 , then we have min t≤N Ef ( xt ) − min x∈Rm f ( x ) ≥ ε . 3 MAIN RESULTS We present the our lower bound results for PIFO algorithms and summarize all of results in Table 1 and 2 . We first start with smooth and strongly convex setting , then consider the general convex and average smooth cases . Theorem 3.1 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , µ , n , ∆ , ε such that κ = L/µ ≥ 2 , and ε/∆ ≤ 0.5 , there exist a dimension d = O ( 1 + √ κ/n log ( ∆/ε ) ) and n L-smooth and µ-strongly convex functions { fi : Rd → R } ni=1 such that f ( x0 ) − f ( x∗ ) = ∆ . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rd such that Ef ( x̂ ) − f ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least N queries to hf , where N = { Ω ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( ∆/ε ) ) , for n = O ( κ ) , Ω ( n+ ( n 1+ ( log ( n/κ ) ) + ) log ( ∆/ε ) ) , for κ = O ( n ) . Remark 3.2 . In fact , the lower bound in Theorem 3.1 perfectly match the upper bound of the PIFO algorithm Point SAGA ( Defazio , 2016 ) 3 in n = O ( κ ) case and match the the upper bound of the IFO algorithm4 prox-SVRG ( Hannah et al. , 2018 ) in κ = O ( n ) case . Hence , the lower bound in Theorem 3.1 is tight , while Woodworth and Srebro ( 2016 ) only provided lower bound Ω ( n+ √ κn log ( 1/ε ) ) in n = O ( κ ) case . The theorem also shows that the PIFO algorithm can not be more powerful than the IFO algorithm in the worst case , because Hannah et al . ( 2018 ) proposed a same lower bound for IFO algorithms . Next we give the lower bound when the objective function is not strongly-convex . Theorem 3.3 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , n , B , ε such that ε ≤ LB2/4 , there exist a dimension d = O ( 1 +B √ L/ ( nε ) ) and n L-smooth and convex functions { fi : Rd → R } ni=1 such that ‖x0 − x∗‖2 ≤ B . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rd such that Ef ( x̂ ) −f ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n+B √ nL/ε ) queries to hf . 3Defazio ( 2016 ) proves Point SAGA requires O ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) PIFO calls to find x̂ such that E‖x̂ − x∗‖22 < ε‖x0 − x∗‖22 , which is not identical to the condition Ef ( x̂ ) − f ( x∗ ) < ε in Theorem 3.1 . However , it is unnecessary to worry about it because we also establish a PIFO lower bound Ω ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( 1/ε ) ) for E‖x̂− x∗‖22 < ε‖x0 − x∗‖22 in Theorem F.1 . 4IFO algorithm is apparently also a PIFO algorithm . Remark 3.4 . The lower bound in Theorem 3.3 is the same as the one of Woodworth and Srebro ’ s result . However , our construction only requires the dimension be O ( 1 +B √ L/ ( nε ) ) , which is much smaller than O ( L2B4 ε2 log ( nLB2 ε ) ) in ( Woodworth and Srebro , 2016 ) . Then we extend our results to the weaker assumption : that is , the objective function F is L-average smooth ( Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . We start with the case that F is strongly convex . Theorem 3.5 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , µ , n , ∆ , ε such that κ = L/µ ≥√ 3/n ( n 2 + 1 ) , and ε/∆ ≤ 0.00327 , there exist a dimension d = O ( n−1/4 √ κ log ( ∆/ε ) ) and n functions { fi : Rd → R } ni=1 where the { fi } ni=1 are L-average smooth and f is µ-strongly convex , such that f ( x0 ) − f ( x∗ ) = ∆ . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rd such that Ef ( x̂ ) − f ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( ( n+n3/4 √ κ ) log ( ∆/ε ) ) queries to hf . Remark 3.6 . Compared with Zhou and Gu ’ s lower bound Ω ( n+ n3/4 √ κ log ( ∆/ε ) ) for IFO algorithms , Theorem 3.5 shows tighter dependency on n and supports PIFO algorithms additionally . We also give the lower bound for general convex case under the L-average smooth condition . Theorem 3.7 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , n , B , ε such that ε ≤ LB2/4 , there exist a dimension d = O ( 1 +Bn−1/4 √ L/ε ) and n functions { fi : Rd → R } ni=1 which the { fi } ni=1 are L-average smooth and f is convex , such that ‖x0 − x∗‖2 ≤ B . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rd such that Ef ( x̂ ) − f ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n+Bn3/4 √ L/ε ) queries to hf . Remark 3.8 . The lower bound in Theorem 3.7 is comparable to the one of Zhou and Gu ’ s result , but our construction only requires the dimension beO ( 1 +Bn−1/4 √ L/ε ) , which is much smaller than O ( n+Bn3/4 √ L/ε ) in ( Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . 4 CONSTRUCTIONS IN PROOF OF MAIN THEOREMS We demonstrate the detailed constructions for PIFO lower bounds in this section . All the omitted proof in this section can be found in Appendix for a detailed version . 4.1 STRONGLY CONVEX CASE The analysis of lower bound complexity for the strongly-convex case depends on the following construction . Definition 4.1 . For fixed L , µ , ∆ , n , let α = √ 2 ( L/µ−1 ) n + 1 . We define fSC , i : R m → R as follows fSC , i ( x ) = ri ( x ; √ 2 ( L− µ ) n∆ α− 1 , L− µ 4 , µ 2 , m , √ 2 α+ 1 ) , for 1 ≤ i ≤ n , ( 9 ) and FSC ( x ) , 1 n n∑ i=1 fSC , i ( x ) = L− µ 4n ∥∥∥∥∥B ( m , √ 2 α+ 1 ) x ∥∥∥∥∥ 2 2 + µ 2 ‖x‖22 − √ 2 ( L− µ ) ∆ n ( α− 1 ) 〈em , x〉 . Note that the fSC , i are L-smooth and µ-strongly convex , and FSC ( x0 ) − FSC ( x∗ ) = ∆ ( see Proposition E.1 in Appendix for more details ) . Next we show that the functions { fSC , i } ni=1 are “ hard enough ” for any PIFO algorithm A , and deduce the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 . Theorem 4.2 . Suppose that ε ≤ ∆ 9 ( α− 1 α+ 1 ) 2 , and m = 1 4 ( √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) + 1 , where α = √ 2 ( L/µ−1 ) n + 1 . In order to find x̂ ∈ R m such that EFSC ( x̂ ) − FSC ( x∗ ) < ε , PIFO algorithm A needs at least N queries to hFSC . where N = Ω ( ( n+ √ nL µ ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ) , for Lµ ≥ n 2 + 1 , Ω ( n+ ( n 1+log ( nµ/L ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ) , for 2 ≤ Lµ < n 2 + 1 . For larger ε , we can apply following Lemma . Lemma 4.3 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , µ , n , ∆ , ε such that ε ≤ ∆/2 , there exist n L-smooth and µ-strongly convex functions { fi : R → R } ni=1 such that F ( x0 ) − F ( x∗ ) ≤ ∆ . In order to find x̂ ∈ R such that EF ( x̂ ) − F ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n ) queries to hF . As we explain in Remark H.1 , the lower bound in Lemma 4.3 is same as the lower bound in Theorem 4.2 for ε > ∆9 ( α−1 α+1 ) 2 . In conclusion , we obtain Theorem 3.1 . 