Convergence of Random Reshuffling Under The Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz Inequality
Extracted source text · arXiv 2110.04926
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{arxiv}
\usepackage[applemac]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
%\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage[colorlinks]{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
\usepackage{lipsum} % Can be removed after putting your text content
\usepackage[square,numbers]{natbib}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\graphicspath{{figure/}}
\usepackage{indentfirst,latexsym,bm}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta,positioning}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\pgfplotsset{compat=newest}
\usepgfplotslibrary{fillbetween}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,decorations}
\usetikzlibrary{fit}
\colorlet{color1}{blue}
\colorlet{color2}{red!50!black}
\definecolor{ivory}{RGB}{218,215,203}
\definecolor{cuhkp}{RGB}{98,56,105} % purple dark
\definecolor{cuhkpl}{RGB}{152,24,147} % purple light
\definecolor{cuhkb}{RGB}{219,160,1} % ocher
\definecolor{cuhkbd}{RGB}{178,129,0} % ocher dark
\definecolor{cuhkr}{RGB}{88,35,155} % magenta-red
\usepackage{hyperref}[6.83]
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
frenchlinks=false,
pdfborder={0 0 0},
naturalnames=false,
hypertexnames=false,
breaklinks,
allcolors = cuhkbd,
urlcolor = color2,
}
\RequirePackage[capitalize,nameinlink]{cleveref}[0.19]
% Per SIAM Style Manual, "section" should be lowercase
\crefname{section}{section}{sections}
\crefname{subsection}{subsection}{subsections}
% Per SIAM Style Manual, "Figure" should be spelled out in references
\Crefname{figure}{Figure}{Figures}
% Per SIAM Style Manual, don't say equation in front on an equation.
\crefformat{equation}{\textup{#2(#1)#3}}
\crefrangeformat{equation}{\textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}
\crefmultiformat{equation}{\textup{#2(#1)#3}}{ and \textup{#2(#1)#3}}
{, \textup{#2(#1)#3}}{, and \textup{#2(#1)#3}}
\crefrangemultiformat{equation}{\textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}%
{ and \textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}{, \textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}{, and \textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}
% But spell it out at the beginning of a sentence.
\Crefformat{equation}{#2Equation~\textup{(#1)}#3}
\Crefrangeformat{equation}{Equations~\textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}
\Crefmultiformat{equation}{Equations~\textup{#2(#1)#3}}{ and \textup{#2(#1)#3}}
{, \textup{#2(#1)#3}}{, and \textup{#2(#1)#3}}
\Crefrangemultiformat{equation}{Equations~\textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}%
{ and \textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}{, \textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}{, and \textup{#3(#1)#4--#5(#2)#6}}
% Make number non-italic in any environment.
\crefdefaultlabelformat{#2\textup{#1}#3}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Initialization:}}
%\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{输出:}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[thm]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{proposition}[thm]{Proposition}
%\newtheorem{algorithm}[thm]{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{remark}[thm]{Remark}
\newtheorem{assumption}[thm]{Assumption}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{defn}[thm]{Definition}
\newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}[section]
\newtheorem{exmp}{Example}[section]
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{argmax}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{argmin}
\newcommand{\rmn}[1]{\textup{\textrm{#1}}}
\newcommand{\highlight}[1]{{\color{red}#1}}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\Rn}{\mathbb{R}^n}
\newcommand{\Rex}{(-\infty,\infty]}
\newcommand{\Rexx}{[-\infty,\infty]}
\newcommand{\Spp}{\mathbb{S}^n_{++}}
\newcommand{\lm}{\lambda_m}
\newcommand{\lM}{\lambda_M}
\newcommand{\Prob}{\mathbb{P}}
\newcommand{\Exp}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}
\newcommand{\veps}{\epsilon}
\newcommand{\dist}{\mathrm{dist}}
\newcommand{\crit}{\mathrm{crit}}
\newcommand{\cS}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\sL}{{\sf L}}
\newcommand{\sG}{{\sf G}}
\newcommand{\cO}{\mathcal O}
\newcommand{\RR}{{\sf RR }}
\newcommand{\RRp}{{\sf RR}}
\newcommand{\IG}{{\sf IG }}
\newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
\newcommand{\iprod}[2]{\left\langle #1, #2 \right\rangle}
\newcommand{\mer}{H_\tau}
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\lin}{\mathrm{lin}}
\newcommand{\xui}{\mathrm{i}}
\newcommand\prox[1]{\mathrm{prox}_{#1}}
\newcommand\proxt[1]{\mathrm{prox}_{\theta}^{\Lambda}(#1)}
\newcommand\proxs{\mathrm{prox}_{\varphi}^{\Lambda}}
\newcommand\proxts{\mathrm{prox}_{\theta}^{\Lambda}}
\newcommand\Fnor[1]{F^{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nor}}(#1)}
\newcommand\Fnors{F^{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nor}}}
\newcommand\oFnor{F^{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nor}}}
\newcommand\Fnat[1]{F^{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nat}}(#1)}
\newcommand\oFnat{F^{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nat}}}
\newcommand\dom[1]{\mathrm{dom\\}(#1)}
\newcommand{\spa}{\mathrm{span}}
\newcommand{\aff}{\mathrm{aff}}
\newcommand\epi{\mathrm{epi}}
\newcommand{\revised}[1]{{\color{magenta}{#1}}}\newcommand{\wq}[1]{{\color{green}{[Wenqing:#1]}}}
\newcommand\oprox{\mathrm{prox}_{\varphi}^{\Lambda}}
\newcommand\env[1]{\mathrm{env}_{#1}}
\newcommand\envtt{\mathrm{env}^{\Lambda}_{\theta}}
\newcommand\envs{\mathrm{env}^{\Lambda}_{\varphi}}
\newcommand\oenv{\mathrm{env}^{\Lambda}_{\varphi}}
\newcommand\conv[1]{\mathrm{conv}(#1)}
\newcommand\tr{\mathrm{tr}}
\newcommand\diag{\mathrm{diag}}
\newcommand{\ns}{n_{\mathcal S} }
\DeclareMathOperator*{\minimize}{\text{minimize}}
\newcommand\comm[1]{{\color{cuhkpl}{#1}}}
\title{Convergence of Random Reshuffling Under \\ The Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz Inequality\thanks{X. Li is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grant NSFC-72150002 and by AC01202101037 and AC01202108001 from Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Society (AIRS). A. Milzarek is partly supported by the Fundamental Research Fund -- Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data (SRIBD) Startup Fund JCYJ-AM20190601 and by the Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Society (AIRS).} }
%\runhead{A trust region-type globalization for a normal map-based semismooth Newton method}
%\date{September 9, 1985} % Here you can change the date presented in the paper title
%\date{} % Or removing it
\author{
Xiao Li \\
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen \\
School of Data Science (SDS) \\
Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence \\ and Robotics for Society (AIRS) \\
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China \\
\texttt{lixiao@cuhk.edu.cn} \\
\And
Andre Milzarek\\
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen \\ School of Data Science (SDS) \\
Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data (SRIBD) \\
Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence \\ and Robotics for Society (AIRS) \\
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China \\
\texttt{andremilzarek@cuhk.edu.cn} \\
\And
Junwen Qiu \\
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen \\ School of Data Science (SDS) \\
Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data (SRIBD) \\
Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence \\ and Robotics for Society (AIRS) \\
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China \\
\texttt{junwenqiu@link.cuhk.edu.cn} \\
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
We study the random reshuffling ({\sf RR}) method for smooth nonconvex optimization problems with a finite-sum structure. Though this method is widely utilized in practice such as the training of neural networks, its convergence behavior is only understood in several limited settings. In this paper, under the well-known Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz (KL) inequality, we establish strong limit-point convergence results for \RR with appropriate diminishing step sizes, namely, the whole sequence of iterates generated by \RR is convergent and converges to a single stationary point in an almost sure sense. In addition, we derive the corresponding rate of convergence, depending on the KL exponent and the suitably selected diminishing step sizes. When the KL exponent lies in $[0,\frac12]$, the convergence is at a rate of $\cO(t^{-1})$ with $t$ counting the iteration number. When the KL exponent belongs to $(\frac12,1)$, our derived convergence rate is of the form $\cO(t^{-q})$ with $q\in (0,1)$ depending on the KL exponent. The standard KL inequality-based convergence analysis framework only applies to algorithms with a certain descent property. Remarkably, we conduct convergence analysis for the \emph{non-descent} \RR with \emph{diminishing step sizes} based on the KL inequality, which generalizes the standard KL analysis framework. We summarize our main steps and core ideas in an analysis framework, which is of independent interest. As a direct application of this framework, we also establish similar strong limit-point convergence results for the shuffled proximal point method.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper, we consider the finite-sum optimization problem
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:problem} \minimize_{x\in \Rn}~f(x) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}f(x,i),
\end{equation}
%
where each component function $f(\cdot,i) : \Rn \to \R$ is continuously differentiable but not necessarily convex. Problem \eqref{eq:problem} appears widely in many engineering fields such as machine learning and signal processing.
One classical algorithm for addressing problem \eqref{eq:problem} is the gradient descent method.
However, in modern large-scale applications, one main challenge of problem \eqref{eq:problem} is that the number of components $N$ can be extremely large. Therefore, using the full information of $f$ (say the full gradient of $f$) in each update can be computationally prohibitive. This observation is precisely one of the main motivations of the \emph{random reshuffling} ({\sf RR}) method, which is tailored for modern large-scale optimization problems with finite-sum structure. In contrast to the standard gradient descent method, \RR performs a gradient descent-type step in each update by using the gradient of only \emph{one} component function rather than \emph{all} the components of $f$. In the next subsection, we will introduce \RR and its special case, the incremental gradient method, in detail.
\subsection{The Random Reshuffling Method}\label{sec:alg}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{{\sf RR}: Random Reshuffling}
\label{algo:gm-shuff}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Choose an initial point $x^0\in\Rn$;
\State Set iteration count $t=1$;
\While{stopping criterion not met}
\State Update the step size $\alpha_t$ according to a certain rule;
\State Generate a uniformly random permutation $\sigma^{t}$ of $\{1,\ldots, N\}$;
\State Set $\tilde x_0^{t}=x^{t-1}$;
\For{$i = 1,2,\ldots, N$}
\State Update the inner iterate via
\[
\tilde x_{i}^{t}=\tilde x_{i-1}^{t}-\alpha_{t}\nabla {f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_{i});
\]
\EndFor
\State Set $x^t = \tilde x_{N}^{t}$;
\State Update iteration count $t = t+1$;
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Let us now introduce the procedures of \RR for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem}. We define the set of all possible permutations of $\{1,2,\ldots, N\}$ as
\[
\Lambda:= \{\sigma: \sigma \text{ is a permutation of } \{1,2,\ldots, N\}\}.
\]
At each iteration $t$, a permutation $\sigma^t$ is generated according to an i.i.d. uniform distribution over $\Lambda$. Then, \RR updates $x^{t-1}$ to $x^{t}$ through $N$ consecutive gradient descent-type updates by using the components $\{f(\cdot, \sigma^t_1), \ldots, f(\cdot, \sigma^t_N)\}$ sequentially, where $\sigma^t_i$ represents the $i$-th element of $\sigma^t$. In each step, only one component $f(\cdot, \sigma^t_i)$ is selected for updating. To be more specific, this method starts with
\be\label{eq:RS start}
\tilde x^t_0 = x^{t-1}
\ee
and then uses $f(\cdot, \sigma^t_i)$ to update $\tilde x^t_{i}$ as
\be\label{eq:RS update}
\tilde x^t_{i} = \tilde x^t_{i-1} - \alpha_t \nabla f(\tilde x^t_{i-1}, \sigma^t_i)
\ee
for $i=1, 2, \ldots, N$, resulting in
\be\label{eq:RS end}
x^t = \tilde x^t_N.
\ee
The pseudocode of \RR is shown in \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}.
A special case of \RR is the so-called \emph{incremental gradient method} ({\sf IG}), which uses $\sigma^t = \{1,2,\ldots, N\}$ for all $t\geq 0$. Thus, it updates $x^{t-1}$ to $x^{t}$ through \eqref{eq:RS update} by utilizing the components $\{f(\cdot, 1), \ldots, f(\cdot, N) \}$ sequentially. Hence, all our subsequent conclusions for \RR naturally apply to the incremental gradient method.
In terms of empirical performance, it has been reported that \RR outperforms the full gradient descent method for large-scale instances of problem \eqref{eq:problem}; see \cite{bertsekas2011} for more details. Due to such a superiority, \RR is used in a vast variety of engineering fields. Most notably, \RR is broadly applied in practice for training deep neural networks; see, e.g., \cite{bertsekas2011,bottou2009,bottou2012,shamir2016,gurbu2019,haochen2019,Nagaraj2019,nguyen2020unified}. This special instance of \RR (together with the incremental gradient method) is better known as the backpropagation algorithm for the training of neural networks.
Though \RR has wide applications in practice, its convergence behavior is mainly studied under the setting of strong convexity; see, e.g., \cite{gurbu2019,haochen2019,Nagaraj2019}. These results are mainly supported by the claim that \RR significantly outperforms the stochastic gradient method (SGD) for strongly convex minimization. In this paper, we will establish much broader convergence results for \RR under the Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz (KL) inequality. We summarize our main contributions below.
\subsection{Main Contributions}
In order to compare different convergence results, we adopt the terminologies ``strong limit-point convergence'' and ``weak convergence'' used in \cite{absil2005}. Here, weak convergence means $\lim_{t \to \infty} \|\nabla f(x^t)\|= 0$, while strong limit-point convergence requires the whole sequence of iterates to converge to a single limit point and this limit point is a stationary point of \eqref{eq:problem}.
We study \RR (see \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}) for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem}. Our ultimate goal is to understand the convergence behavior of this algorithm under the so-called Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz (KL) inequality of $f$ (see \Cref{Def:KL-property}). With the standard Lipschitz continuous gradient assumption (see \Cref{Assumption:1}) and the mild KL assumptions (see \Cref{Assumption:2}), we establish \emph{strong limit-point convergence} results for \RR equipped with proper \emph{diminishing step sizes} (see \Cref{sec:sequential}). That is, the \emph{whole} sequence of iterates $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ generated by \Cref{algo:gm-shuff} converges to a stationary point $x^*$ of $f$ in an almost sure sense. Next, under the same setting, we establish the corresponding \emph{rate of convergence} (see \Cref{sec:rate}), which will depend on the KL exponent $\theta$ of $f$ (see \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq}) and on the selected step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t \geq 1}$. For a suitable choice of the diminishing step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t \geq 1}$, our rate results can be summarized as two-folds: 1) If $\theta\in [0,\frac{1}{2}]$ at the target stationary point $x^*$, then $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ will converge to $x^*$ at a rate of $\mathcal O(\frac{1}{t})$. Remarkably, this rate matches that of the best existing result of \RR for strongly convex optimization. 2) If $\theta \in (\frac{1}{2},1)$ at $x^*$, then $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ will converge to $x^*$ at a rate of $\cO(t^{-q})$ with $q\in (0,1)$ depending on the KL exponent $\theta$. A more detailed discussion of the possible rates of convergence and their dependence on the KL exponent and step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq1}$ is presented in \Cref{sec:rate}. As a standard byproduct of the KL inequality-based analysis, all our convergence results apply to the last iterate of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Our results extend the convergence analysis of \RR from the strongly convex regime to a much more general nonconvex setting. To the best of our knowledge, all the above results are new for \RRp.
Remarkably, \RR is a \emph{non-descent} method. \RR can be viewed as a gradient descent method with an additional error term that is proportional to the step size \cite{BerTsi00,gurbu2019} and needs \emph{diminishing step sizes} to ensure convergence. Therefore, the standard KL inequality-based analysis developed in \cite{absil2005,AttBolRedSou10,AttBol09,AttBolSva13,BolSabTeb14}---which applies to algorithms that possess the so-called sufficient decrease property---is not directly applicable here. Different to the standard KL framework, through invoking proper diminishing step sizes, we utilize a more elementary analysis to first establish weak convergence results that allows to avoid the sufficient decrease property. Then, by accumulating the potential ascent (i.e., error term) of each step of {\sf RR}, we derive a novel auxiliary descent-type condition for the iterates. Based on this auxiliary descent-type condition, we combine the standard KL analysis framework and the dynamics of the diminishing step sizes to establish strong limit-point convergence results and derive the corresponding rate of convergence depending on the KL exponent $\theta$. Thus, our results generalize the standard KL analysis framework to cover a class of non-descent methods with diminishing step sizes. We summarize our main steps and core ideas in an analysis framework in \Cref{sec:framework}, which is of independent interest. As a direct application of this new KL analysis framework, we show similar strong limit-point convergence results for another important shuffling-type algorithm, i.e., the shuffled proximal point method (see \Cref{sec:prox point}).
We believe that our results and the general framework presented in \Cref{sec:framework} can also serve as a blueprint for the KL inequality-based convergence analysis of other non-descent methods with diminishing step sizes.
\subsection{Connections to Previous Works}
\textbf{The incremental gradient and random reshuffling methods.} There have been extensive works studying \RR for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem}. As mentioned in \Cref{sec:alg}, \RR also covers the well-known \IG as a special case. In what follows, we will briefly review some representative results for this method and provide the connections to our results.
{\bf \small The incremental gradient method.} \IG is a popular algorithm used for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem}. It has a long history and is extensively studied. A series of works study the convergence behavior of \IG under various step size schemes and different assumptions on the problem; see, e.g., \cite{zhi1994analysis,tseng1998incremental,solodov1998incremental,solodov1998}. These works mainly provide weak convergence results (i.e., $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|\nabla f(x^t)\| = 0$) and do not provide explicit rates of convergence. A more recent work \cite{gurbu2015} shows that if the objective function $f$ is strongly convex and the iterates generated by \IG are uniformly bounded, then the whole sequence of iterates will converge to the unique optimal solution at a rate of $O(1/t)$. However, such a convergence result is established under the stringent strong convexity assumption. By contrast, our results yield strong limit-point convergence (i.e., the whole sequence of iterates converges to a stationary point) and convergence rate results for \IG under the KL inequality, which covers a very wide class of nonconvex functions.
{\bf \small The random reshuffling method.} As pointed out by various works, e.g., \cite{bertsekas2011,bottou2009,gurbu2019}, \RR is widely utilized in practice for tackling large-scale machine learning tasks such as training neural networks.
The short note \cite{bottou2009} shows empirical superiority of \RR over the stochastic gradient descent method.
%It is also mentioned in \cite[Footnote 4]{bertsekas2011} that \RR outperforms the stochastic gradient method empirically.
Understanding the observed superiority of \RR over SGD has remained a long time open problem. In \cite{recht2012}, the authors conjectured a noncommutative arithmetic-geometric mean inequality that leads to a lower iteration complexity of \RR than that of SGD for least-squares optimization. However, this conjecture is proved to be not true in general \cite{lai2020}. Recently, under the assumptions that the objective function $f$ is strongly convex, each component function $f(\cdot,i)$ has a Lipschitz continuous Hessian, and the iterates generated by \RR are uniformly bounded, the work \cite{gurbu2019} formally establishes that the whole sequence of q-suffix averaged iterates converges to the unique optimal solution at a rate of $\cO({1}/{t})$ with high probability. This rate result of \RR outperforms the min-max lower bound of $\cO({1}/{\sqrt{t}})$ achieved by SGD for strongly convex minimization \cite{agarwal2012,nemirovskij1983}. Initiated by these two works, various works start to understand the properties of {\sf RR}, but mainly focusing on iteration complexity results; see, e.g., \cite{haochen2019,Nagaraj2019,mishchenko2020,shamir2016,nguyen2020unified}. For instance, under the assumptions that $f$ is strongly convex and $f$, the gradient of $f$, and the Hessian of $f$ are all Lipschitz continuous, the work \cite{haochen2019} shows that $\mathbb{E}[\|x^T - \hat x\|] \leq \cO(1/T)$ (the expectation is taken over all random components in {\sf RR}) with $T$ and $\hat x$ being the total number of iterations and the unique optimal solution, respectively. The Lipschitz Hessian assumption used in \cite{haochen2019} was then removed in \cite{Nagaraj2019}. Later, the Lipschitz continuity assumption on $f$ used in \cite{haochen2019,Nagaraj2019} was further removed by the work \cite{mishchenko2020}, which is meaningful as it can be very stringent to impose Lipschitz continuity assumption on $f$ if it is already assumed to be strongly convex. A common assumption of the mentioned works is that the objective function has to be strongly convex, which is typically not satisfied in many important applications. By contrast, our KL inequality-based convergence analysis applies to much more general nonconvex functions. Specifically, when the KL exponent equals to ${1}/{2}$ at the stationary point that \RR converges to, the corresponding convergence rate will be $\cO({1}/{t})$, which matches that of the strongly convex setting \cite{gurbu2019}. However, it should be noted that a function with a stationary point having KL exponent $1/2$ can generally be nonconvex as well.
There are also some works considering \RR for nonconvex optimization. In addition to strongly convex minimization, the works \cite{haochen2019,mishchenko2020,nguyen2020unified} replace the strong convexity assumption by the Polyak-{\L}ojasiewicz (PL) condition and obtain similar convergence results to that of the strongly convex setting. However, Polyak \cite{polyak1963} commented that the parallel path of assuming strong convexity is to impose the PL condition. Actually, a direct consequence of the PL condition is that all stationary points must be globally optimal, which is not satisfied by most of the nonconvex functions arising in practical applications. The work \cite{nguyen2020unified} also considers nonconvex $f$ under the Lipschitz continuity assumptions of each component function $f_i$ and its gradient $\nabla f_i$. They established the complexity result $\mathbb{E}[\|\nabla f(\tilde x^T)\|]\leq \cO(1/T^{1/3})$, where $T$ is the total number of iterations, $\tilde x^T$ is sampled uniformly at random from $\{x^1,\ldots, x^T\}$, and the expectation is taken over the randomness of the sampled $\tilde x^T$. They also showed an even weaker result than the weak convergence for {\sf RR}, i.e., $\liminf_{t\to\infty} \|\nabla f( x^t)\| = 0$.
% In particular, if the KL inequality reduces to the PL condition, i.e., it holds with KL exponent $1/2$ for every stationary point of $f$ uniformly over $\R^n$, then our results matches that of the existing ones \cite{nguyen2020unified}. However, our results can cover much more general nonconvex functions.
In sharp contrast to the works mentioned above, we conduct a very first KL inequality-based convergence analysis for {\sf RR}. In an almost sure sense, we show the strong limit-point convergence results for {\sf RR} and establish the corresponding rate of convergence under the KL inequality and the assumption that each $\nabla f_i$ is Lipschitz continuous. Our results generalize the strongly convex setting \cite{gurbu2015,gurbu2019} to more general nonconvex settings with KL exponent $1/2$. %at the stationary point that \RR converges to.
Unfortunately, we do not find a direct way to compare our results to the iteration complexity results mentioned above since our KL inequality-based convergence analysis is fundamentally different from those.
%---i.e., the convergence of the whole sequence of iterates---in an almost sure sense.. and provide the rate of convergence under the KL inequality and the assumption that the gradient of each $f_i$ is Lipschitz continuous, which is fundamentally different from the existing ones \cite{haochen2019,mishchenko2020,nguyen2020unified}.
%By contrast, we conduct a very first KL inequality-based convergence analysis for {\sf RR}, in which the objective function $f$ can be a much more general nonconvex function. In addition, we prove strong limit-point convergence results for \RR and establish the corresponding rate of convergence---i.e., the convergence of the whole sequence of iterates---in an almost sure sense. Specifically, when the KL exponent equals to ${1}/{2}$ at the stationary point that \RR converges to, the corresponding convergence rate will be $\cO({1}/{t})$, which matches that of the strongly convex setting \cite{gurbu2019}. However, it should be noted that a function with a stationary point having KL exponent $1/2$ can generally be nonconvex as well.
\textbf{The KL inequality and the related convergence analysis framework.} The {\L}ojasiewicz inequality is named after a series of seminal works by {\L}ojasiewicz, e.g., \cite{lojasiewicz1959,lojasiewicz1963,lojasiewicz1993} and it always holds true for real analytical functions. A striking application of this inequality is to analyze the convergence (or the stronger finite length property) of the gradient flow in dynamical systems theory. We refer the readers to \cite[Introduction]{kurdyka2000} and \cite[Section 2]{absil2005} for a concise review of {\L}ojasiewicz's original arguments. Later, Kurdyka \cite{kurdyka1998,kurdyka1994} generalized the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality to a broader setting, where the function can be of o-minimal and nonsmooth structure.
More recently, The works \cite{BolDanLew-MS-06,BolDanLew06,BolDanLewShi07} further generalize the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality to nonsmooth subanalytical or semialgebraic functions. The name, Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz (KL) inequality is then created and used to unify the former results. In a nutshell, the KL inequality is a general and powerful concept applicable to a huge range of functions arising in real-world problems.
In dynamical systems theory, the KL inequality is utilized for analyzing continuous descent methods converging to a single limit point. Absil et al. \cite{absil2005} extended the analysis to obtain strong limit-point convergence of numerical optimization algorithms when used to optimize real analytical functions, where the algorithms are assumed to satisfy a certain sufficient decrease property. The results in \cite{absil2005} apply to the well-known gradient descent and trust region methods with appropriate line-search procedures. The KL inequality-based convergence analysis was then popularized by Attouch and Bolte et al. \cite{AttBol09,AttBolRedSou10,AttBolSva13,BolSabTeb14} for establishing the strong limit-point convergence of several descent methods for nonsmooth nonconvex optimization. In particular, the work \cite{AttBol09} considers the proximal point method for minimizing functions satisfying the KL inequality. The strong limit-point convergence result was obtained. The authors further established the corresponding rate of convergence based on the KL exponent. The work \cite{AttBolRedSou10} then shows a similar strong limit-point convergence result for proximal Gauss-Seidel algorithms, which also yields results for alternating projection schemes. In \cite{AttBolSva13}, the authors established strong limit-point convergence results for a family of proximal forward-backward splitting algorithms when used to optimize the sum of a smooth nonconvex function and a nonsmooth one that admits simple proximal operation. The strong limit-point convergence result was then shown for proximal coordinate-type (or alternating-type) gradient methods in \cite{BolSabTeb14} when used to optimize the same class of problems considered in \cite{AttBolSva13}. Thanks to the aforementioned pioneering works, the strength of the KL inequality has been widely recognized in both optimization and engineering societies. Now, the KL inequality has become one of the main tools for understanding convergence properties of (mostly nonconvex) optimization algorithms.