4.2 CONVEX CASE The analysis of lower bound complexity for non strongly-convex cases depends on the following construction . Definition 4.4 . For fixed L , B , n , we define fC , i : Rm → R as follows fC , i ( x ) = ri ( x ; √ 3 2 BL ( m+ 1 ) 3/2 , L 4 , 0 , m , 1 ) ( 10 ) and FC ( x ) , 1 n n∑ i=1 fC , i ( x ) = L 4n ‖B ( m , 1 ) x‖22 − √ 3 2 BL ( m+ 1 ) 3/2n 〈em , x〉 . Note that the fC , i are L-smooth and convex , and ‖x0 − x∗‖2 ≤ B ( see Proposition G.1 in Appendix for more details ) . Next we show the lower bound for functions fC , i defined above . Theorem 4.5 . Suppose that ε ≤ B 2L 384n and m = ⌊√ B2L 24nε ⌋ − 1 . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFC ( x̂ ) −FC ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n+B √ nL ε ) queries to hFC . To derive Theorem 3.3 , we also need the following lemma in the case ε > B 2L 384n . Lemma 4.6 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , n , B , ε such that ε ≤ LB2/4 , there exist n L-smooth and convex functions { fi : R → R } ni=1 such that |x0 − x∗| ≤ B . In order to find x̂ ∈ R such that EF ( x̂ ) − F ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n ) queries to hF . It is worth noting that if ε > B 2L 384n , then Ω ( n ) = Ω ( n+B √ nL ε ) . Thus combining Theorem 4.5 and Lemma 4.6 , we obtain Theorem 3.3 . 4.3 AVERAGE SMOOTH CASE Zhou and Gu ( 2019 ) established lower bounds of IFO complexity under the average smooth assumption . Here we demonstrate that our technique can also develop lower bounds of PIFO algorithm under this assumption . 4.3.1 F IS STRONGLY CONVEX For fixed L′ , µ , ∆ , n , ε , we set L = √ n ( L′2−µ2 ) 2 − µ2 , and consider { fSC , i } n i=1 and FSC defined in Definition 4.1 . Proposition 4.7 . For n ≥ 2 , we have that 1 . FSC ( x ) is µ-strongly convex and { fSC , i } ni=1 is L′-average smooth . 2 . If L ′ µ ≥ √ 3 n ( n 2 + 1 ) , then we have √ n 3L ′ ≤ L ≤ √ n 2L ′ and L/µ ≥ n/2 + 1 . Theorem 4.8 . Suppose that L′ µ ≥ √ 3 n ( n 2 + 1 ) , ε ≤ ∆ 9 ( √ 2− 1√ 2 + 1 ) 2 , and m = 1 4 √√ 2 n L′ µ + 1 log ( ∆ 9ε ) + 1 . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFSC ( x̂ ) − FSC ( x∗ ) < ε , PIFO algorithm A needs at least Ω ( ( n+ n3/4 √ L′ µ ) log ( ∆ ε ) ) queries to hFSC . 4.3.2 F IS CONVEX For fixed L′ , B , n , ε , we set L = √ n 2L ′ , and consider { fC , i } ni=1 and FC defined in Definition 4.4 . It follows from Proposition 2.5 that { fC , i } ni=1 is L′-average smooth . Theorem 4.9 . Suppose that ε ≤ √ 2 768 B2L′√ n and m = ⌊ 4 √ 18 12 Bn−1/4 √ L′ ε ⌋ − 1 . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFC ( x̂ ) − FC ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n+Bn3/4 √ L′ ε ) queries to hFC . Similar to Lemma 4.6 , we also need the following lemma for the case ε > √ 2 768 B2L′√ n . Lemma 4.10 . For any PIFO algorithm A and any L , n , B , ε such that ε ≤ LB2/4 , there exist n functions { fi : R→ R } ni=1 which is L-average smooth , such that F ( x ) is convex and ‖x0−x∗‖2 ≤ B . In order to find x̂ ∈ R such that EF ( x̂ ) − F ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least Ω ( n ) queries to hF . Similarly , note that if ε > √ 2 768 B2L′√ n , then Ω ( n ) = Ω ( n+Bn3/4 √ L′ ε ) . In summary , we obtain Theorem 3.7 . 5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK In this paper we have studied lower bound of PIFO algorithm for smooth convex finite-sum optimization . We have given a tight lower bound of PIFO algorithms in the strongly convex case . We have proposed a novel construction framework that is very useful to the analysis of proximal algorithms . Based on this framework , we can extended our result to non-strongly convex , average smooth and non-convex problems easily ( Appendix J ) . It would be interesting to prove tight lower bounds in more general setting , such as F is of ( σ , L ) -smoothness while each fi is ( l , L ) -smoothness . REFERENCES Alekh Agarwal and Leon Bottou . A lower bound for the optimization of finite sums . In ICML , 2015 . Zeyuan Allen-Zhu . Katyusha : The first direct acceleration of stochastic gradient methods . Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18 ( 1 ) :8194–8244 , 2017 . Zeyuan Allen-Zhu . Katyusha X : Practical momentum method for stochastic sum-of-nonconvex optimization . In ICML , 2018 . Yossi Arjevani and Ohad Shamir . Communication complexity of distributed convex learning and optimization . In NIPS , 2015 . Yair Carmon , John C. Duchi , Oliver Hinder , and Aaron Sidford . Lower bounds for finding stationary points I. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11606 , 2017 . Aaron Defazio . A simple practical accelerated method for finite sums . In NIPS , 2016 . Aaron Defazio , Francis Bach , and Simon Lacoste-Julien . SAGA : A fast incremental gradient method with support for non-strongly convex composite objectives . In NIPS , 2014 . Cong Fang , Chris Junchi Li , Zhouchen Lin , and Tong Zhang . Spider : Near-optimal non-convex optimization via stochastic path-integrated differential estimator . In NIPS , 2018 . Robert Hannah , Yanli Liu , Daniel O ’ Connor , and Wotao Yin . Breaking the span assumption yields fast finite-sum minimization . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2312–2321 , 2018 . Rie Johnson and Tong Zhang . Accelerating stochastic gradient descent using predictive variance reduction . In NIPS , 2013 . Guanghui Lan and Yi Zhou . An optimal randomized incremental gradient method . Mathematical programming , pages 1–49 , 2017 . Yurii Nesterov . A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate o ( 1/kˆ2 ) . In Dokl . akad . nauk Sssr , volume 269 , pages 543–547 , 1983 . Yurii Nesterov . Introductory lectures on convex optimization : A basic course , volume 87 . Springer Science & Business Media , 2013 . Mark Schmidt , Nicolas Le Roux , and Francis Bach . Minimizing finite sums with the stochastic average gradient . Mathematical Programming , 162 ( 1-2 ) :83–112 , 2017 . Blake Woodworth and Nathan Srebro . Tight complexity bounds for optimizing composite objectives . In NIPS , 2016 . Lin Xiao and Tong Zhang . A proximal stochastic gradient method with progressive variance reduction . SIAM Journal on Optimization , 24 ( 4 ) :2057–2075 , 2014 . Lijun Zhang , Mehrdad Mahdavi , and Rong Jin . Linear convergence with condition number independent access of full gradients . In NIPS , 2013 . Dongruo Zhou and Quanquan Gu . Lower bounds for smooth nonconvex finite-sum optimization . In ICML , 2019 . A COMPARISON OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS B COMPARISON WITH EXISTING PROOFS Recall the adversary function we used is ( please see detailed defintion in Section 2 ) r ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) , 1 n n∑ i=1 ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) ( 11 ) = λ1 n x > A ( m , ω ) x + λ2 ‖x‖22 − λ0 n 〈em , x〉 , ( 12 ) where ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) = λ1 ∑ l∈L1 ∥∥bl ( m , ω ) > x∥∥22 + λ2 ‖x‖22 − λ0〈em , x〉 , for i = 1 , λ1 ∑ l∈Li ∥∥bl ( m , ω ) > x∥∥22 + λ2 ‖x‖22 , for i = 2 , 3 , . . . , n. The constructions in previous work ( Lan and Zhou , 2017 ; Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) for IFO algorithms employ an aggregation of r , that is , f ( x ) , 1 n n∑ i=1 fi ( x ) , where fi ( x ) = nr ( xi ) , x = x1 x2 ... xn ∈ Rmn , and xi ∈ Rm for i = 1 , . . . , n. The disadvantage of their construction is in that the important property from Lemma 2.6 , which we can obtain information of only one extra dimension at each PIFO query , can not be held . Note that the framework in this paper is the first lower bound analysis that utilize the decomposition form ( 11 ) , which makes the “ only one ” property also hold for PIFO query . The previous works only consider the presentation ( 12 ) and are unaware of the decomposition ( 11 ) . Moreover , the fact r : Rm → R and f : Rmn → R provide an intuitive understanding why our construction requires a smaller dimension ( see Table 2 ) . The analysis in ( Woodworth and Srebro , 2016 ; Fang et al. , 2018 ) considers a very complicated approach to dealing with the proximal operator ( completely different from how to deal with gradient operator ) . In contrast , our construction holds “ only one ” property ( Lemma 2.6 ) both for proximal and gradient operator , which leads the proof is more concise . Our construction more clearly shows that PIFO algorithms are not more powerful than IFO algorithms in the sense of lower complexity bound . We also use our technique to prove the tight lower bound of PIFO algorithm when κ = O ( n ) , which is a new result . C DETAILED PROOF FOR SECTION 2 In this section , we use ‖A‖ to denote the spectral radius of A . For simplicity , let B = B ( m , ω ) = −1 1 −1 1 . . . . . . −1 1 ω ∈ Rm×m , b > l is the l-th row of B , and fi ( x ) = ri ( x ; λ0 , λ1 , λ2 , m , ω ) . Recall that Li = { l : 1 ≤ l ≤ m , l ≡ i− 1 ( modn ) } , i = 1 , 2 , · · · , n. For 1 ≤ i ≤ n , let Bi be a submatrix which is formed from rows Li of B , that is Bi = B [ Li ; ] Then fi can be wriiten as fi ( x ) = λ1 ‖Bix‖22 + λ2 ‖x‖ 2 2 − ηi〈em , x〉 , where η1 = λ0 , ηi = 0 , i ≥ 2 . Proof of Proposition 2.5 . Note that 〈u , B > i Biu〉 = ‖Biu‖ 2 2 = ∑ l∈Li ( b > l u ) 2 = { ∑ l∈Li\ { m } ( um−l − um−l+1 ) 2 + ω2u2m ( if m ∈ Li ) ∑ l∈Li ( um−l − um−l+1 ) 2 ≤ 2 ‖u‖22 , where the last inequality is according to ( x+y ) 2 ≤ 2 ( x2 +y2 ) , and |l1− l2| ≥ n ≥ 2 for l1 , l2 ∈ Li . Hence , ∥∥B > i Bi∥∥ ≤ 2 , and∥∥∇2fi ( x ) ∥∥ = ∥∥2λ1B > i Bi + 2λ2I∥∥ ≤ 4λ1 + 2λ2 . Next , observe that ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖22 = ∥∥ ( 2λ1B > i Bi + 2λ2I ) ( x− y ) ∥∥22 Let u = x− y . Note that blb > l u = { ( um−l − um−l+1 ) ( em−l − em−l+1 ) , l < m , ω2u1e1 , l = m. Thus , if m /∈ Li , then∥∥ ( 2λ1B > i Bi + 2λ2I ) u∥∥22 = ∥∥∥∥∥2λ1 ∑ l∈Li ( um−l − um−l+1 ) ( em−l − em−l+1 ) + 2λ2u ∥∥∥∥∥ 2 2 = ∑ m−l∈Li [ ( 2λ1 ( ul − ul+1 ) + 2λ2ul ) 2 + ( −2λ1 ( ul − ul+1 ) + 2λ2ul+1 ) 2 ] + ∑ m−l/∈Li m−l+1/∈Li ( 2λ2ul ) 2 ≤ ∑ m−l∈Li 8 [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] ( u2l + u 2 l+1 ) + 4λ 2 2 ‖u‖ 2 2 . Similarly , if m ∈ Li , then ∥∥ ( 2λ1B > i Bi + 2λ2I ) u∥∥22 ≤ ∑ m−l∈Li l 6=0 8 [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] ( u2l + u 2 l+1 ) + 4 ( λ1ω 2 + λ2 ) 2u21 + 4λ 2 2 ‖u‖ 2 2 . Therefore , we have 1 n n∑ i=1 ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖22 ≤ 1 n [ m−1∑ l=1 8 [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] ( u2l + u 2 l+1 ) + 4 ( 2λ1 + λ2 ) 2u21 ] + 4λ22 ‖u‖ 2 2 ≤ 16 n [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] ‖u‖22 + 4λ 2 2 ‖u‖ 2 2 , where we have used ( 2λ1 + λ2 ) 2 ≤ 2 [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] . In summary , we get that { fi } 1≤i≤n is L′-average smooth , where L′ = 2 √ 4 n [ ( λ1 + λ2 ) 2 + λ21 ] + λ 2 2 . Proof of Lemma 2.6 . For x ∈ Fk ( k ≥ 1 ) , we have b > l x = 0 for l > k , bl ∈ Fk for l < k , bk ∈ Fk+1 . Consequently , for l 6= k , blb > l x = ( b > l x ) bl ∈ Fk , and bkb > k x ∈ Fk+1 . For k = 0 , we have x = 0 , and ∇f1 ( x ) = λ0em ∈ F1 , ∇fj ( x ) = 0 ( j ≥ 2 ) . Moreover , we suppose k ≥ 1 , k ∈ Li . Since ∇fj ( x ) = 2λ1B > j Bjx + 2λ2x− ηjem = 2λ1 ∑ l∈Lj b > l blx + 2λ2x− ηjem . Hence , ∇fi ( x ) ∈ Fk+1 and ∇fj ( x ) ∈ Fk ( j 6= i ) . Now , we turn to consider u = proxγfj ( x ) . We have ( 2λ1B > j Bj + ( 2λ2 + 1 γ ) I ) u = ηjem + 1 γ x , i.e. , u = c1 ( I + c2B > j Bj ) −1y , where c1 = 12λ2+1/γ , c2 = 2λ1 2λ2+1/γ , and y = ηjem + 1γx . Note that ( I + c2B > j Bj ) −1 = I −B > j ( 1 c2 I + BjB > j ) −1 Bj . If k = 0 and j > 1 , we have y = 0 and u = 0 . If k = 0 and j = 1 , we have y = λ0em . On this case , B1em = 0 , so u = c1y ∈ F1 . For k ≥ 1 , we know that y ∈ Fk . And observe that if |l − l′| ≥ 2 , then b > l bl′ = 0 , and consequently BjB > j is a