The standard KL inequality-based convergence analysis crucially relies on the descent property of the algorithm. Let us take the analysis framework summarized in \cite[Section 3.2]{BolSabTeb14} as an example. One starts with the sufficient decrease property to show weak convergence. Then, by combining the weak convergence result and the KL inequality, one can establish strong limit-point convergence result as well as the corresponding rate of convergence for the descent method. Most existing works rely on this analysis framework to analyze descent methods. Actually, there are also a set of works considering methods that do not have a descent property on the objective function itself; see, e.g., the Douglas-Rachford splitting-type methods \cite{li2016douglas}, inertial proximal gradient methods \cite{ochs2014,boct2016} and its alternating version \cite{pock2016}, alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) \cite{li2015global,wang2019,boct2020}, to name a few. An almost universal proof strategy in these works is to construct a particular Lyapunov function (or called merit function sometimes) for which the algorithm possesses a sufficient decrease property. Then, one can follow the standard KL inequality-based convergence analysis framework to establish strong limit-point convergence results. The price to pay here is to assume the KL inequality on the Lyapunov function rather than the original objective function. This compensation can be mild if the goal is only to obtain strong limit-point convergence of the sequence of iterates since the KL inequality holds for a huge class of functions. Hence, it is likely that the Lyapunov function satisfies this inequality. Nonetheless, determining the KL exponent of the Lyapunov function given the exponent of the original objective function can be non-trivial if one wants to further show the rate of convergence. It is also interesting to note that the work \cite{liu2019quadratic} considers a variant of the stochastic variance-reduced gradient methods (SVRG) algorithm over the Stiefel manifold. SVRG is a stochastic algorithm that does not have a descent property. The authors modified the scheme of the original SVRG and the resultant algorithm has the sufficient decrease property on the objective function itself.
To summarize, the existing works mainly consider algorithms that possess a descent property either on the objective function itself or on a well constructed Lyapunov function. Then, one can apply the standard KL inequality-based convergence analysis framework, e.g., \cite[Section 3.2]{BolSabTeb14}, to establish strong limit-point convergence results.
In contrast, \RR is a \emph{non-descent} method. \RR can be viewed as a gradient descent method with an additional error that is related to the step size \cite{BerTsi00,gurbu2019} and this error term is the origin of the non-monotonic behavior of the algorithm. A direct consequence is that \RR with a constant step size will never converge to a stationary point but oscillate around it permanently with radius proportional to the step size. To ensure convergence, one needs to use \emph{diminishing step sizes}, which can drive the error term to zero. It is unlikely that one can establish a descent property for \RR on $f$ or a particular Lyapunov function. Therefore, the standard KL inequality-based convergence analysis framework pioneered by the works \cite{absil2005,AttBol09,AttBolRedSou10,AttBolSva13,BolSabTeb14} is not directly applicable here. Instead of using the sufficient decrease property, we follow a more elementary analysis (cf. \cite{BerTsi00,Ber16}) to show the weak convergence result of \RR through imposing certain conditions on the diminishing step sizes. Then, we construct a novel auxiliary descent-type condition for the iterates, based on which we can conduct an analysis to obtain strong limit-point convergence and derive the corresponding rate of convergence. This auxiliary descent-type condition consists of the accumulated error terms depending on diminishing step sizes, which will change from iteration to iteration. It is also worth emphasizing that our analysis only involves the KL inequality of the objective function itself rather than the auxiliary function. Informally speaking, our new analysis framework treats the diminishing step sizes as a tool to achieve an auxiliary ``descent property''. We refer to \Cref{sec:framework} for a more detailed summary.
\section{Preliminaries and Assumptions}
\subsection{The Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz (KL) Inequality}
We start with reviewing the basic elements of the KL inequality, which will serve as the key tool for our convergence analysis of \RRp. As we consider the case where the objective function $f$ in problem \eqref{eq:problem} is smooth, we now present the definition of the KL inequality tailored to smooth functions. More broadly, using appropriate subdifferentials, the KL inequality can be introduced for nonsmooth functions as well; see, e.g., \cite{AttBolRedSou10,AttBol09,AttBolSva13,BolSabTeb14}.
\begin{defn}[KL inequality]
\label{Def:KL-property}
The function $f$ is said to satisfy the KL inequality at a point $\bar x\in \Rn$ if there exist $\eta\in(0,\infty],$ a neighborhood $U$ of $\bar x$, and a continuous and concave function $\varrho: [0,\eta)\to\mathbb{R}_+$ with
%
\[ \varrho \in C^1((0,\eta)), \quad \varrho(0) = 0, \quad \text{and} \quad \varrho^\prime(x) > 0 \quad \forall~x \in (0,\eta), \]
%
such that for all $x \in U \cap \{x \in \Rn: 0 < |f(x) - f(\bar x)| < \eta\}$ the KL inequality holds, i.e.,
%
\be \label{eq:kl-ineq} \varrho^\prime(|f(x)-f(\bar x)|) \cdot \|\nabla{f}(x)\|\geq1. \ee
\end{defn}
The above KL inequality is a slightly stronger variant of the classical condition as defined in, e.g., \cite[Definition 3.1]{AttBolRedSou10}. We note that the KL inequality \cref{eq:kl-ineq} is usually stated without taking the absolute value of $f(x) - f(\bar x)$. However, it is shown that this variant also holds for semialgebraic and subanalytic functions, which clarifies its generality; see, e.g., \cite{BolDanLew-MS-06,BolDanLew06,BolDanLewShi07}. We also refer to the paragraph after the proof of \cref{thm:finite sum} for further discussion.
Let $ \mathcal S_\eta$ denote the class of all continuous, concave functions $\varrho : [0,\eta) \to \R_+$ satisfying the requirements in \cref{Def:KL-property}. Functions in this class are typically referred to as desingularizing functions. If the desingularizing function $\varrho \in \mathcal S_\eta$ additionally satisfies the following quasi-additivity-type property
%
\be \label{eq:qrho} \exists~C_\rho > 0 \quad [\varrho^\prime(x+y)]^{-1} \leq C_\rho[(\varrho^\prime(x))^{-1}+(\varrho^\prime(y))^{-1}] \quad \forall~x,y \in (0,\eta) \; \text{with} \; x+y < \eta, \ee
%
then we will write $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$. Let us further define
%
\be\label{eq:Lojasiewicz function}
\mathcal L := \{\varrho : \R_+ \to \R_+: \exists~c > 0, \, \theta \in [0,1): \varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}\}.
\ee
%
The desingularizing functions in $\mathcal L$ are called {\L}ojasiewicz functions. This class of functions obviously satisfies the conditions in \cref{Def:KL-property}, i.e., we have $\mathcal L \subset \mathcal S_\eta$ for all $\eta > 0$. If $f$ satisfies \eqref{eq:kl-ineq} with $\varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}$, $c > 0$, and $\theta \in [0,1)$ at some $\bar x$, then we say that $f$ satisies the KL inequality at $\bar x$ with exponent $\theta$. We note that the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$ is a subset of $\mathcal Q_\eta$ for any $\eta > 0$. To clarify this claim, let us consider $\varrho\in \mathcal L$, i.e., we have $\varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}$ with exponent $\theta \in [0,1)$. Then, using $\varrho^\prime(x) = c(1-\theta)x^{-\theta}$ and the subadditivity of the mapping $x \mapsto x^\theta$, it readily follows $[\varrho^\prime(x+y)]^{-1} \leq (\varrho^\prime(x))^{-1} + (\varrho^\prime(y))^{-1}$ for all $x,y$. Consequently, in this case the constant $C_\rho$ in \eqref{eq:qrho} can be set to $C_\rho = 1$. The class $\mathcal Q_\eta$ is generally larger than the set of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$. In particular, the mapping $\varrho(x) = \log(1+x)$ is an example of a function satisfying $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\infty$ but $\varrho \notin \mathcal L$. In fact, it is easy to verify $\varrho \in \mathcal S_\infty$ and for all $x,y > 0$, we have $[\varrho(x+y)]^{-1} = 1 + x + y \leq (1+x) + (1+y) = (\varrho(x))^{-1}+(\varrho(y))^{-1}$.
% Let $\{ x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be generated by \cref{algo:gm-shuff}. We define the set of accumulation points
%
%\be\label{eq:limit point set}
% \mathcal C := \{ x \in \Rn: \exists~\text{a subsequence} \; \{t_\ell\}_\ell \; \text{such that} \; x^{t_\ell} \to x \text{ as } \ell \to \infty\}. \ee
%
%Notice that the set $\mathcal C$ is closed by definition.
\subsection{Assumptions} \label{sec:assum}
Throughout this paper, we impose the following Lipschitz gradient assumption on each component function $f(\cdot, i)$ in problem \eqref{eq:problem}.
\begin{assumption} \label{Assumption:1} We consider the condition:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textup{\textrm{(A.\arabic*)}},topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
\item \label{A1} For all $i \in \{1,\ldots, N\}$, $f(\cdot, i)$ is bounded from below and the gradient $\nabla f(\cdot,i)$ is Lipschitz continuous with parameter ${\sf L}$.
% \item \label{A2} For all $i \in \{1,\ldots, N\}$, the mapping $f(\cdot,i) : \Rn \to \R$ is ${\sf G}$-Lipschitz continuous, i.e., we have
% \[ |f(x,i)-f(y,i)| \leq {\sf G} \|x-y\| \quad \forall~x,y, \quad \forall~i. \]
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
This assumption also implies that $\nabla f$ is Lipschitz continuous with parameter $\sL$. Such a Lipschitz continuity assumption of the gradient mapping is ubiquitous in the analysis of smooth optimization algorithms.
Suppose that the gradient of a continuously differentiable function $h:\R^n \rightarrow \R$ is Lipschitz continuous with parameter $\sL$. Then, applying the so-called descent lemma (see, e.g., \cite{nesterov2003}), it follows:
%
\be\label{eq:descent lemma}
h(y) \leq h(x) + \langle \nabla h(x), y- x\rangle + \frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x-y\|^2, \quad \forall \ x, y \in \R^n.
\ee
%
Let us now set $h \equiv f(\cdot, i)$ for some $i\in \{1,2,\ldots, N\}$. Choosing $y = x - \frac{1}{\sL} \nabla f(x,i)$ in \eqref{eq:descent lemma}, we can infer:
%
\be\label{eq:grad upper bound}
\|\nabla f(x, i)\|^2\leq 2 {\sf L} (f(x, i)- \bar f_{\min}), \quad i = 1,2, \ldots, N,
\ee
where $ \bar f_{\min} := \min_{1\leq i\leq N}\{ f_{\min}(\cdot, i)\}$ with $f_{\min}(\cdot, i)$ being a suitable lower bound of the mapping $f(\cdot, i)$. This variance-type bound will play a central role in our convergence analysis.
We notice that \cref{algo:gm-shuff} is stochastic in nature and that it formally generates a stochastic process of iterates $\{X^t\}_{t \geq 1}$. Here, randomness is caused by the choice of the random permutations $\{\sigma^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ in step 4 of the algorithm. In the following, we first formulate assumptions for a single trajectory $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ of the stochastic process $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ and discuss convergence properties of $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ conditioned on those assumptions. Since our analysis is solely based on deterministic techniques, this later allows to easily establish convergence results for $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ in an almost sure sense. A detailed summary and discussion of the stochastic convergence behavior of $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is provided in \Cref{sec:sto-sure}.
%One important consequence of this assumption is the so-called descent lemma (see, e.g., \cite{nesterov2003}):
%\be\label{eq:descent lemma f_i}
% f(y, i) \leq f(x, i ) + \langle \nabla f(x,i), y- x\rangle + \frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x-y\|^2, \quad \forall \ x, y \in \R^n,
%\ee
% for $i = 1,2,\ldots, N$.
%This descent lemma further has the following implication, which can be shown by letting $y = x - \frac{1}{\sL} \|\nabla f(x,i)\|$ in \eqref{eq:descent lemma f_i}:
%\be\label{eq:grad upper bound}
% \|\nabla f(x, i)\|^2\leq 2 {\sf L} (f(x, i)- \bar f_{\min}), \quad i = 1,2, \ldots, N,
%\ee
%where $ \bar f_{\min} := \min_{1\leq i\leq N}\{ f_{\min}(\cdot, i)\}$ with $f_{\min}(\cdot, i)$ being the minimal function value of $f(\cdot, i)$.
%
%Let us mention that \Cref{Assumption:1} \ref{A1} implies that $\nabla f$ is also Lipschitz continuous with modulus $\sL$. Thus, we also have the following descent lemma for the whole function $f$:
%\be\label{eq:descent lemma f}
%f(y) \leq f(x) + \langle \nabla f(x), y- x\rangle + \frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x-y\|^2, \quad \forall \ x, y \in \R^n.