diagonal matrix , so we can assume that 1 c2 I+BjB > j = diag ( βj,1 , · · · , βj , |Lj | ) . Therefore , u = c1y − c1 |Lj |∑ s=1 βj , sblj , sb > lj , sy , where we assume that Lj = { lj,1 , · · · , lj , |Lj | } . Thus , we have proxγfi ( x ) ∈ Fk+1 for k ∈ Li and prox γ fj ( x ) ∈ Fk ( j 6= i ) . Proof of Corollary 2.7 . Denote span { ∇fi1 ( x0 ) , · · · , ∇fit ( xt−1 ) , prox γ1 fi1 ( x0 ) , · · · , proxγtfit ( xt−1 ) } byMt . We know that xt ∈Mt . Suppose thatMT ⊆ Fk−1 for some T and let T ′ = arg min t : t > T , it ≡ k ( mod n ) . By Lemma 2.6 , for T < t < T ′ , we can use a simple induction to obtain that span { ∇fit ( xt−1 ) , prox γt fit ( xt−1 ) } ⊆ Fk−1 andMt ⊆ Fk−1 . Moreover , since iT ′ ≡ k ( mod n ) , we have span { ∇fiT ′ ( xT ′−1 ) , prox γT ′ fi T ′ ( xT ′−1 ) } ⊆ Fk andMT ′ ⊆ Fk . Following from above statement , it is easily to check that for t < Tk , we have xt ∈Mt ⊆ Fk−1 . Next , note that P ( Tk − Tk−1 = s ) = P ( iTk−1+1 6≡ k ( mod n ) , · · · , iTk−1+s−1 6≡ k ( mod n ) , iTk−1+s ≡ k ( mod n ) ) = P ( iTk−1+1 6= k′ , · · · , iTk−1+s−1 6= k′ , iTk−1+s = k′ ) = ( 1− pk′ ) s−1pk′ , where k′ ≡ k ( mod n ) , 1 ≤ k′ ≤ n. So Tk − Tk−1 is a geometric random variable with success probability pk′ . On the other hand , Tk − Tk−1 is just dependent on iTk−1+1 , · · · , iTk , thus for l 6= k , Tl − Tl−1 is independent with Tk − Tk−1 . Therefore , Tk = k∑ l=1 ( Tl − Tl−1 ) = k∑ i=1 Yl , where Yl follows a geometric distribution with success probability ql = pl′ where l′ ≡ l ( mod n ) , 1 ≤ l′ ≤ n. Proof of Remark 2.3 . If each fi is L-smooth , then for any x , y ∈ Rm we have ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖22 ≤ L 2 ‖x− y‖22 , and consequently , 1 n n∑ i=1 ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖22 ≤ L 2 ‖x− y‖22 . ( 13 ) If { fi } ni=1 is L-average smooth , then for any x , y ∈ Rm we have ‖∇f ( x ) −∇f ( y ) ‖22 = 1 n2 ∥∥∥∥∥ n∑ i=1 ( ∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ) ∥∥∥∥∥ 2 2 ≤ 1 n2 ( n∑ i=1 ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖2 ) 2 ≤ 1 n n∑ i=1 ‖∇fi ( x ) −∇fi ( y ) ‖22 ≤ L2 ‖x− y‖22 . Proof of Lemma 2.9 . Denote minx∈Rm f ( x ) by f∗ . For t ≤ N , we have Ef ( xt ) − f∗ ≥ E [ f ( xt ) − f∗|N < TM+1 ] P ( N < TM+1 ) ≥ E [ min x∈FM f ( x ) − f∗|N < TM+1 ] P ( N < TM+1 ) ≥ 9εP ( TM+1 > N ) , where TM+1 is defined in ( 7 ) , and the second inequality follows from Corollary 2.7 ( if N < TM+1 , then xt ∈ FM for t ≤ N ) . By Corollary 2.7 , TM+1 can be written as TM+1 = ∑M+1 l=1 Yl , where { Yl } 1≤l≤M+1 are independent random variables , and Yl follows a geometric distribution with success probability ql = pl′ ( l′ ≡ l ( mod n ) , 1 ≤ l′ ≤ n ) . Moreover , recalling that p1 ≤ p2 ≤ · · · ≤ pn , we have ∑M+1 l=1 ql ≤ M+1 n . Therefore , by Lemma 2.8 , we have P ( TM+1 > N ) = P ( M+1∑ l=1 Yl > ( M + 1 ) n 4 ) ≥ 1− 16 9 ( M + 1 ) ≥ 1 9 , Hence , we can conclude that Ef ( xN ) − f∗ ≥ 9εP ( TM+1 > N ) ≥ ε . Remark In fact , a more strong conclusion hosts : E [ min t≤N f ( xt ) ] − min x∈Rm f ( x ) ≥ ε . D RESULTS ABOUT SUM OF GEOMETRIC DISTRIBUTED RANDOM VARIABLES Lemma D.1 . Let X1 ∼ Geo ( p1 ) , X2 ∼ Geo ( p2 ) be independent random variables . For any positive integer j , if p1 6= p2 , then P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = p2 ( 1− p1 ) j − p1 ( 1− p2 ) j p2 − p1 , ( 14 ) and if p1 = p2 , then P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = jp1 ( 1− p1 ) j−1 + ( 1− p1 ) j . ( 15 ) Proof . P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = j∑ l=1 P ( X1 = l ) P ( X2 > j − l ) + P ( X1 > j ) = j∑ l=1 ( 1− p1 ) l−1p1 ( 1− p2 ) j−l + ( 1− p1 ) j = p1 ( 1− p2 ) j−1 j∑ l=1 ( 1− p1 1− p2 ) l−1 + ( 1− p1 ) j Thus if p1 = p2 , P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = jp1 ( 1− p1 ) j−1 + ( 1− p1 ) j . For p1 6= p2 , P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = p1 ( 1− p1 ) j − ( 1− p2 ) j p2 − p1 + ( 1− p1 ) j = p2 ( 1− p1 ) j − p1 ( 1− p2 ) j p2 − p1 . Lemma D.2 . For x ≥ 0 and j ≥ 2 , 1− j − 1 x+ j/2 ≤ ( x x+ 1 ) j−1 . ( 16 ) Proof . We just need to show that ( x+ 1 ) j−1 ( x+ j/2 ) − ( j − 1 ) ( x+ 1 ) j−1 ≤ xj−1 ( x+ j/2 ) , that is ( x+ 1 ) j − j ( x+ 1 ) j−1/2− xj−1 ( x+ j/2 ) ≤ 0 , i.e. , j−2∑ l=0 [ ( j l ) − j 2 ( j − 1 l ) ] xl ≤ 0 . Note that for l ≤ j − 2 , ( j l ) − j 2 ( j − 1 l ) = ( 1− j − l 2 ) ( j l ) ≤ 0 , thus inequality ( 16 ) hosts for x ≥ 0 and j ≥ 2 . Lemma D.3 . Let X1 ∼ Geo ( p1 ) , X2 ∼ Geo ( p2 ) , Y1 , Y2 ∼ Geo ( p1+p2 2 ) be independent random variables with 0 < p1 ≤ p2 ≤ 1 . Then for any positive integer j , we have P ( X1 +X2 > j ) ≥ P ( Y1 + Y2 > j ) . Proof . If j = 1 , then P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = 1 = P ( Y1 + Y2 > j ) . If p1 = p2 = 1 , then P ( X1 +X2 > j ) = 0 = P ( Y1 + Y2 > j ) for j ≥ 2 . Let j ≥ 2 , and c , p1 + p2 < 2 be a given constant . We prove that f ( p1 ) , P ( X1 +X2 > j ) is a decreasing function . Employing equation ( 14 ) , for p1 < c/2 , we have f ( p1 ) = ( c− p1 ) ( 1− p1 ) j − p1 ( 1 + p1 − c ) j c− 2p1 , and f ′ ( p1 ) = − ( 1− p1 ) j − j ( c− p1 ) ( 1− p1 ) j−1 − ( 1 + p1 − c ) j − jp1 ( 1 + p1 − c ) j−1 c− 2p1 + 2 ( c− p1 ) ( 1− p1 ) j − p1 ( 1 + p1 − c ) j ( c− 2p1 ) 2 = [ c ( 1− p1 ) − j ( c− p1 ) ( c− 2p1 ) ] ( 1− p1 ) j−1 − [ c ( 1 + p1 − c ) + jp1 ( c− 2p1 ) ] ( 1 + p1 − c ) j−1 ( c− 2p1 ) 2 . Hence f ′ ( p1 ) < 0 is equivalent to c ( 1− p1 ) − j ( c− p1 ) ( c− 2p1 ) c ( 1 + p1 − c ) + jp1 ( c− 2p1 ) < ( 1 + p1 − c 1− p1 ) j−1 . ( 17 ) Note that c ( 1− p1 ) − j ( c− p1 ) ( c− 2p1 ) c ( 1 + p1 − c ) + jp1 ( c− 2p1 ) = 1− ( j − 1 ) c ( c− 2p1 ) c ( 1 + p1 − c ) + jp1 ( c− 2p1 ) = 1− j − 11+p1−c c−2p1 + j p1 c Denote x = 1+p1−cc−2p1 . If c ≤ 1 , then p1 > 0 and x > 1−c c ≥ 0 . And if c > 1 , then p1 ≥ c − 1 and x ≥ 1+c−1−c2−c = 0 . Rewrite inequality ( 17 ) as 1− j − 1 x+ jp1/c < ( x x+ 1 ) j−1 . Recall inequality ( 16 ) , we have ( x x+ 1 ) j−1 ≥ 1− j − 1 x+ j/2 > 1− j − 1 x+ jp1/c . Consequently , f ′ ( p1 ) < 0 hosts for p1 < c/2 and j ≥ 2 . With the fact that limp1→c/2 f ( p1 ) = f ( c/2 ) according to equation ( 15 ) , we have P ( X1 +X2 > j ) ≥ P ( Y1 + Y2 > j ) . for any positive