%\ee
Let $\{ x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be generated by \cref{algo:gm-shuff}. We define the associated set of accumulation points as
%
\be\label{eq:limit point set}
\mathcal C := \{ x \in \Rn: \exists~\text{a subsequence} \; \{t_\ell\}_\ell \; \text{such that} \; x^{t_\ell} \to x \text{ as } \ell \to \infty\}. \ee
%
Notice that the set $\mathcal C$ is closed by definition. We now state our main KL assumptions for $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$.
\begin{assumption}
\label{Assumption:2}
We assume the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textup{\textrm{(B.\arabic*)}},topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
\item \label{B1} The sequence $\{ x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ generated by \Cref{algo:gm-shuff} is bounded.
\item \label{B2} The objective function $f$ satisfies the following KL inequality on $\mathcal C$: For any $\bar x \in \mathcal C$ there exist $\eta \in (0,\infty]$, a neighborhood $U$ of $\bar x$, and a function $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$ such that
\[ \varrho^\prime(|f(x) - f(\bar x)|) \cdot \|\nabla f(x)\| \geq 1 \quad \forall~x \in U \cap \{x \in \Rn: 0 < |f(x) - f(\bar x)| < \eta\}. \]
\item \label{B3} The KL property formulated in \ref{B2} holds for every $\bar x \in \mathcal C$ and each respective desingularizing function $\varrho$ can be chosen from the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$.
%The desingularizing function $\varrho \in \mathcal S_\eta$ additionally satisfies the property
%\[ \exists~C_\rho > 0 \quad \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime(x+y)} \leq C_\rho \left[ \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime(x)} + \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime(y)} \right] \quad \forall~x, y \in \left(0,\frac{\eta}{2}\right). \]
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Some remarks about \Cref{Assumption:2} are in order. The first two assumptions are common in the KL inequality-based convergence analysis. One main feature of the KL inequality is that it is ubiquitous in practice. We refer to \cite[Section 5]{BolSabTeb14} for a discussion of its generality. Thus, \ref{B2} and \ref{B3} are very mild. In contrast to the standard KL framework \cite{AttBolSva13,BolSabTeb14}, we will mainly work with desingularizing functions from the classes $\mathcal Q_\eta$ and $\mathcal L$. As we will see in detail in the following discussions, this stronger requirement is necessary to cope with the missing descent of \RRp. Let us again note that both assumption \ref{B2} and \ref{B3} hold naturally for subanalytic or semialgebraic functions. Condition \ref{B1} is often imposed in the KL framework; see, e.g., \cite{AttBolRedSou10,AttBol09,BolSabTeb14}. In fact, we can derive the boundedness of the sequence of function values $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ under \Cref{Assumption:1}; see \Cref{lemma:approx descent} for details. Therefore, \ref{B1} is automatically satisfied once the function $f$ has bounded level set.
%The additional assumption in \ref{B3} is also very mild and is satisfied for desingularizing functions $\varrho$ being selected from the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$. %To clarify this claim, let us suppose $\varrho\in \mathcal L$, i.e., we have $\varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}$ with exponent $\theta \in [0,1)$. Then, it holds that $\varrho^\prime(x) = c(1-\theta)x^{-\theta}$. Due to the subadditivity of the mapping $x \mapsto x^\theta$, it readily follows $[\varrho^\prime(x+y)]^{-1} \leq [\varrho^\prime(x)]^{-1} + [\varrho^\prime(y)]^{-1}$ for all $x,y$. Consequently, in this case, \ref{B3} holds with $C_\rho = 1$.
\section{Convergence Analysis}\label{sec:convergence analysis}
Equipped with all the machineries, we now turn to the convergence analysis of \RRp. We will establish two main convergence results based on the KL inequality: 1) Strong limit-point convergence, i.e., the whole sequence generated by \cref{algo:gm-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem} converges to a stationary point of $f$ and 2) the corresponding convergence rate based on the KL exponent and selected step size strategy. As mentioned in \Cref{sec:assum}, \RR formally generates a stochastic process of iterates $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$. In order to make our derivations more transparent, we will first establish the aforementioned convergence results for a single trajectory $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ that can be viewed as the iterates generated by {\sf IG} or \RR with any fixed order $\sigma^t$ in \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. In \Cref{sec:sto-sure}, we will state the convergence results for the stochastic process $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ in an almost sure sense.
%Equipped with all the machineries, we now turn to the convergence analysis of \RRp. We will establish two main convergence results based on the KL inequality: 1) The whole sequence generated by \cref{algo:gm-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem} converges to a stationary point of $f$ and 2) the corresponding convergence rate based on the KL exponent and selected step size strategy.
\subsection{Weak Convergence Results}\label{sec:subsequential}
In this subsection, we show several important results including a recursion for \RR and the weak convergence results, which will serve as the basis of our subsequent analysis.
We first establish a useful recursion on the sequence of iterates $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ and function values $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Lemma %%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:descent}
Suppose that assumption \ref{A1} is satisfied. Let $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be the sequence generated by \cref{algo:gm-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem} with step sizes $\alpha_t \in \left(0,{1}/{(\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N)}\right]$. Then, for all $t\geq 1$, we have
\begin{align*}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} \leq (1+ 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3) \left( f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min} \right) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t}\left\| x^t-x^{t-1} \right\|^2,
\end{align*}
where $\bar f_{\min}$, defined below \eqref{eq:grad upper bound}, is a constant.
\end{lemma}
%
\begin{proof}
Using the descent lemma of $f$ (by letting $h\equiv f$ in \eqref{eq:descent lemma}) gives
%\begingroup
%\allowdisplaybreaks
\be\label{eq:recursion-1}
\begin{aligned}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} &\leq f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min} +\iprod{\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})}{x^t-x^{t-1}}+\frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2\\
& = f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min} -N\alpha_t\iprod{\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})}{\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i) }+\frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2\\
&=f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min} -\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|^2\\
& \quad +\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)-\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|^2 + \frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2,
\end{aligned}
\ee
%\endgroup
where the equality is due to $\iprod{a}{b}=\frac{1}{2}(\|a\|^2+\|b\|^2-\|a-b\|^2).$ To further derive an upper bound for the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:recursion-1}, we can compute
%
\begin{align*}
\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)-\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|^2 & \leq \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)-\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\|^2 \\ & \leq\frac{{\sf L}^2}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|x^{t-1}-\tilde x^{t}_{i-1}\|^2,
\end{align*}
where we applied \ref{A1} in the last inequality.
Let $V_t:= \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|x^{t-1}-\tilde x^{t}_{i-1}\|^2$. By following the arguments in \cite[Lemma 5]{mishchenko2020}, we have
\begin{align*}
V_t & = \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|x^{t-1}-\tilde x^{t}_{i-1}\|^2 = \alpha_{t}^2\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left\|\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}\nabla f(\tilde{x}_{j-1}^t,\sigma_j^t)\right\|^2 \\
& \leq 2 \alpha_{t}^2\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left[ \left\|\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left( \nabla f(\tilde{x}_{j-1}^t,\sigma_j^t) - \nabla f(x^{t-1},\sigma_j^t) \right)\right\|^2 + \left\|\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}\nabla f(x^{t-1},\sigma_j^t)\right\|^2 \right] \\
& \leq 2\alpha_{t}^2 \sum_{i=2}^{N}(i-1)\left[ {\sf L}^2\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}\left\|\tilde{x}_{j-1}^t-x^{t-1}\right\|^2 + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}\left\|\nabla f(x^{t-1},\sigma_j^t)\right\|^2 \right] \\
& \leq 2\alpha_{t}^2 \sum_{i=2}^{N}(i-1)\left[ {\sf L}^2V_t + 2{\sf L} \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left( f(x^{t-1}, \sigma_j^t) - \bar f_{\min} \right) \right] \\
&\leq {\sf L}^2 N^2 \alpha_{t}^2 V_t + 2 \sL N^3 \alpha_t^2 (f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min}),
\end{align*}
where we used \ref{A1} and \eqref{eq:grad upper bound} in the third and fourth lines, respectively. Then, it follows
\be\label{eq:v_t}
\begin{aligned}
V_t \leq \frac{2 \sL N^3 \alpha_t^2}{1- {\sf L}^2 N^2 \alpha_{t}^2 } \left( f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min} \right)
\leq 4 \sL N^3 \alpha_t^2 \left( f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min} \right),
\end{aligned}
\ee
where the last inequality is from $\alpha_t \in (0, {1}/({\sqrt{2} \sL N})]$. Invoking the above estimates in \eqref{eq:recursion-1} yields
\begin{align*}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} &\leq (1+ 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3) \left( f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min} \right) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 \\
&\quad -\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|^2 + \frac{{\sf L}}{2}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2.
\end{align*}
Finally, recognizing that $\|\alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\| = \|x^t - x^{t-1}\|$ gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
Based on \Cref{lemma:descent}, we can further simplify the recursion on the sequence of iterates $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$, which is crucial for our later analysis.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Lemma %%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:approx descent}
Under the setting of \Cref{lemma:descent}, suppose further that the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ satisfy
$\alpha_t \in (0,{1}/{(\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N)}]$ and $\sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t^3 < \infty$.
Then, for all $t\geq 1$, we have
\be\label{eq:approximate descent}
f(x^t) \leq f(x^{t-1}) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t}\left\| x^t-x^{t-1} \right\|^2 + 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3.
\ee
Here, $\sG := \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right) \exp\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3\right)$ is a finite positive constant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cref{lemma:descent}, for all $t\geq 1$, we have
\be\label{eq:esti-t0}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} \leq (1+ 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3) \left( f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min} \right) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t}\left\| x^t-x^{t-1} \right\|^2.
\ee
Note that $1 - \sL N \alpha_t>0$ due to $\alpha_t \in (0,{1}/({\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N})]$. Thus, inequality \eqref{eq:esti-t0} implies
\[
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} \leq (1+ 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3) \left( f(x^{t-1})- \bar f_{\min} \right)
\]
for all $t\geq 1$. Unrolling this recursion yields
\[
\begin{aligned}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} &\leq \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right) \prod_{j=1}^{t} (1+ 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3)\\
&= \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right) \exp\left( \sum_{j=1}^{t} \log\left( 1+ 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3\right) \right)\\
&\leq \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right) \exp\left( \sum_{j=1}^{t} 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3 \right), \quad \forall \ t\geq 1,
\end{aligned}
\]
where the last inequality follows form the fact that $\log(1+a) \leq a$ whenever $a\geq 0$.
Noticing $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \alpha_j^3 < \infty$, we obtain
\be\label{eq:bound f}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} \leq \sG, \quad \forall \ t\geq 1,
\ee
where
\be\label{eq:G}
\sG := \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right) \exp\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3\right)
\ee
is a finite positive constant. Plugging \eqref{eq:bound f} into \eqref{eq:esti-t0} yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
%If the series $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3$ converges to a very large finite number, then $\sG$ defined in \Cref{lemma:approx descent} can be extremely large.
The constant $\sG$ defined in \Cref{lemma:approx descent} can be large, if the value of the series $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \alpha_j^3$ is large. In \Cref{sec:step sizes}, we will provide a more explicit expression for $\sG$ by using some representative choices of the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$.
Thanks to the recursion shown in \Cref{lemma:approx descent}, we can follow a standard analysis (cf. \cite{BerTsi00,Ber16}) to establish weak convergence of \cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Our results in \cref{Prop:convergence} complement and extend the (mostly non-asymptotic) results derived in \cite{mishchenko2020,nguyen2020unified}.
%The error term $2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3$ in the recursion shown in \Cref{lemma:approx descent} represents the non-descent nature of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Fortunately, this recursion reveals an \emph{approximate descent property}, relying on which we can establish the global asymptotic convergence result for \cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Thanks to this approximate descent property, our proof is similar to the analysis for gradient methods with deterministic and stochastic errors using diminishing step sizes; see, e.g., .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Proposition %%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{proposition}
\label{Prop:convergence}
Suppose that condition \ref{A1} is satisfied. Let $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be the sequence generated by \cref{algo:gm-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem} with step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ fulfilling
\be\label{eq:ass-step}
\alpha_t \in \left(0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N}\right], \quad \sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t = \infty, \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t^3 < \infty.
\ee
Then, the sequence $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some $f^* \in \R$. In addition, we have $\lim_{t\to\infty} \|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|=0$, i.e., every accumulation point of $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is a stationary point of problem \cref{eq:problem}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \Cref{lemma:approx descent}, for all $t\geq 1$, we have
\be\label{eq:approximate descent repeat}
f(x^t) \leq f(x^{t-1}) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t}\left\| x^t-x^{t-1} \right\|^2 + 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3.
\ee
%
This shows that the sequence $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ satisfies a supermartingale-type recursion. Hence, applying, e.g., \cite[Proposition A.31]{Ber16} and using the lower boundedness of $f$ (as stated in assumption \ref{A1}) and the third condition in \eqref{eq:ass-step}, we can infer that $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some $f^*\in \R$.
%
%By summing the recursion in \eqref{eq:approximate descent repeat} from $t= k+1$ to $t = \ell$, we obtain
%\[
% f(x^\ell) \leq f(x^{k}) + 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \sum_{t=k}^{\infty}\alpha_i^3, \quad \forall \ \ell> k.
%\]
%Since the sequence $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ is upper bounded as shown in \eqref{eq:bound f} and $f$ is bounded from below as stated in \Cref{Assumption:1} \ref{A1}, its limit superior and limit inferior both exist and are finite real numbers.
%Then, we can take the limit superior as $\ell \rightarrow \infty$ (and the limit inferior as $k\rightarrow \infty$) on the left-hand side (and the right-hand side) to get
%\[
%\begin{aligned}
%\limsup_{\ell\rightarrow \infty} \ f(x^t) &\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty} \ f(x^k) + \liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty} \ 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \sum_{t=k}^{\infty}\alpha_t^3 \\
%&= \liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty} \ f(x^k).
%\end{aligned}
%\]
%Here, we have used the fact that $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \sum_{t=k}^{\infty}\alpha_t^3 = 0$ as $k\rightarrow \infty$ in the equality, which is a direct consequence of the third condition in \eqref{eq:ass-step}. Then, it immediately follows that the sequence $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some $f^*\in \R$.
%
%Let us define
%\be\label{eq:ut}
%u_t = \frac{{\sf L}^2{\sf G}^2N^3}{6}\sum_{i=t+1}^{\infty}\alpha_{i}^3.
%\ee
%Then, it follows
%%
%\be \label{eq:esti-t1}
%f(x^t)+u_t \leq f(x^{t-1})+u_{t-1}-\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2-\frac{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}{2N\alpha_t}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2.
%\ee
%
%Due to \cref{eq:ass-step}, it holds that $1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t>0$ for all $t$. Thus, the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is non-increasing. Recall that $f$ is bounded from below. This, together with the definition of $\{u_t\}_{t\geq 1} $, implies that the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is also lower bounded. Thus, we can infer that the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some $f^*\in \R$. Moreover, we have $\{u_t\}_{t\geq 1} $ converges to 0 by \cref{eq:ass-step}, which yields
%\[
% \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty} f(x^t)+u_t = \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty} f(x^t) = f^*.
%\]
Now, telescoping the recursion \cref{eq:approximate descent repeat}, we obtain
\be \label{eq:esti-t2}
\frac{N}{2} \sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t \|\nabla f( x^{t-1})\|^2 \leq f( x^0) - f^* + 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\alpha_t^3 < \infty.
\ee
The condition $\sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t = \infty$ in \eqref{eq:ass-step} immediately implies that $\liminf_{t\to\infty}\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|=0$.
In order to show that $\lim_{t\to\infty} \|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|=0$, let us assume on the contrary that the sequence $\{\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|\}_{t\geq 1}$ does not converge to zero. Then, there exist $\varepsilon>0$ and two infinite subsequences $\{k_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\ell_j\}_{j \geq 1}$ such that
%
\be\label{eq:construct subsequence}
\|\nabla{f}({x}^{k_j})\|\geq 2\varepsilon,\quad \|\nabla{f}({x}^{\ell_j})\|<\varepsilon,\quad\text{and}\quad\|\nabla{f}({x}^{t})\|\geq\varepsilon \quad \forall~t=k_j+1,\dots,\ell_j-1.
\ee
%
Combining this observation with \cref{eq:esti-t2} yields
\[
\infty> \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\alpha_{t+1}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t})\|^2 \geq \varepsilon^2\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\sum_{t=k_j}^{\ell_j-1}\alpha_{t+1},
\]
which implies
\be\label{eq:contradict-1}
\lim\limits_{j\rightarrow \infty} \ \sum_{t=k_j}^{\ell_j-1}\alpha_{t+1} = 0.
\ee
Next, by following a similar argument to that of the proof of \Cref{lemma:descent}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|x^t-x^{t-1}\| & = \left\|\alpha_t {\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|\\
&\leq \alpha_t\left\|{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i)- {\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\| + \alpha_t \left\|\sum_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1}, \sigma_i^t)\right\|\\
%&\leq {\sf L}\alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\tilde x_{i-1}^{t}-x^{t-1}\| + \alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1}, \sigma^{t}_i)\| \\
& \leq {\sf L}\alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\tilde x_{i-1}^{t}-x^{t-1}\| + \alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{2\sL \left( f(x^{t-1},\sigma_i^t) - \bar f_{\min}\right)}\\
%& \leq {\sf L}\alpha_t \sqrt{N\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\tilde x_{i-1}^{t}-x^{t-1}\|^2 } + \alpha_t \sqrt{2\sL N^2 \left( f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min}\right)} \\
&\leq 2(\sqrt{2}+1) {\sf L}N^2 \alpha_t^2 \sqrt{\sL \sG} + N \alpha_t \sqrt{2\sL \sG} \leq 2(\sqrt{2}+1) \alpha_t N \sqrt{\sL \sG},
\end{align*}
%\begin{align*}
% \|x^t-x^{t-1}\| & = \left\|\alpha_t {\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|\\
% &\leq \alpha_t\left\|{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i)- {\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\| + \alpha_t \left\|\sum_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1}, \sigma_i^t)\right\|\\
% &\leq {\sf L}\alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\tilde x_{i-1}^{t}-x^{t-1}\| + \alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1}, \sigma^{t}_i)\| \\
% & \leq {\sf L}\alpha_t\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left\|\alpha_t{\sum}_{j=1}^{i-1}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{j-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_j)\right\|+ \alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{2\sL \left( f(x^{t-1},\sigma_i^t) - \bar f_{\min}\right)}\\
% & \leq {\sf L}N \alpha_t \left\|\alpha_t{\sum}_{j=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{j-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_j)\right\|+ \alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{2\sL \left( f(x^{t-1},\sigma_i^t) - \bar f_{\min}\right)} \\
% &= {\sf L}N \alpha_t\|x^t-x^{t-1}\| + \alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{2\sL \left( f(x^{t-1},\sigma_i^t) - \bar f_{\min}\right)} \\
% &\leq {\sf L}N \alpha_t\|x^t-x^{t-1}\| + N \alpha_t \sqrt{2\sL \sG},
%\end{align*}
where the fourth line is from \eqref{eq:grad upper bound}, the fifth line is due to the fact that $\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{a_i} \leq \sqrt{N\sum_{i=1}^{N}a_i}$ as long as $a_i \geq 0, i =1 , \ldots, N$, the second-to-last line follows from \eqref{eq:v_t} and \eqref{eq:bound f}, and the last line is due to the first condition in \eqref{eq:ass-step}.
%Thus, we have
%\[
% \|x^t-x^{t-1}\| \leq \frac{N\alpha_t\sqrt{2\sL \sG}}{1-\sL N \alpha_t} \leq 6 \alpha_t N\sqrt{\sL \sG},
%\]
%where we used $\alpha_t \in \left(0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N}\right)$ in the last inequality.
Then, we can compute
\[
\|{x}^{\ell_j} - {x}^{k_j}\| \leq \sum_{t=k_j}^{\ell_j-1}\|{x}^{t+1}-x^{t}\| \leq 2(\sqrt{2}+1) N\sqrt{\sL \sG}\sum_{t=k_j}^{\ell_j-1} \alpha_{t+1}.
\]
On the one hand, upon taking the limit $j \rightarrow \infty$ in the above inequality, together with \eqref{eq:contradict-1}, we have
\be \label{eq:contradict 1}
\lim\limits_{j\rightarrow \infty} \ \|{x}^{\ell_j} - {x}^{k_j}\| = 0.
\ee
On the other hand, combing \eqref{eq:construct subsequence}, the inverse triangle inequality, and the
Lipschitz continuity of $\nabla{f}$, we have
%
\be \label{eq:contradict 2}
\varepsilon\leq \left|\|\nabla{f}({x}^{\ell_j})\|-\|\nabla{f}({x}^{k_j})\| \right| \leq \|\nabla{f}({x}^{\ell_j})-\nabla{f}({x}^{k_j})\|\leq {\sf L}\|{x}^{\ell_j}-{x}^{k_j}\|.
\ee
We reach a contradiction to \eqref{eq:contradict 1} by taking $ j\rightarrow \infty$ in \eqref{eq:contradict 2}. Consequently, we conclude that $\lim_{t\to\infty}\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|=0$.
%\begin{align*}
%\|x^t-x^{t-1}\| & = \left\|\alpha_t {\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|\\
%&\leq N\alpha_t\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x_{i-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_i)-\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|+N\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|\\
%&\leq {\sf L}\alpha_t \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\tilde x_{i-1}^{t}-x^{t-1}\|+N\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\| \\
%& = {\sf L}\alpha_t\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left\|\alpha_t{\sum}_{k=1}^{i-1}\nabla{f}(x_{k-1}^{t},\sigma^{t}_k)\right\|+N\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|\\
%&\leq {\sf L}{\sf G}\alpha_t^2\sum_{i=1}^N(i-1)+N\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\| \leq \frac{{\sf L}{\sf G}N^2}{2}\alpha_t^2+N\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|,
%\end{align*}
%where we used $\sum_{i=1}^N(i - 1) \leq \frac{N^2}{2}$ in the last step. Thus, we can compute
%\begin{align*}
%\|{x}^{\ell_i}-{x}^{t_i}\| & \leq \sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1}\|{x}^{t+1}-x^t\|\leq \sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1} \frac{{\sf L}{\sf G}N^2}{2}\alpha_{t+1}^2+N\alpha_{t+1}\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|\\
%&=\sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1}\sqrt{\alpha_{t+1}}\sqrt{\alpha_{t+1}}\left[\frac{{\sf L}{\sf G}N^2}{2}\alpha_{t+1}+N\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\| \right]\\
%&\leq \left[\sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1}\alpha_{t+1}\right]^{1/2}\left[\sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1}\alpha_{t+1}\left[\frac{{\sf L}{\sf G}N^2}{2}\alpha_{t+1}+N\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\| \right]^2\right]^{1/2}\\
%&\leq \sqrt{2\beta_i} \left[\frac{{\sf L}^2{\sf G}^2N^4}{4}\sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1}\alpha_{t+1}^3+ N^2\sum_{t=t_i}^{\ell_i-1}\alpha_{t+1}\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|^2\right]^{1/2} \\ & \leq \sqrt{2\beta_i}\left[\frac{{\sf L}^2{\sf G}^2N^4}{4}\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\alpha_t^3+N^2\sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\alpha_{t+1}\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|^2\right]^{1/2},
%\end{align*}
%where the third line follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
%
%On the one hand, invoking \cref{eq:ass-step}, \eqref{eq:esti-t2}, and $\lim_{i\to\infty}\beta_i=0$ in the above inequality gives
%\be \label{eq:contradict 1}
%\lim\limits_{i\rightarrow \infty}\|{x}^{\ell_i}-{x}^{t_i}\| = 0.
%\ee
%On the other hand, combing \eqref{eq:construct subsequence}, the inverse triangle inequality, and the
%Lipschitz continuity of $\nabla{f}$, we have
%%
%\be \label{eq:contradict 2}
%\varepsilon\leq |\|\nabla{f}({x}^{\ell_i})\|-\|\nabla{f}({x}^{t_i})\||\leq \|\nabla{f}({x}^{\ell_i})-\nabla{f}({x}^{t_i})\|\leq {\sf L}\|{x}^{\ell_i}-{x}^{t_i}\|.
%\ee
%%
%We reach a contradiction to \eqref{eq:contradict 1} by taking $i\rightarrow \infty$ in \eqref{eq:contradict 2}. Consequently, we can conclude that $\lim_{t\to\infty}\|\nabla{f}(x^t)\|=0$.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
%In the standard KL inequality-based convergence analysis framework for descent algorithms, the global asymptotic convergence result is a direct consequence of the so-called sufficient decrease property and a subgradient lower bound for the iterates gap; see, e.g., \cite{BolSabTeb14}. However, due to the non-descent nature of \RR, such a proof strategy is not applicable here. Instead, we construct an auxiliary sequence $\{f(x^t) + u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$, which holds certain descent property \eqref{eq:esti-t1}. Based on this descent property, we then utilize an elementary analysis to establish the global convergence result by invoking the diminishing step sizes properly. In the following section, we will see that the descent property on the auxiliary sequence $\{f(x^t) + u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is key to conducting a KL inequality-based convergence analysis.
\subsection{Strong Limit-Point Convergence Under the Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz Inequality} \label{sec:sequential}
In this subsection, we establish one of the main results of this paper, i.e., the whole sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq1}$ generated by \Cref{algo:gm-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem} converges to a stationary point of $f$.
As direct consequences of \Cref{Prop:convergence}, we first collect several properties of the set of accumulation points $\mathcal C$ defined in \eqref{eq:limit point set}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Lemma %%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:limit point set}
Suppose that the conditions stated in \Cref{Prop:convergence} and assumption \ref{B1} are satisfied. Then, the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
\item The set $\mathcal C$ is nonempty and compact.
\item $\mathcal C \subseteq \mathrm{crit}(f) := \{x \in \Rn: \nabla f(x) = 0\}$.
\item $f$ is finite and constant on $\mathcal C$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The argument (a) is an immediate consequence of assumption \ref{B1}. The argument (b) is a direct consequence of \Cref{Prop:convergence}. Finally, by \Cref{Prop:convergence}, we have $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} f(x^t) = f^*$ for some $f^*\in \R$. The continuity of $f$ then readily implies part (c).