integer j and 0 < p1 ≤ p2 ≤ 1 . Corollary D.4 . LetX1 ∼ Geo ( p1 ) , X2 ∼ Geo ( p2 ) , Y1 , Y2 ∼ Geo ( p1+p2 2 ) be independent random variables with 0 < p1 ≤ p2 ≤ 1 . Suppose Z is a random variable that takes nonnegative integer values , and Z is independent with X1 , X2 , Y1 , Y2 . Then for any positive integer j , we have P ( Z +X1 +X2 > j ) ≥ P ( Z + Y1 + Y2 > j ) . Proof . With applying Lemma D.3 , we have P ( Z +X1 +X2 > j ) = j−1∑ l=0 P ( Z = l ) P ( X1 +X2 > l − j ) + P ( Z > j − 1 ) ≥ j−1∑ l=0 P ( Z = l ) P ( Y1 + Y2 > l − j ) + P ( Z > j − 1 ) = P ( Z + Y1 + Y2 > j ) . Corollary D.5 . Let { Xi } 1≤i≤m be independent variables , and Xi follow a geometric distribution with success probability pi . For any positive integer j , we have P ( m∑ i=1 Xi ≥ j ) ≥ P ( m∑ i=1 Yi ≥ j ) , where { Yi } 1≤i≤m are i.i.d . random variables , Yi ∼ Geo ( ∑m i=1 pi/m ) , and Yi is independent with Xi′ ( 1 ≤ i′ ≤ m ) . Proof . Let f ( p1 , p2 , · · · , pm ) , P ( m∑ i=1 Xi ≥ j ) . Our goal is to minimize f ( p1 , p2 , · · · , pm ) such that ∑m i=1 pi = S < 1 . By Corollary D.4 , we know that f ( p1 , p2 , · · · , pi , · · · , pj , · · · , pm ) ≥ f ( p1 , p2 , · · · , pi + pj 2 , · · · , pi + pj 2 , · · · , pm ) . This fact implies that ( p1 , p2 , · · · , pm ) such that p1 = p2 = · · · = pm = S/m is a minimizer of the function f . Lemma D.6 . Let { Xi } 1≤i≤m be i.i.d . random variables , and Xi follows a geometric distribution with success probability p. We have P ( m∑ i=1 Xi > m 4p ) ≥ 1− 16 9m ( 18 ) Proof . Denote ∑m i=1Xi by τ . We know that Eτ = m p , Var ( τ ) = m ( 1− p ) p2 . Hence , we have P ( τ > 1 4 Eτ ) = P ( τ − Eτ > −3 4 Eτ ) = 1− P ( τ − Eτ ≤ −3 4 Eτ ) ≥ 1− P ( |τ − Eτ | ≥ 3 4 Eτ ) ≥ 1− 16Var ( τ ) 9 ( Eτ ) 2 = 1− 16m ( 1− p ) 9m2 ≥ 1− 16 9m . Corollary D.7 . Let { Xi } 1≤i≤m be independent random variables , and Xi follows a geometric distribution with success probability pi . Then P ( m∑ i=1 Xi > m2 4 ( ∑m i=1 pi ) ) ≥ 1− 16 9m . E PROOF OF THEOREM 4.2 Proposition E.1 . For any n ≥ 2 , m ≥ 2 , fSC , i and FSC in Definition 4.1 satisfy : 1. fSC , i is L-smooth and µ-strongly convex . 2 . The minimizer of the function FSC is x∗ = arg min x∈Rm FSC ( x ) = √ 2∆n ( α+ 1 ) 2 ( L− µ ) ( α− 1 ) ( qm , qm−1 , · · · , q ) > , where q = α−1α+1 . Moreover , FSC ( x ∗ ) = −∆ . 3 . For 1 ≤ k ≤ m− 1 , we have min x∈Fk FSC ( x ) − FSC ( x∗ ) ≥ ∆q2k . ( 19 ) Proof . 1 . Just recall Proposition 2.5 . 2 . Denote ξ = √ 2∆n ( α+1 ) 2 ( L−µ ) ( α−1 ) . Let ∇FSC ( x ) = 0 , that is ( L− µ 2n A ( √ 2 α+ 1 ) + µI ) x = L− µ n ( α+ 1 ) ξem , or ω2 + 1 + 2nµL−µ −1 −1 2 + 2nµL−µ −1 . . . . . . −1 2 + 2nµL−µ −1 −1 1 + 2nµL−µ x = 0 0 ... 0 2ξ α+1 ( 20 ) Note that q = α−1α+1 is a root of the equation z2 − ( 2 + 2nµ L− µ ) z + 1 = 0 , and ω2 + 1 + 2nµ L− µ = 1 q , 2 α+ 1 = 1− q = −q2 + ( 1 + 2nµ L− µ ) q . Hence , it is easily to check that the solution to Equation ( 20 ) is x∗ = ξ ( qm , qm−1 , · · · , q ) > , and FSC ( x ∗ ) = − L− µ 2n ( α+ 1 ) ξ2q = −∆ . 3 . If x ∈ Fk , 1 ≤ k < m , then x1 = x2 = · · · = xm−k = 0 . Let y = xm−k+1 : m ∈ Rk and Ak be last k rows and columns of the matrix in Equation ( 21 ) . Then we can rewrite F ( x ) as Fk ( y ) , FSC ( x ) = L− µ 4n y > Aky − L− µ n ( α+ 1 ) ξ〈em , y〉 . Let ∇Fk ( y ) = 0 , that is 2 + 2nµL−µ −1 −1 2 + 2nµL−µ −1 . . . . . . −1 2 + 2nµL−µ −1 −1 1 + 2nµL−µ y = 0 0 ... 0 2ξ α+1 . ( 21 ) By some calculation , the solution to above equation is ξqk+1 1 + q2k+1 ( q−1 − q , q−2 − q2 , · · · , q−k − qk ) > . Thus min x∈Fk FSC ( x ) = min y∈Rk Fk ( y ) = − L− µ 2n ( α+ 1 ) ξ2q 1− q2k 1 + q2k+1 = ∆ 1− q2k 1 + q2k+1 , and min x∈Fk FSC ( x ) − FSC ( x∗ ) = ∆ ( 1− 1− q 2k 1 + q2k+1 ) = ∆q2k 1 + q 1 + q2k+1 ≥ ∆q2k . Proof of Theorem 4.2 . Let M = ⌊ log ( 9ε/∆ ) 2 log q ⌋ , then we have arg min x∈FM FSC ( x ) − FSC ( x∗ ) ≥ ∆q2M ≥ 9ε , where the first inequality is according to the third property of Proposition E.1 . Following from Lemma 2.9 , for M ≥ 1 and N = ( M + 1 ) n/4 , we have min t≤N EFSC ( xt ) − FSC ( x∗ ) ≥ ε . Therefore , in order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFSC ( x̂ ) − FSC ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least N queries to hFSC . We estimate − log ( q ) and N in two cases . 1 . If L/µ ≥ n/2 + 1 , then α = √ 2L/µ−1n + 1 ≥ √ 2 . Observe that function h ( β ) = 1 log ( β+1β−1 ) − β2 is increasing when β > 1 . Thus , we have − 1 log ( q ) = 1 log ( α+1 α−1 ) ≥ α 2 + h ( √ 2 ) = 1 2 √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 + h ( √ 2 ) ≥ √ 2 4 ( √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) + h ( √ 2 ) ≥ 1 2 √ L/µ− 1 n + √ 2 4 + h ( √ 2 ) , and N = ( M + 1 ) n/4 = n 4 ( ⌊ log ( 9ε/∆ ) 2 log q ⌋ + 1 ) ≥ n 8 ( − 1 log ( q ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ≥ n 8 ( 1 2 √ L/µ− 1 n + √ 2 4 + h ( √ 2 ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) = Ω ( ( n+ √ nL µ ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ) 2 . If 2 ≤ L/µ < n/2 + 1 , then we have − log ( q ) = log ( α+ 1 α− 1 ) = log ( 1 + 2 ( α− 1 ) α2 − 1 ) = log 1 + √ 2L/µ−1n + 1− 1 L/µ−1 n ≤ log ( 1 + ( √2− 1 ) n L/µ− 1 ) ≤ log ( ( √ 2− 1/2 ) n L/µ− 1 ) ≤ log ( ( 2 √ 2− 1 ) n L/µ ) , ( 22 ) where the first inequality and second inequality follow from L/µ − 1 < n/2 and the last inequality is according to 1x−1 ≤ 2 x for x ≥ 2 . Note that n ≥ 2 , thus nn−1 ≤ 2 ≤ n L/µ−1 , and hence n ≥ L/µ , i.e . log ( nµ/L ) ≥ 0 . Therefore , N = ( M + 1 ) n/4 ≥ n 8 ( − 1 log ( q ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) = Ω ( ( n 1 + log ( nµ/L ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ) . Recalling that we assume that 9ε/∆ ≤ q2 , thus we have N ≥ n 8 ( − 1 log ( q ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ≥ n 8 ( − 1 log ( q ) ) ( −2 log ( q ) ) = n 4 . Therefore , N = Ω ( n+ ( n 1+log ( nµ/L ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ) . At last , we must to ensure that 1 ≤M < m , that is 1 ≤ log ( 9ε/∆ ) 2 log q < m. ( 23 ) Note that limβ→+∞ h ( β ) = 0 , so −1/ log ( q ) ≤ α/2 . Thus the above conditions are satisfied when m = log ( ∆/ ( 9ε ) ) 2 ( − log q ) + 1 ≤ 1 4 ( √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) + 1 = O ( √ L nµ log ( ∆ ε ) ) , and ε ∆ ≤ 1 9 ( α− 1 α+ 1 ) 2 . F LOWER BOUND FOR ANOTHER FORM OF SUBOPTIMAL SOLUTION Defazio ( 2016 ) showed that the PIFO algorithm Point SAGA has the convergence result E ‖xt − x∗‖22 ≤ ( q′ ) t ‖x0 − x∗‖2 , where q′ satisfies −1/ log ( q′ ) = O ( n+ √ nL/µ ) . To match this form of upper bound , we point out that a similar result holds for { fSC , i } ni=1 . Theorem F.1 . Suppose that L µ ≥ n 2 + 1 , ε ≤ 1 18 ( √ 2− 1√ 2 + 1 ) 2 , and m = 1 2 ( √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) log ( 1 18ε ) + 1 . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that E ‖x̂− x∗‖22 < ε ‖x0 − x∗‖ 2 2 , PIFO algorithm A needs at least Ω ( ( n+ √ nL µ ) log ( 1 ε ) ) queries to hFSC . Proof . Denote ξ = √ 2∆n ( α+1 ) 2 ( L−µ ) ( α−1 ) , and M = ⌊ log ( 18ε ) 2 log q ⌋ . For 1 ≤M ≤ m/2 , N = n ( M + 1 ) /4 and t ≤ N , we have E ‖xt − x∗‖22 ≥ E [ ‖xt − x∗‖22 ∣∣∣∣N < TM+1 ] P ( N < TM+1 ) ≥ E [ min x∈FM ‖x− x∗‖22 ∣∣∣∣N < TM+1 ] P ( N < TM+1 ) ≥ 1 9 min x∈FM ‖x− x∗‖22 . where TM+1 is defined in ( 7 ) , the second inequality follows from Corollary 2.7 ( if N < TM+1 , then xt ∈ FM for t ≤ N ) , and the last inequality is established because of our Corollary 2.7 ( More detailed explanation refer to our proof of Lemma 2.9 ) . By Proposition E.1 , we know that x∗ = ξ ( qm , qm−1 , · · · , q ) > , and ‖x0 − x∗‖22 = ‖x ∗‖22 = ξ 2 q 2 − q2 ( m+1 ) 1− q2 . Note that if x ∈ FM , then x1 = x2 = · · · = xm−M = 0 , thus min x∈FM ‖x− x∗‖22 = ξ 2 m∑ l=m−M q2 ( m−l+1 ) = ξ2 q2 ( M+1 ) − q2 ( m+1 ) 1− q2 . Thus , for t ≤ N and M ≤ m/2 , we have E ‖xt − x∗‖22 ‖xt − x∗‖22 ≥ 1 9 q2M − q2m 1− q2m ≥ 1 18 q2M = 1 18 q2b log ( 18ε ) 2 log q c ≥ ε , where the second inequality is due to q2M − q2m 1− q2m − q 2M 2 = q2M − 2q2m + q2 ( m+M ) 2 ( 1− q2m ) = q2M 2 ( 1− q2m ) ( 1− 2q2 ( m−M ) + q2m ) ≥ q 2M 2 ( 1− q2m ) ( 1− 2qm + q2m ) ≥ 0 . Therefore , in order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that E‖x̂−x ∗‖22 ‖x0−x∗‖22 < ε , A needs at least N queries to hFSC . As we have showed in proof of Theorem 4.2 , for L/µ ≥ n/2 + 1 , we have 1 2 √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ≥ − 1 log ( q ) ≥ c1 ( √ L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) , and N = n 4 ( M + 1 ) ≥ n 4 log ( 18ε ) 2 log q ≥ c1 8 ( n+ √ n ( L/µ− 1 ) ) log ( 1 18ε ) = Ω ( ( n+ √ nL µ ) log ( 1 ε ) ) . At last , we have to ensure that 1 ≤M ≤ m/2 , that is 1 ≤ log ( 18ε ) 2 log q < m/2 . The above conditions are satisfied when m = log ( 1/ ( 18ε ) ) − log q + 1 ≤ 1 2 ( √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) log ( 1 18ε ) + 1 = O ( √ L nµ log ( 1 ε ) ) , and ε ≤ 1 18 q2 . Observe that when L/µ ≤ n/2 + 1 , we have α ≥ √ 2 and q = α−1α+1 ≥ √ 2−1√ 2+1 . Hence , we just need ε ≤ 118 ( √ 2−1√ 2+1 ) 2 ≈ 0.00164 . G PROOF OF THEOREM 4.5 Proposition G.1 . For any n ≥ 2 , m ≥ 2 , following properties hold : 1. fC , i is L-smooth and convex . 2 . The minimizer of the function FC is x∗ = arg min x∈Rm FC ( x ) = 2ξ L ( 1 , 2 , · · · , m ) > , where ξ = √ 3 2 BL ( m+1 ) 3/2 . Moreover , FC ( x∗ ) = −mξ 2 nL and ‖x0 − x ∗‖22 ≤ B2 . 3 . For 1 ≤ k ≤ m , we have min x∈Fk FC ( x ) − FC ( x∗ ) = ξ2 nL ( m− k ) . ( 24 ) Proof . 1 . Just recall Proposition 2.5 . 2 . Denote ξ = √ 3 2 BL ( m+1 ) 3/2n . Let ∇FC ( x ) = 0 , that is L 2n A ( 1 ) x = ξ n em , or 2 −1 −1 2 −1 . . . . . . −1 2 −1 −1 1 x = 0 0 ... 0 2ξ L . ( 25 ) Hence , it is easily to check that the solution to Equation ( 25 ) is x∗ = 2ξ L ( 1 , 2 , · · · , m ) > , and FC ( x ∗ ) = −mξ 2 nL . Moreover , we have ‖x0 − x∗‖22 = 4ξ2 L2 m ( m+ 1 ) ( 2m+ 1 ) 6 ≤ 4ξ 2 3L2 ( m+ 1 ) 3 = B2 . 3 . By similar calculation to above proof , we have arg min x∈Fk FC ( x ) = 2ξ L ( 1 , 2 , · · · , k ) > , and min x∈Fk FC ( x ) = − kξ2 nL . Thus min x∈Fk FC ( x ) − FC ( x∗ ) = ξ2 nL ( m− k ) . Proof of Theorem 4.5 . Since ε ≤ B 2L 384n , we have m ≥ 3 . Let ξ = √ 3 2 BL ( m+1 ) 3/2 . For M = ⌊ m−1 2 ⌋ ≥ 1 , we have m−M ≥ ( m+ 1 ) /2 , and min x∈FM FC ( x ) − FC ( x∗ ) = ξ2 nL ( m−M ) = 3B 2L 4n m−M ( m+ 1 ) 3 ≥ 3B 2L 8n 1 ( m+ 1 ) 2 ≥ 9ε , where the first equation is according to the 3rd property in Proposition G.1 and the last inequality follows from m+ 1 ≤ B √ L/ ( 24nε ) . Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.2 , by Lemma 2.9 , we have min t≤N EFC ( xt ) − FC ( x∗ ) ≥ ε . In other words , in order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFC ( x̂ ) −FC ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at leastN queries to hF . At last , observe that N = ( M + 1 ) n/4 = n 4 ⌊ m+ 1 2 ⌋ ≥ n ( m− 1 ) 8 ≥ n 8 ( √ B2L 24nε − 2 ) = Ω ( n+B √ nL ε ) , where we have recalled ε ≤ B 2L 384n in last equation . H PROOF OF LEMMA 4.3 , LEMMA 4.6 AND LEMMA 4.10 Proof of Lemma 4.6 . Consider the following functions { gi } 1≤i≤n , gi : R→ R , where g1 ( x ) = L 2 x2 − nLBx , gi ( x ) = L 2 x2 , G ( x ) = 1 n n∑ i=1 gi ( x ) = L 2 x2 − LBx . First observe that x∗ = arg min x∈R G ( x ) = B , G ( 0 ) −G ( x∗ ) = LB 2 2 , and |x0 − x∗| = B . For i > 1 , we have dgi ( x ) dx |x=0 = 0 and prox γ gi ( 0 ) = 0 . Thus xt = 0 will host till our first-order method A draws the component f1 . That is , for t < T = arg min { t : it = 1 } , we have xt = 0 . Hence , for t ≤ 12p1 , we have EG ( xt ) − F ( x∗ ) ≥ E [ G ( xt ) −G ( x∗ ) ∣∣∣ 1 2p1 < T ] P ( 1 2p1 < T ) = LB2 2 P ( 1 2p1 < T ) . Note that T follows a geometric distribution with success probability p1 ≤ 1/n , and P ( T > 1 2p1 ) = P ( T > ⌊ 1 2p1 ⌋ ) = ( 1− p1 ) ⌊ 1 2p1 ⌋ ≥ ( 1− p1 ) 1 2p1 ≥ ( 1− 1/n ) n/2 ≥ 1 2 , where the second inequality follows from h ( z ) = log ( 1−z ) 2z is a decreasing function . Thus , for t ≤ 12p1 , we have EG ( xt ) − F ( x∗ ) ≥ LB2 4 ≥ ε Thus , in order to find x̂ ∈ R such that EF ( x̂ ) − F ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least 12p1 ≥ n/2 = Ω ( n ) queries to hG . Proof of Lemma 4.10 . Note that { gi } ni=1 defined in proof of Lemma 4.6 is also L-average smooth , so Lemma 4.10 hosts for the same reason . Proof of Lemma 4.3 . Let B = √ 2∆/L . Then ε/∆ ≤ 1/2 is equivalent to ε ≤ LB2/4 . Note that { gi } ni=1 defined in proof of Lemma 4.6 is also µ-strongly convex for any µ ≤ L , and satisfy |G ( 0 ) −G ( x∗ ) | = ∆ . Therefore Lemma 4.3 hosts for the same reason . Remark H.1 . Suppose that ε ∆ > 1 9 ( α− 1 α+ 1 ) 2 , α = √ 2 κ− 1 n + 1 . 