% we show the argument (c). By \Cref{Prop:convergence}, we have $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} f(x^t) = f^*$ for some $f^*\in \R$. Taking an arbitrary convergent subsequence $\{x^{t_\ell}\}_{\ell\geq 0}$ such that $x^{t_\ell} \rightarrow x^*$ as $\ell \rightarrow \infty$. Apparently, we have $x^* \in \mathcal C$ by definition. In addition, we must have $\lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} f(x^{t_\ell}) = f(x^*) = f^*$ by continuity of $f$ and the fact that $\{f(x^{t_\ell})\}_{\ell\geq 0}$ is also a subsequence of $\{f(x^{t})\}_{t\geq 1}$. Because the convergent subsequence $\{x^{t_\ell}\}_{\ell\geq 0}$ is taken arbitrarily, we conclude that $f(x^*) = f^*$ for any $x^*\in \mathcal C$.
\end{proof}
Mimicking \cite[Lemma 6]{BolSabTeb14}, the observations in \Cref{lemma:limit point set} allow us to establish a uniformized version of the KL inequality for the class $\mathcal Q_\eta$ of quasi-additive desingularizing functions. %which we present in the lemma below. %We refer its detailed derivation to \cite[Lemma 6]{BolSabTeb14}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Lemma %%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:uniform KL}
Suppose the assumptions formulated in \Cref{lemma:limit point set} and condition \ref{B2} (or \ref{B3}) are valid. Then, there exist $\delta, \eta > 0$ and $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$ (or $\varrho \in \mathcal L$) such that for all $ \bar x \in \mathcal C$ and $x \in U_{\delta,\eta} := \{x \in \Rn: \mathrm{dist}(x,\mathcal C) < \delta\} \cap \{x \in \Rn: 0 < |f(x) - f(\bar x)| < \eta\}$, we have
%
\be \label{eq:uni-kl} \varrho^\prime(|f(x) - f(\bar x)|) \cdot \|\nabla f(x)\| \geq 1. \ee
\end{lemma}
A detailed derivation of \cref{lemma:uniform KL} is presented in \cref{app:sec-unikl}. In the sequel, whenever we say that assumption \ref{B2} (or \ref{B3}) is satisfied, then we mean that it has to hold for the uniformized desingularizing function $\varrho$ in \cref{eq:uni-kl}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Theorem %%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The standard convergence analysis based on the KL inequality applies to algorithms with a sufficient decrease property. However, the recursion shown in \Cref{lemma:approx descent} does not necessarily imply a descent property due to the noise term $2\sG{\sf L}^3N^3\alpha_t^3$, rendering the standard KL analysis not directly applicable here.
Fortunately, \Cref{lemma:approx descent} reveals an \emph{approximate descent property} of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Based on this property, we derive a novel auxiliary descent-type condition for the iterates which allows to express descent of the algorithm in an alternative way. We can then combine the standard KL analysis framework, e.g., \cite[Theorem 1]{BolSabTeb14}, and the dynamics of the diminishing step sizes to establish strong limit-point convergence results for \RRp.
%The standard convergence analysis based on the KL inequality applies to algorithms with a sufficient decrease property. However, the recursion shown in \Cref{lemma:approx descent} does not necessarily imply a descent property due to the noise term $2\sG{\sf L}^3N^3\alpha_t^3$, rendering the standard KL analysis not directly applicable here.
%Fortunately, \Cref{lemma:approx descent} reveals an \emph{approximate descent property} of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Based on this property, we construct an auxiliary function which allows to express descent of the algorithm in an alternative way. We can then utilize the classical KL framework by following a similar proof strategy to that of \cite[Theorem 1]{BolSabTeb14}.
We now present one of our main results in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:finite sum}
Suppose that the assumptions \ref{A1}, \ref{B1}, and \ref{B2} are satisfied and let $\{x^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ be generated by \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. In addition, let us assume the following conditions on the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$:
\be\label{eq:kl-step}
\alpha_t \in \left(0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N}\right], \quad \sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t = \infty, \quad \sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t^3 < \infty, \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t \left[\varrho^\prime\left({\sum}_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3\right)\right]^{-1} < \infty,
\ee
%
where $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$ is the desingularizing function used in the uniformized KL inequality \cref{eq:uni-kl}. Then, we have
%
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\| <\infty \quad\text{and} \quad \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|<\infty.
\end{align*}
%
Consequently, the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ has finite length, and hence it converges to some stationary point $x^*$ of $f$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For convenience, we repeat again the recursion shown in \Cref{lemma:approx descent}. For all $t\geq 1$, we have
\be\label{eq:approximate descent repeat 2}
f(x^t) \leq f(x^{t-1}) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t}\left\| x^t-x^{t-1} \right\|^2 + 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3.
\ee
Let us define
\be\label{eq:ut}
u_t = 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \sum_{j=t+1}^{\infty}\alpha_{j}^3.
\ee
Upon plugging \eqref{eq:ut} into \eqref{eq:approximate descent repeat 2}, we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:descent}
f(x^t)+u_t\leq f(x^{t-1})+u_{t-1}-\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2-\frac{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}{2N\alpha_t}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2.
\end{align}
Due to the first condition in \cref{eq:kl-step}, it holds that $1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t>0$ for all $t\geq 1$. Then, \eqref{eq:descent} implies that the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is non-increasing. Recall that $f(x^t) \rightarrow f^*$ for some $f^*\in \R$ as shown in \Cref{Prop:convergence}. Since $u_t\rightarrow 0$ by \cref{eq:kl-step}, we have that the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is also convergent and converges to $f^*$.
Let us set
\[
\delta_t := \varrho(f(x^t) - f^* + u_t).
\]
Due to the monotonicity of the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ and the fact that $f(x^t)+u_t \rightarrow f^*$, $\delta_t$ is well defined as $f(x^{t}) - f^* + u_{t} \geq 0$ for all $t\geq 1$. Then, for all $t$ sufficiently large we obtain
\be\label{eq:est-1}
\begin{aligned}
\delta_{t-1} - \delta_{t} & \geq \varrho^\prime(f(x^{t-1}) - f^* + u_{t-1}) \left [f(x^{t-1}) + u_{t-1} - f(x^{t}) - u_t \right] \\
& \geq \varrho^\prime(|f(x^{t-1}) - f^*| + u_{t-1}) \left [f(x^{t-1}) + u_{t-1} - f(x^{t}) - u_t \right] \\
&\geq \varrho^\prime(|f(x^{t-1}) - f^*| + u_{t-1}) \left [ \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2+\frac{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}{2N\alpha_t}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2\right]\\
&\geq \frac{1}{C_\rho} \frac{\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2+\frac{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}{2N\alpha_t}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2}{[\varrho^\prime(|f(x^{t-1}) - f^*|)]^{-1} + [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}},
\end{aligned}
\ee
where the first inequality is from the concavity of $\varrho$, the second inequality is due to the fact that $\varrho^\prime$ is monotonically decreasing (since $\varrho$ is concave), the third inequality is from \eqref{eq:descent}, and the last inequality follows from $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$.
%
%Applying \Cref{Assumption:2} \ref{B3} yields
%%
%\be\label{eq:est-2}
% \varrho^\prime(|f(x^{t-1}) - f^*| + u_{t-1}) \geq \frac{C_\rho^{-1}}{[\varrho^\prime(|f(x^{t-1}) - f^*|)]^{-1} + [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}}.
% \ee
%
Since $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to $f^*$ and we have $\dist(x^t,\mathcal C) \to 0$ by definition, there exists $t_0 \in \N$ such that the uniformized KL inequality \cref{eq:uni-kl} holds for all $x \equiv x^t \notin \mathcal C$ with $t \geq t_0-1$. In the following, without loss of generality, let us assume $x^t \notin \mathcal C$ or $u_t \neq 0$ for all $t \geq t_0-1$. Thus, applying the uniformized KL inequality \cref{eq:uni-kl} to \eqref{eq:est-1} yields
%
\be \label{eq:est-3}
\begin{aligned} \delta_{t-1} - \delta_{t} \geq \frac{1}{C_\rho} \frac{\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2+\frac{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}{2N\alpha_t}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2}{\|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}} \quad \forall~t \geq t_0. \end{aligned}
\ee
%
Then, for every $\vartheta \in [0,1)$ and all $t\geq t_0$, we have the following chain of inequalities:
%
\be\label{eq:est-4}
\begin{aligned} \frac{\sqrt{N\alpha_t}}{2} \|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| &+ \frac{\sqrt{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}}{2\sqrt{N\alpha_t}} \|x^t - x^{t-1}\| \\
& \leq \left[ \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2+\frac{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t}{2N\alpha_t}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2 \right]^{1/2} \\
& \leq \sqrt{C_\rho [\delta_{t-1}-\delta_t] [\|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}]} \\
& \leq \frac{C_\rho}{2\sqrt{N\alpha_t}(1-\vartheta)}[\delta_{t-1} - \delta_t] + \frac{\sqrt{N\alpha_t}(1-\vartheta)}{2} [\|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}],
\end{aligned}
\ee
%
where the first inequality is from the estimate $(a+b)^2 \leq 2(a^2 + b^2)$, the second inequality is due to \eqref{eq:est-3}, and the last inequality follows from the estimate $\sqrt{ab} \leq \frac{1}{2\varepsilon}a+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}b$ for any $a,b \geq 0$ and $\varepsilon > 0$.
Multiplying both sides of \eqref{eq:est-4} with $2\sqrt{N\alpha_t}$ and rearranging the terms gives
%
\be\label{eq:est-5}
N\alpha_t \vartheta \|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + \sqrt{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t} \|x^t - x^{t-1}\| \leq \frac{C_\rho}{1-\vartheta} [\delta_{t-1}-\delta_t] + N\alpha_t (1-\vartheta) [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}.
\ee
%
for all $t \geq t_0$. By \eqref{eq:kl-step}, we have $\alpha_t \leq 1/(\sqrt{2}{\sf L} N) $ and thus, there further exists $\bar{\vartheta} > 0$ with $\sqrt{1-{\sf L}N\alpha_t} \geq \bar{\vartheta}$ for all $t \geq t_0$. Finally, summing the inequality \eqref{eq:est-5} over $t = t_0+1,\dots,T$ yields
%
\be \label{eq:festi-kl} N\vartheta \sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \alpha_{t} \|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + \bar\vartheta \sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \|x^{t}-x^{t-1}\| \leq \frac{C_\rho}{1-\vartheta}[\delta_{t_0}-\delta_T] + N(1-\vartheta) \sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \alpha_{t} [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}. \ee
%
Since $\varrho$ is continuous and $\varrho(0) = 0$, we have $\delta_T \to 0$ as $T \to \infty$. Thus, taking the limit $T \to \infty$ in \eqref{eq:festi-kl} and invoking \eqref{eq:kl-step}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\alpha_t\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\| <\infty \quad\text{and} \quad \sum_{t=1}^{\infty}\|x^t-x^{t-1}\|<\infty.
\end{align*}
Consequently, by definition, the second estimate implies that the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is a Cauchy sequence, and hence is convergent. This, together with the result that every accumulation point of $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is a stationary point of $f$ as shown in \Cref{Prop:convergence}, yields that $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some stationary point $x^*$ of $f$.
\end{proof}
As can be observed from the statements of \Cref{lemma:descent}, \Cref{lemma:approx descent}, \Cref{Prop:convergence}, and \Cref{thm:finite sum}, we impose an increasing number of conditions on the step sizes $\{\alpha_{t}\}_{t\geq 1}$ in order to obtain stronger convergence results. Though the explicit estimate of $\sG$ in \eqref{eq:G} and the last condition in \eqref{eq:kl-step} are less intuitive at this stage, we will carefully discuss the choices of the step sizes $\{\alpha_{t}\}_{t\geq 1}$ in the coming subsection. Since our results are primarily of asymptotic nature, we note that the assumption $\alpha_t \in (0,1/(\sqrt{2}{\sL}N)]$, $t \in \N$, can be relaxed and only needs be satisfied for all $t \geq t_1$ and some $t_1 \in \N$. The convergence properties derived in \Cref{Prop:convergence} and \Cref{thm:finite sum} still hold if we impose such a weaker condition on the step sizes $\{\alpha_{t}\}_{t\geq 1}$. We will exploit this straightforward observation in the next subsections.
We close the current subsection by commenting on the slightly stronger variant of the KL inequality we utilized; see \Cref{Def:KL-property} and the discussion below it for details. The absolute value in this variant (see \eqref{eq:kl-ineq}) is crucial for our analysis. In order to illustrate this comment let us assume that we use the classical KL inequality, i.e., without taking the absolute value of ``$f(x) - f^*$''. The non-descent nature of \RR implies that the term $f(x^t) - f^*$ is not necessarily non-negative for all $t\geq 0$. Recall that the desingularizing function $\varrho$ is defined on $[0,\eta)$ for some $\eta>0$. Therefore, in this case, the last inequality in \eqref{eq:est-1} and its subsequent derivations do not hold since $\varrho'(f(x^{t-1}) - f^*)$ is not well defined. Furthermore, the stronger structural condition ``$\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$'' on the desingularizing function $\varrho$ is utilized in \eqref{eq:est-1} to separate the error term $u_{t-1}$ and the function value $|f(x^{t-1})-f^*|$. In this way, the conventional KL inequality for $f$ can be applied and we can avoid imposing stringent and uncertain KL assumptions for the auxiliary terms ``$f(x^{t-1})-f^*+u_{t-1}$''.
\subsection{The Choice of Diminishing Step Sizes}\label{sec:step sizes}
In this subsection, we discuss the possible choices of the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ in \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Using these choices, we will also examine the constant $\sG$ defined in \eqref{eq:G} and the conditions in \eqref{eq:kl-step}.
It is well-known that the non-descent nature of an algorithm prevents it converging to a stationary point if a constant step size rule is used. One of the key ingredients of the former convergence analysis for \RR is the utilization of proper diminishing step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$, which satisfies the third condition in \eqref{eq:kl-step}. In this subsection, we discuss the following very popular diminishing step size rule:
%
\be\label{eq:step size}
\alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad t = 1,2,\ldots
\ee
%
where $\alpha>0$, $\beta\geq 0$, and $\gamma>0$ are preset parameters.
With such a diminishing step size rule, the first three conditions in \eqref{eq:kl-step} can be ensured as long as
\be \label{eq:something}
t \geq (\sqrt{2}{\sL}N\alpha)^\frac{1}{\gamma}-\beta \quad \text{and} \quad \gamma \in \left( \frac13, 1\right].
\ee
Before verifying the last condition in \eqref{eq:kl-step}, let us give a more explicit bound for $\sG$ in \eqref{eq:G}. Note that the two most popular choices of $\gamma$ in the diminishing step size rule \eqref{eq:step size} are $\gamma = \frac{1}{2}$ and $\gamma = 1$. For simplicity, let us set $\alpha = {1}/{(\sqrt{2}\sL N)}$ and $\beta = 0$. If we set $\gamma = \frac12$, then we have $\sum_{t=1}^{\infty} 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3 = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{t^{3/2}} \approx 1.85$,
which gives $\sG \leq 7 \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right)$. In the case $\gamma = 1$, it follows $\sum_{t=1}^{\infty} 2\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3 = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{t^{3}} \approx 0.85$,
which implies $\sG \leq 3 \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right)$.
It can be seen that the constant $\sG$ typically has a moderate relation to the initial function value gap for both of the two popular choices of $\gamma$.
With an additional requirement on $\gamma$, the following lemma clarifies the last condition in \eqref{eq:kl-step}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:step size}
Let $\theta \in (0,1]$ be given and let the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be updated according to
\[
\alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad \alpha > 0, \quad \beta \geq 0, \quad \gamma \in \left(\frac{1+\theta}{1+3\theta},1\right].
\]
Then, we have
\be\label{eq:esti-eps}
\frac{\underline{a}_\theta}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}} \leq {\sum}_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t \left[{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty\alpha_j^3\right]^{\theta} \leq \frac{\bar{a}_\theta}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}}, \quad \forall \ k \geq 1,
\ee
where $\underline{a}_\theta, \bar{a}_\theta>0$ are two positive numerical constants.
\end{lemma}
%\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:step size}
% Let the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ in \Cref{algo:gm-shuff} be updated according to \eqref{eq:step size} with
% \[
% \gamma \in \left(\frac{1+\theta}{1+3\theta},1\right],
% \]
% where $\theta \in [0,1)$ is the KL exponent. Then, we have
% \be\label{eq:esti-eps}
% \frac{\underline{A}_\theta}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}} \leq \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1} \leq \frac{\bar{A}_\theta}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}}, \quad \forall \ k \geq 1,
% \ee
% where $u_t$ is defined in \eqref{eq:ut} and $\underline{A}_\theta, \bar{A}_\theta>0$ are two positive numerical constants.
%\end{lemma}
A detailed proof of \cref{lemma:step size} is given in \cref{app:sec-pf-step}. \cref{lemma:step size} can be utilized to provide tight lower and upper bounds on $\sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}$ for any $k\geq 1$ if $\varrho \in \mathcal L$ is a {\L}ojasiewicz function. More specifically, based on the step size choice \cref{eq:step size}, \cref{thm:finite sum}, and \cref{lemma:step size}, we can formulate the following general convergence result. %, which is important to our convergence rate analysis.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:conv} Suppose that the assumptions \ref{A1}, \ref{B1}, and \ref{B3} are satisfied and let the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be generated by \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Let us further consider the following family of step size strategies:
%
\[ \alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad \alpha > 0, \quad \beta \geq 0, \quad \gamma \in \left(\frac{1}{2},1\right]. \]
%
Then, $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ has finite length and converges to some stationary point $x^*$ of $f$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} According to \cref{lemma:uniform KL}, the mapping $f$ satisfies the KL inequality \eqref{eq:uni-kl} with a uniformized desingularizing function $\varrho \in \mathcal L$ with $\varrho(x) = c x^{1-\theta}$, $c > 0$, and $\theta \in [0,1)$. This yields $[\varrho^\prime(x)]^{-1} = x^\theta / (c(1-\theta))$ and hence, due to \eqref{eq:something} and \cref{lemma:step size} all conditions in \eqref{eq:kl-step} are satisfied for all $t$ sufficiently large if $\gamma \in ((1+\theta)/(1+3\theta),1]$. Since the KL inequality \eqref{eq:uni-kl} also holds for every desingularizing function $\bar\varrho(x) := c(1-\theta) x^{1-\bar\theta}/(1-\bar\theta)$ with
%
\[ \bar \theta \in [0,1) \quad \text{and} \quad \bar \theta \geq \theta, \]
%
(after potentially decreasing $\eta$ to $\eta < 1$) we can choose $\bar \theta$ sufficiently close to $1$ such that $\gamma \in ((1+\bar\theta)/(1+3\bar\theta),1]$. Thus, in this situation \cref{thm:finite sum} is applicable which finishes the proof of \cref{cor:conv}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Convergence Rate Under the {\L}ojasiewicz Inequality} \label{sec:rate}
We have shown that the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ generated by \Cref{algo:gm-shuff} will converge to a stationary point $x^*$ of $f$. As illustrated in the last subsection, when the desingularizing functions $\varrho$ can be chosen from the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$, then this convergence can be guaranteed for a large family of step sizes $\alpha_t = \mathcal O(1/t^\gamma)$ with $\gamma \in (\frac12,1]$. In such case, it is also typically possible to obtain the convergence rates of descent algorithms by applying the standard KL inequality-based analysis framework; see, e.g., \cite[Theorem 2]{AttBol09}. In this subsection, our goal is to establish the convergence rate of \RRp, relying on the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality and the corresponding KL exponent $\theta$ of the stationary point $x^*$; see \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq} for a concrete definition.
Throughout this subsection, the desingularizing function $\varrho$ is a {\L}ojasiewicz function selected from $\mathcal L$ (see \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz function}), i.e., it satisfies $\varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}$, where $c>0$ and $\theta \in [0,1)$. Then, the KL inequality \eqref{eq:kl-ineq} and its uniformized version \eqref{eq:uni-kl} simplify to the following {{\L}ojasiewicz inequality}:
\be\label{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq}
|f(x)-f^*|^\theta \leq c(1-\theta) \|\nabla{f}(x)\|,
\ee
where $\theta$ is the KL exponent of $f$ at $x^*$.
Before presenting our convergence rate analysis, let us restate two results that have been shown in \cite[Lemma 4 and 5]{Pol87}, which are crucial to our analysis.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:rate} Let $\{z_k\}_{k\geq 1}$ be a non-negative sequence and let $b \geq 0$, $d, p, q > 0$, $s \in (0,1)$, and $\tau > s$ be given constants.
\begin{enumerate} [label=(\alph*),topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
\item Suppose that the sequence $\{z_k\}_{k\geq 1}$ satisfies
%
\[
z_{k+1} \leq \left(1- \frac{q}{k+b} \right) z_k + \frac{d}{(k+b)^{p+1}}, \quad \forall \ k\geq 1.
\]
%
Then, if $q > p$, it holds that $ z_k \leq \frac{d}{q-p}\cdot (k+b)^{-p} + o((k+b)^{-p})$ for all sufficiently large $k$.
%
%\[
%\begin{cases} z_k \leq \frac{d}{q-p}\cdot (k+b)^{-p} + o((k+b)^{-p}) & \text{if } q > p, \\ z_k = \mathcal O({\log(k+b)}(k+b)^{-p}) & \text{if } q = p, \\ z_k = \mathcal O(k^{-q}) & \text{if } q < p. \end{cases}
%\]
\item Suppose that the sequence $\{z_k\}_{k\geq 1}$ satisfies
%
\[ z_{k+1} \leq \left(1- \frac{q}{(k+b)^s} \right) z_k + \frac{d}{(k+b)^{\tau}}. \]
%
Then, it follows $z_k \leq \frac{d}{q} \cdot (k+b)^{s-\tau} + o((k+b)^{s-\tau})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
%At this point, let us take a closer look at possible step size rules that satisfy the requirements in \cref{Prop:convergence} and \cref{thm:finite sum}. Popular choices for the step size $\alpha_t$ are
%%
%\[ \alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad \alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma \log^\zeta(t + \delta)}, \quad \text{or} \quad \frac{\alpha \log^\zeta(t + \delta)}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad \alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta, \zeta > 0. \]
%%
%In the following, we focus on the first choice and set $\alpha_t := \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}$ for some suitable $\alpha, \gamma>0 $, $\beta \geq 0$. The conditions in \cref{eq:ass-step} are then satisfied if
%%
%\[ \gamma \in (1/3,1] \quad \text{and} \quad t \geq \max\left\{({\sf L}N\alpha)^\frac{1}{\gamma} - \beta, 1-\mathrm{sign}(\beta)\right\}. \]
%%
We note that \cref{lemma:rate} is a slight extension of the original results in \cite{Pol87} as it contains the additional scalar $b \geq 0$. Since the proof of \cref{lemma:rate} is identical to the ones given in \cite{Pol87}, we will omit an explicit verification here. We now present our second main result. %In order to simplify the overall presentation of the convergence rates, we will concentrate on step sizes of the form $\alpha_t = \alpha/k^\gamma$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:convergence rate} Suppose that the conditions stated in \cref{cor:conv} are satisfied and let us consider the following family of step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$:
%
\[ \alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad \alpha > 0, \quad \beta \geq 0, \quad \gamma \in \left(\frac{1}{2},1\right]. \]
%
Then, the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some stationary point $x^*$ of $f$. Let $\theta \in [0,1)$ further denote the KL exponent of $f$ at $x^*$. Then, for all sufficiently large $t$, we have
%
\[\|x^t - x^*\| = \begin{cases} \mathcal O(t^{-(2\gamma-1)}) & \text{if} \; \theta < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1} \; \text{and} \; \gamma \in (\frac12,1], \\ \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{(1-\theta)(1-\gamma)}{2\theta-1}}) & \text{if} \; \theta \geq \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1} \; \text{and} \; \gamma \in (\frac12,1). \end{cases} \]
%
Moreover, in the special case $\theta = \frac12$ and $\gamma = 1$, if we set $\alpha > 2c^2/N$ where $c$ is the associated KL constant, then it follows $\|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-1})$.
\begin{comment}
%Under the setting of \Cref{thm:finite sum}. In addition, assume that the desingularization function $\varrho$ in \cref{Def:KL-property} is selected from the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$ and the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ are updated according to \eqref{eq:step size} with $\gamma \in \left(\frac{1+\theta}{1+3\theta},1\right]$.
Then, the following assertions hold for sufficiently large $t$:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
\item If $\theta=0$, then the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to $x^*$ in finite iterations. \comm{(Check again)}
%\item If $\theta\in(0,\frac12)$, then there exists a constant $\tilde c>0$ such that
%\[\|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c\cdot t^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]}.\]
%Moreover, if we set $\gamma=1$ and $\alpha>\frac{8c^{\frac{1}{\theta}} \theta(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}{N}$, then
%\[\|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c \cdot t^{-2\theta}.\]
\item If $\theta \in (0,1)$, then we have
\[\|x^t - x^*\| = \begin{cases} \mathcal O(t^{-(2\gamma-1)}) & \text{if} \; \theta < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1} \; \text{and} \; \gamma \in (\frac12,1], \\ \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{(1-\theta)(1-\gamma)}{2\theta-1}}) & \text{if} \; \theta \geq \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1} \; \text{and} \; \gamma \in (\frac12,1). \end{cases} \]
Moreover, in the special case $\theta = \frac12$ and $\gamma = 1$, if we set $\alpha > 2c^2/N$ where $c$ is the associated KL constant, then it follows $\|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-1})$.
%\item If $\theta\in(\frac12,1)$ and we set $\gamma < \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$, then there exists a constant $\tilde c>0$ such that
%\[ \|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c \cdot t^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)]}. \]
%Moreover, if we set $\alpha > \frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1} \frac{C_\theta}{\underline{A}_\theta^{(2\theta - 1)/ (1-\theta)} } $ and $\gamma = \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$, where $\underline{A}_\theta$ is a numerical constant appeared in \eqref{eq:esti-eps} and $C_\theta=\left( 2^{\frac{4\theta-1}{1-\theta}}c^{\frac{1}{1-\theta}}(1-\theta) \right) / N^{\frac{\theta}{1-\theta}}$, then
%\[ \|x^t - x^*\| \leq t^{-\frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}}. \]
\end{enumerate}
%Here, $x^*$ is some stationary point of $f$.