1 . If κ ≥ n/2 + 1 , then we have α ≥ √ 2 and ( n+ √ κn ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ≤ 2 ( n+ √ κn ) log ( α+ 1 α− 1 ) ≤ 4 ( n+ √ κn ) α− 1 = O ( n ) + 4 √ κn ( 1− √ 2/2 ) α ≤ O ( n ) + 4√ 2− 1 √ κn√ κ/n = O ( n ) , where the second inequality follows from log ( 1+x ) ≤ x and the last inequality is according to α ≥ √ 2κ/n . That is Ω ( n ) = Ω ( ( n+ √ κn ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ) . 2 . If 2 ≤ L/µ < n/2 + 1 , then we have ( n 1 + log ( nµ/L ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) ≤ ( n 1 + log ( nµ/L ) ) ( 2 log ( α+ 1 α− 1 ) ) ≤ ( n 1 + log ( nµ/L ) ) ( 2 log ( ( 2 √ 2− 1 ) n L/µ ) ) = O ( n ) , where the second inequality follows from ( 22 ) . That is Ω ( n ) = Ω ( ( n 1 + log ( nµ/L ) ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) + n ) . I DETAILED PROOF FOR SECTION 4.3 Proof of Proposition 4.7 . 1 . It is easily to check that FSC ( x ) is µ-strongly convex . Following from Proposition 2.5 , then { fSC , i } ni=1 is L̂-average smooth , where L̂ = √√√√16 n [ ( L+ µ 4 ) 2 + ( L− µ 4 ) 2 ] + µ2 = √ 2 ( L2 + µ2 ) n + µ2 = L′ . 2 . Clearly , L = √ n ( L′2−µ2 ) 2 − µ2 ≤ √ n 2L ′ . Furthermore , according to L ′ µ ≥ √ 3 n ( n 2 + 1 ) , we have L2 − n 3 L′2 = n 2 ( L′2 − µ2 ) − µ2 − n 3 L′2 = 1 2 ( n 2 + 1 ) 2 µ2 − n+ 2 2 µ2 = ( n2 8 − 1 2 ) µ2 ≥ 0 , and , L/µ ≥ √ n 3L ′/µ ≥ n/2 + 1 . Proof of Theorem 4.8 . By 2nd property of Proposition 4.7 , we know that L/µ ≥ n/2 + 1 . Moreover , m = 1 4 √√ 2 n L′ µ + 1 log ( ∆ 9ε ) + 1 ≥ 1 4 ( √ 2 L/µ− 1 n + 1 ) log ( ∆ 9ε ) + 1 , Then , by Theorem 4.2 5 , in order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFSC ( x̂ ) − FSC ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least N queries to hFSC , where N = Ω ( ( n+ √ nL µ ) log ( ∆ ε ) ) = Ω n+ √ n √ n/3L′ µ log ( ∆ ε ) = Ω ( ( n+ n3/4 √ L′ µ ) log ( ∆ ε ) ) . 5By the proof of Theorem 4.2 , a larger dimension m does not affect the conclusion of the theorem . Proof of Theorem 4.9 . Note that ε ≤ √ 2 768 B2L′√ n = B2L 384n , m = ⌊ 4 √ 18 12 Bn−1/4 √ L′ ε ⌋ − 1 = ⌊√ B2L 24nε ⌋ − 1 . By Theorem 4.5 , in order to find x̂ ∈ Rm such that EFC ( x̂ ) − FC ( x∗ ) < ε , A needs at least N queries to hFC , where N = Ω ( n+B √ nL ε ) = Ω n+B √ n √ n/2L′ ε = Ω ( n+Bn3/4 √ L′ ε ) . J NON-CONVEX CASE In non-convex case , our goal is to find an ε-approximate stationary point x̂ of our objective function f , which satisfies ‖∇f ( x̂ ) ‖2 ≤ ε . ( 26 ) J.1 PRELIMINARIES We first introduce a general concept about smoothness . Definition J.1 . For any differentiable function f : Rm+1 → R , we say f is ( l , L ) -smooth , if for any x , y ∈ Rm we have l 2 ‖x− y‖22 ≤ f ( x ) − f ( y ) − 〈∇f ( y ) , x− y〉 ≤ L 2 ‖x− y‖22 , where L > 0 , l ∈ R. Especially , if f is L-smooth , then it can be checked that f is ( −L , L ) -smooth . If f is ( −σ , L ) -smooth , in order to make the operator proxγf valid , we set 1 γ > σ to ensure the function f̂ ( u ) , f ( u ) + 1 2γ ‖x− u‖22 is a convex function . Next , we introduce a class of function which is original proposed in ( Carmon et al. , 2017 ) . Let GNC : Rm+1 → R be GNC ( x ; α , m ) = 1 2 ∥∥B ( m+ 1 , 4√α ) x∥∥2 2 − √ α〈e1 , x〉+ α m∑ i=1 Γ ( xi ) , where the non-convex function Γ : R→ R is Γ ( x ) , 120 ∫ x 1 t2 ( t− 1 ) 1 + t2 dt . ( 27 ) We need following properties about GNC ( x ; α , m ) . Proposition J.2 ( Lemmas 3,4 , Carmon et al . ( 2017 ) ) . For any 0 < α ≤ 1 , it holds that 1 . Γ ( x ) is ( −45 ( √ 3 − 1 ) , 180 ) -smooth and GNC ( x ; α , m ) is ( −45 ( √ 3 − 1 ) α , 4 + 180α ) smooth . 2 . GNC ( 0 ; α , m ) −minx∈Rm+1 GNC ( x ; α , m ) ≤ √ α/2 + 10αm . 3 . For x which satisfies that xm = xm+1 = 0 , we have ‖∇GNC ( x ; α , m ) ‖2 ≥ α 3/4/4 . J.2 OUR RESULT Theorem J.3 . For any PIFO algorithmA and any L , σ , n , ∆ , ε such that ε2 ≤ ∆Lα81648n , there exist a dimension d = ⌊ ∆L √ α 40824nε2 ⌋ + 1 and n ( −σ , L ) -smooth nonconvex functions { fi : Rd → R } ni=1 such that f ( x0 ) − f ( x∗ ) ≤ ∆ . In order to find x̂ ∈ Rd such that E ‖∇f ( x̂ ) ‖2 < ε , A needs at least Ω ( ∆L √ α ε2 ) queries to hf , where we set α = min { 1 , ( √ 3+1 ) nσ 30L , n 180 } . Remark J.4 . For n > 180 , wehave Ω ( ∆L √ α ε2 ) = Ω ∆ ε2 min L , √√ 3 + 1 30 √ nσL , √ nL√ 180 = Ω ( ∆ ε2 min { L , √ nσL } ) . Thus , our result is comparable to the one of Zhou and Gu ’ s result ( their result only related to IFO algorithms , so our result is more strong ) , but our construction only requires the dimension be O ( 1 + ∆ε2 min { L/n , √ σL/n } ) , which is much smaller than O ( ∆ ε2 min { L , √ nσL } ) in ( Zhou and Gu , 2019 ) . J.3 CONSTRUCTIONS Consider F ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) = λGNC ( x/β ; α , m ) . ( 28 ) Similar to our construction we introduced in Section 2 , we denote the l-th row of the matrix B ( m+ 1 , 4 √ α ) by bl and Li = { l : 1 ≤ l ≤ m , m+ 1− l ≡ i ( mod n ) } , i = 1 , 2 , · · · , n. ( 29 ) Let Gk = span { e1 , e2 , · · · , ek } , 1 ≤ k ≤ m , G0 = { 0 } and compose F ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) to f1 ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) = λn 2β2 ∑ l∈Li ∥∥b > l x∥∥22 − λn√αβ 〈e1 , x〉+ λα m∑ i=1 Γ ( xi/β ) , fi ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) = λn 2β2 ∑ l∈Li ∥∥b > l x∥∥22 + λα m∑ i=1 Γ ( xi/β ) , for i ≥ 2 . ( 30 ) Clearly , F ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) = 1n ∑n i=1 fi ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) . Moreover , by Proposition J.2 , we have following properties about F ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) and { fi ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) } ni=1 . Proposition J.5 . For any 0 < α ≤ 1 , it holds that 1. fi ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) is ( −45 ( √ 3−1 ) αλ β2 , ( 2n+180α ) λ β2 ) -smooth . 2 . F ( 0 ; α , m , λ , β ) −minx∈Rm+1 F ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) ≤ λ ( √ α/2 + 10αm ) . 3 . For x which satisfies that xm = xm+1 = 0 , we have ‖∇F ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) ‖2 ≥ α3/4λ 4β . Similar to Lemma 2.6 , similar conclusion hosts for { fi ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) } ni=1 . Lemma J.6 . For x ∈ Fk , 0 ≤ k < m and γ < √ 2+1 60 β2 λα , we have ∇fi ( x ; α , m , λ , β ) , proxγfi ( x ) ∈ { Gk+1 , if k ≡ i− 1 ( mod n ) , Gk , otherwise . Proof . Let G ( x ) , m∑ i=1 Γ ( xi ) and Γ′ ( x ) be the derivative of Γ ( x ) . First note that Γ′ ( 0 ) = 0 , so if x ∈ Gk , then ∇G ( x ) = ( Γ′ ( x1 ) , Γ ′ ( x2 ) , · · · , Γ′ ( xm ) ) > ∈ Gk . Moreover , for x ∈ FG ( k ≥ 1 ) , we have b > l x = 0 for l < m− k , bl ∈ Gk for l > m− k , bm−k ∈ Gk+1 . Consequently , for l 6= m− k , blb > l x = ( b > l x ) bl ∈ Gk , and bm−kb > m−kx ∈ Gk+1 . For k = 0 , we have x = 0 , and ∇f1 ( x ) = λn √ α/β e1 ∈ G1 , ∇fj ( x ) = 0 ( j ≥ 2 ) . For k ≥ 1 , we suppose that m− k ∈ Li . Since ∇fj ( x ) = λn β2 ∑ l∈Lj b > l blx + λα β ∇G ( x/β ) − ηje1 , where η1 = λn √ α/β , ηj = 0 for j ≥ 2 . Hence , ∇fi ( x ) ∈ Fk+1 and ∇fj ( x ) ∈ Fk ( j 6= i ) . Now , we turn to consider v = proxγfj ( x ) . We have ∇fj ( v ) + 1 γ ( v − x ) = 0 , that is λn β2 ∑ l∈Lj b > l bl + 1 γ I v + λα β ∇G ( v/β ) = ηje1 + 1 γ x . ( 31 ) Denote A = λn β ∑ l∈Lj b > l bl + β γ I , u = 1 β v , y = ηje1 + 1 γ x , then we have Au + λα β ∇G ( u ) = y . ( 32 ) Next , if s satisfies { s > max { 1 , k } for j = 1 , s > k for j > 1 , ( 33 ) then we know that the s-th element of y is 0 . If s satisfies ( 33 ) and m − s ∈ Lj , then the s-th and ( s + 1 ) -th elements of Au is ( ( ξ + β/γ ) us − ξus+1 ) and ( −ξus + ( ξ + β/γ ) us+1 ) respectively where ξ = λn/β . So by Equation ( 32 ) , we have β γ us + ξ ( us − us+1 ) + 120λα β u2s ( us−1 ) 1+u2s = 0. β γ us+1 + ξ ( us+1 − us ) + 120λα β u2s+1 ( us+1−1 ) 1+u2s+1 = 0 . Following from Lemma J.9 , for 120λαβ < ( 2+2 √ 2 ) β γ , we have us = us+1 = 0 . That is 1. if m− s ∈ Lj and s satisfies ( 33 ) , then us = 0 . 2. if m− s+ 1 ∈ Lj and s− 1 satisfies ( 33 ) , then us = 0 . For s which satisfies ( 33 ) , if m − s 6∈ Lj and m − s + 1 6∈ Lj , then the s-th element of Au is ( β/γ us ) . Similarly , by Equation ( 32 ) , we have β γ us + 120λα β u2s ( us − 1 ) 1 + u2s = 0 . Following from Lemma J.8 , for 120λαβ < ( 2+2 √ 2 ) β γ , we have us = 0 . Therefore , we can conclude that 1. if s− 1 satisfies ( 33 ) , then us = 0 . 2. if s satisfies ( 33 ) and m− s+ 1 6∈ Lj , then us = 0 . Moreover , we have that 1. if k = 0 and j = 1 , then m− 1 , m− 2 6∈ Lj , so u2 = 0 . 2. if k = 0 and j > 1 , then for s = 1 , we have m− s+ 1 6∈ Lj , so u1 = 0 . 3. if k = 0 , then for s > 2 , we have s− 1 > 1 satisfies ( 33 ) , so us = 0 . 4. if k > 0 , then for s > k + 1 , we have s− 1 > k satisfies ( 33 ) , so us = 0 . 5. if k > 0 and m− k 6∈ Lj , then for s = k + 1 , we have m− s+ 1 6∈ Lj , so uk+1 = 0 . In short , 1. if k = 0 and j > 1 , then u ∈ G0 . 2. if k = 0 and j = 1 , then u ∈ G1 . 3. if k > 1 and m− k 6∈ Lj , then u ∈ Gk . 4. if k > 1 and m− k ∈ Lj , then u ∈ Gk+1 . Remark J.7 . In order to make the operator proxγfi valid , γ need to satisfy γ < √ 3 + 1 90 β2 λα < √ 2 + 1 60 β2 λα . So for any valid PIFO call , the condition about γ in Lemma J.6 must be satisfied . Lemma J.8 . Suppose that 0 < λ2 < ( 2 + 2 √ 2 ) λ1 , then z = 0 is the only real solution to the equation λ1z + λ2 z2 ( z − 1 ) 1 + z2 = 0 . ( 34 ) Proof . Since 0 < λ2 < ( 2 + 2 √ 2 ) λ1 , we have λ22 − 4λ1 ( λ1 + λ2 ) < 0 , and consequently , for any z , ( λ1 + λ2 ) z2 − λ2z + λ1 > 0 . On the other hand , we can rewrite Equation ( 34 ) as z ( ( λ1 + λ2 ) z 2 − λ2z + λ1 ) = 0 . Clearly , z = 0 is the only real solution to Equation ( 34 ) . Lemma J.9 . Suppose that 0 < λ2 < ( 2 + 2 √ 2 ) λ1 and λ3 > 0 , then z1 = z2 = 0 is the only real solution to the equation λ1z1 + λ3 ( z1 − z2 ) + λ2 z21 ( z1−1 ) 1+z21 = 0. λ1z2 + λ3 ( z2 − z1 ) + λ2 z 2 2 ( z2−1 ) 1+z22 = 0 . ( 35 ) Proof . If z1 = 0 , then z2 = 0 . So let assume that z1z2 6= 0 . Rewrite the first equation of Equation ( 35 ) as λ1 + λ3 λ3 + λ2 λ3 z1 ( z1 − 1 ) 1 + z21 = z2 z1 Note that 1− √ 2 2 ≤ z ( z − 1 ) 1 + z2 . Thus , we have λ1 + λ3 λ3 + λ2 λ3 1− √ 2 2 ≤ z2 z1 . Similarly , it also holds λ1 + λ3 λ3 + λ2 λ3 1− √ 2 2 ≤ z1 z2 . By 0 < λ2 < ( 2 + 2 √ 2 ) λ1 , we know that λ1 + 1− √ 2 2 λ2 > 0 . Thus λ1 + λ3 λ3 + λ2 λ3 1− √ 2 2 > 1 . Since z1/z2 > 1 and z2/z1 > 1 can not hold at the same time , so we get a contradiction . Following from Lemma J.6 , we know following Lemma which is similar to Lemma 2.9 . Lemma J.10 . If M ≥ 1 satisfies minx∈GM ‖∇F ( x ) ‖2 ≥ 9ε and N = n ( M + 1 ) /4 , then we have min t≤N E ‖∇F ( xt ) ‖2 ≥ ε. Theorem J.11 . Set α = min { 1 , ( √ 3 + 1 ) nσ 30L , n 180 } , λ = 3888nε2 Lα3/2 , β = √ 3λn/L , m = ⌊ ∆L √ α 40824nε2 ⌋ Suppose that ε2 ≤ ∆Lα81648n . In order to find x̂ ∈ R m+1 such that E ‖∇F ( x̂ ) ‖2 < ε , PIFO algorithm A needs at least Ω ( ∆L √ α ε2 ) queries to hF . Proof . First , note that fi is ( −l1 , l2 ) -smooth , where l1 = 45 ( √ 3− 1 ) αλ β2 = 45 ( √ 3− 1 ) L 3n α ≤ 45 ( √ 3− 1 ) L 3n ( √ 3 + 1 ) nσ 30L = σ , l2 = ( 2n+ 180α ) λ β2 = L 3n ( 2n+ 180α ) ≤ L. Thus each fi is ( −σ , L ) -smooth . Next , observe that F ( x0 ) − F ( x∗ ) ≤ λ ( √ α/2 + 10αm ) = 1944nε2 Lα + 38880nε2 L √ α m ≤ 1944 40824 ∆ + 38880 40824 ∆ = ∆ . For M = m− 1 , we know that min x∈GM ‖∇F ( x ) ‖2 ≥ α3/4λ 4β = α3/4λ 4 √ 3λn/L = √ λL 3n α3/4 4 = 9ε . With recalling Lemma J.10 , in order to find x̂ ∈ Rm+1 such that E ‖∇F ( x̂ ) ‖2 < ε , PIFO algorithm A needs at least N queries to hF , where N = n ( M + 1 ) /4 = nm/4 = Ω ( ∆L √ α ε2 ) . At last , we need to ensure that m ≥ 2 . By ε2 ≤ ∆Lα81648n , we have ∆L √ α 40824nε2 ≥ ∆Lα 40824nε2 ≥ 2 , and consequently m ≥ 2 .

Summary: The authors prove lower bounds on the number of queries required for optimizing sums of convex functions.  They consider more powerful queries than the usual queries that provide function evaluation/gradient pairs for chosen summands.  As was done in [1] (which is cited in the submission), in this work algorithms can also get the answer to a