\end{comment}
\end{thm}
%
\begin{proof}
%Since the desingularizing function $\varrho\in \mathcal L$ is a {\L}ojasiewicz function satisfying $\varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}$ with exponent $\theta \in [0,1)$. Then, we have $\varrho^\prime(x) = c(1-\theta)x^{-\theta}$ and due to the subadditivity of the mapping $x \mapsto x^\theta$, it readily follows $[\varrho^\prime(x+y)]^{-1} \leq [\varrho^\prime(x)]^{-1} + [\varrho^\prime(y)]^{-1}$ for all $x,y$. Consequently, in this case, \Cref{Assumption:2} \ref{B3} holds with $C_\rho = 1$.
For simplicity and without loss of generality, we assume $\beta = 0$ throughout the proof. Convergence of $\{x^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ was established in \cref{cor:conv}. Furthermore, as shown in the proof of \cref{thm:finite sum}, the sequence $\{f(x^t)+u_t\}_{t \geq 1}$ monotonically decreases and converges to $f^*$. Hence, there exists $t_1 \geq 1$ such that $f(x^t)-f^*+u_t < 1$ for all $t \geq t_1$. Moreover, due to $\alpha_t \to 0$, we may increase $t_1$ so as to ensure $\alpha_t \leq 1/(\sqrt{2}\sL N)$ for all $t \geq t_1$. Throughout this proof, we always assume that $t \geq \max\{t_0, t_1\} =: t_2$ is sufficiently large, where $t_0$ is defined in the proof of \cref{thm:finite sum}. Since the desingularizing function $\varrho$ is a {\L}ojasiewicz function chosen from $\mathcal L$, condition \eqref{eq:qrho} holds with $C_\rho = 1$ (see the discussion after \Cref{Def:KL-property}). Thus, setting $\vartheta = \frac12$ and $T = \infty$ in \cref{eq:festi-kl}, it follows
\be\label{eq:rate-est-1}
\frac{N}{2} \sum_{t=k}^{T} \alpha_{t} \|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + \bar\vartheta \sum_{t=k}^{T} \|x^{t}-x^{t-1}\| \leq 2\delta_{k-1} + \frac{N}{2} \sum_{t=k}^{T} \alpha_{t} [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}
\ee
for every $k \geq t_2 + 1$. According to \cref{lemma:step size}, finiteness of the error term ${\sum}_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t [{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty\alpha_j^3]^{\tau}$ requires the exponent $\tau \in (0,1]$ and the step size parameter $\gamma \in (\frac12,1]$ to satisfy the condition
%
\[ \gamma > \frac{1+\tau}{1+3\tau} \quad \iff \quad \tau > \frac{1-\gamma}{3\gamma-1}. \]
%
Let the associated desingularizing mapping $\varrho$ for the limit point $x^*$ be given by $\varrho(x) = cx^{1-\theta}$. As in the proof of \cref{cor:conv} and since the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq} also holds for every exponent $[0,1) \ni \tau \geq \theta$, we can work with the following adjusted exponent and KL function
%
\[ \tau = \tau(\varepsilon) := \max\left\{\frac{1-\gamma}{3\gamma-1},\theta\right\} + \varepsilon \quad \text{and} \quad \varrho_\tau(x) = \frac{c(1-\theta)}{1-\tau}x^{1-\tau}, \]
%
where $\varepsilon \geq 0$ is chosen such that $\tau \in [\frac12,0)$ and $\tau > \frac{1-\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$. Using the adjusted KL function $\varrho_\tau$ in the definition of $\delta_t$, we first obtain
%
\be\label{eq:rate-est-2}
\begin{aligned}
\delta_t = \varrho(f(x^t)-f^* + u_t) & \leq c (f(x^t)-f^* + u_t)^{\tau-\theta} (|f(x^t)-f^*| + u_t)^{1-\tau} \\
& = c (f(x^t)-f^* + u_t)^{\tau-\theta} [ c(1-\theta) \cdot [\varrho_\tau^\prime(|f(x^t)-f^*| + u_t)]^{-1} ]^{\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}} \\ & \leq c^{\frac{1}{\tau}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\tau}-1}[ \|\nabla f(x^t)\| + [\varrho_\tau^\prime(u_t)]^{-1}]^{\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}},
\end{aligned}
\ee
for all $t \geq t_2$, where the second line is due to the special structure of the desingularizing function $\varrho_\tau$ and the third line follows from $\tau \geq \theta$, condition \eqref{eq:qrho}, and the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq}.
Combining \eqref{eq:rate-est-1} and \eqref{eq:rate-est-2}, this yields
\be
\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rate-est}
\sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t [\|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| &+ [\varrho_\tau^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}] + \frac{2\bar\vartheta}{N} \sum_{t=k}^\infty \|x^t - x^{t-1}\| \\ & \leq \frac{4c^{\frac{1}{\tau}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\tau}-1}}{N} [ \|\nabla f(x^{k-1})\| + [\varrho_\tau^\prime(u_{k-1})]^{-1}]^{\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}} + 2 \sum_{t=k}^{\infty} \alpha_{t} [\varrho_\tau^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1} \end{aligned}
\ee
for every $k \geq t_2 + 1$. Upon setting
\[
\varepsilon_k := 2 \sum_{t=k}^{\infty} \alpha_{t} [\varrho_\tau^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1} \quad \text{and} \quad \Gamma_k := \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t [\|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + [\varrho_\tau^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}] + \frac{2\bar\vartheta}{N} \sum_{t=k}^\infty \|x^t - x^{t-1}\|,
\]
%
the inequality \eqref{eq:rate-est} can be rewritten as
%
\be \label{eq:kl-to-gam}
\Gamma_k \leq \frac{4c^{\frac{1}{\tau}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\tau}-1}}{N} \left [ \frac{\Gamma_{k}-\Gamma_{k+1}}{\alpha_k} \right]^{\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}} + \varepsilon_k.
\ee
%
Furthermore, applying \cref{lemma:step size} and recalling $u_{t-1} = 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \sum_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3$, we can derive the following bound for the error term $\varepsilon_k$:
%
\be \label{eq:err-eps} \varepsilon_k \leq 2^{1+\tau} ({\sf G}{\sf L}^3N^3)^\tau \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t \left[{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3 \right]^\tau \leq \frac{2^{1+\tau} ({\sf G}{\sf L}^3N^3)^\tau\bar a_\tau}{k^{(1+3\tau)\gamma-(1+\tau)}} =: \frac{A_\tau}{{k^{(1+3\tau)\gamma-(1+\tau)}}}, \ee
%
where $\bar a_\tau$ is the constant introduced in \cref{lemma:step size}, see also \cref{app:sec-pf-step}. Note that by the triangle inequality and the fact that $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to $x^*$, we have
\[
\|x^{k-1} -x^*\|\leq \sum_{t=k}^\infty \|x^t - x^{t-1}\| \leq \frac{N}{2\bar\vartheta} \cdot \Gamma_k.
\]
Thus, in order to establish the rate of $\|x^k -x^*\| \rightarrow 0$, it suffices to derive the rate of $\Gamma_{k+1} \rightarrow 0$ based on the recursion \eqref{eq:kl-to-gam}. Next, we will show the convergence rates depending on the value of the exponent $\tau$.
%
%Equipped with these explicit lower and upper bounds for the error terms $\{\varepsilon_m\}$, we now further discuss the inequality \cref{eq:kl-to-gam} to establish rates of convergence.
\textbf{Case 1:} $\tau =\frac12$. %Note that we have shown $f(x^t)\rightarrow f^*$. Then, we have $|f(x^t) - f^*| < 1$ for large enough $t$. This implies that we only need to consider $\theta = \frac12$ in this case since if the function $f$ satisfies the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq} with exponent $\theta \in (0,\frac12)$, then it also satisfies the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality with exponent $\theta = \frac12$.
In this case, the estimates in \cref{eq:kl-to-gam} and \cref{eq:err-eps} simplify to
\[
\Gamma_{k+1}\leq\left[1-\frac{N\alpha_k}{4(1-\theta)c^2}\right]\Gamma_{k}+\frac{N\alpha_k\varepsilon_k}{4(1-\theta)c^2} \leq \left[1-\frac{N\alpha}{4(1-\theta)c^2}\frac{1}{k^\gamma} \right]\Gamma_{k}+\frac{NA_{1/2}\alpha}{4(1-\theta)c^2} \frac{1}{k^{(7\gamma-3)/2}}.
\]
%
We can now apply \Cref{lemma:rate} to derive the rate of convergence of $\{\Gamma_k\}$ and $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$. In the case $\gamma<1$, the rate is given by ${(7\gamma - 3)}/{2}-\gamma={(5\gamma-3)}/{2}$ and by \Cref{lemma:rate} (b), we obtain
\[
\|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{5\gamma-3}{2}}).
\]
Moreover, if we set $\alpha>\frac{4(1-\theta)c^2}{N}$ and $\gamma = 1$, then \Cref{lemma:rate} (a) yields $\|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-1})$.
\textbf{Case 2:} $\tau \in (\frac12,1)$, $\gamma \neq 1$. In this case, we have $\frac{1-\tau}{\tau} = \frac{1}{\tau} - 1 \in (0,1)$. Hence, invoking Minkowski's inequality---i.e. $(|a|+|b|)^p \leq 2^{p-1}(|a|^p + |b|^p)$, $p > 1$, $a,b \in \R$---in \eqref{eq:kl-to-gam} provides
%
\be \label{eq:esti-nr5}
\Gamma_k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}} \leq C_\tau \left[ \frac{\Gamma_k-\Gamma_{k+1}}{\alpha_k} \right] + 2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}} \varepsilon_k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}},
\ee
where $C_\tau:= 2^{\frac{4\tau-1}{1-\tau}}c^{\frac{1}{1-\tau}}(1-\theta) / N^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}$. We now discuss three different sub-cases.
\textbf{Sub-Case 2.1:} $\tau < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$. Due to $\frac{\tau}{1-\tau} > 1$, the function $x \mapsto h_\tau(x) := x^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}$ is convex when $x\geq 0$, i.e., we have
%
\[h_\tau(y) - h_\tau(x) \geq \frac{\tau}{1-\tau} \cdot x^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}} (y-x) \quad \forall~x,y\in\R_{+}. \]
%
Let $\sigma > 0$ be an arbitrary constant. Rearranging the terms in \eqref{eq:esti-nr5}, setting $\nu = (1+3\tau)\gamma-(1+\tau)$, and using \eqref{eq:err-eps} and the convexity of $h_\tau$, this yields
%
\be \label{eq:big-estimate}
\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{k+1} &\leq \Gamma_k - \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau} \Gamma_{k}^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}} + \frac{2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}}{C_\tau} \alpha_k \varepsilon_k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}} \\
& \leq \Gamma_k - \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau} [ h_\tau(\Gamma_k) - h_\tau(\sigma / k^\nu)] - \frac{\sigma^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}}{C_\tau} \frac{\alpha_k}{k^{\frac{\nu\tau}{1-\tau}}} + \frac{2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}A_\tau^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}}{C_\tau} \frac{\alpha_k}{k^{\frac{\nu\tau}{1-\tau}}} \\
&\leq \Gamma_k - \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau} \frac{\tau}{1-\tau} \left(\frac{\sigma}{k^\nu}\right)^{\frac{2\tau -1}{1-\tau}} \left[\Gamma_k - \frac{\sigma}{k^\nu}\right] + \left(2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}A_\tau^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}-\sigma^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}\right) \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau k^{\frac{\nu\tau}{1-\tau}}} \\
& = \left [ 1 - \frac{\sigma^\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}\tau}{C_\tau(1-\tau)} \frac{\alpha}{k^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}\cdot \nu+\gamma}} \right] \Gamma_k + \left({2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}A_\tau^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}+\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}\sigma^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}\right) \cdot \frac{\alpha}{C_\tau k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}\cdot\nu+\gamma}} .
\end{aligned}
\ee
%
Here, let us mention that the application of the convexity of $h_\tau(x)$ is motivated by the proof of \cite[Lemma 2.2]{HuLiYu20}. Using some simple algebraic manipulations, it can be shown that the conditions $\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}\cdot \nu + \gamma < 1$ and $\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}\cdot \nu + \gamma = 1$ are equivalent to $\tau < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$ and $\tau = \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$, respectively.
%
Consequently, in this sub-case, \Cref{lemma:rate} (b) is applicable and we have $ \|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-\nu}) = \mathcal O(t^{-[(1+3\tau)\gamma - (1+\tau)]})$.
%For simplicity, we set $\beta = 0$, $\omega := \frac{2\theta-1}{1-\theta}$, and $C_\omega := 2^{\omega}+\omega$. Then, using the estimates in \cref{eq:esti-eps}, we obtain
%
%\be\label{eq:rate-pre-1}
%\Gamma_{k+1} \leq \left[ 1 - \frac{\underline{A}_\theta^\omega\alpha}{C_\theta} \frac{1}{k^{{\sf E}_1(\gamma,\theta)}}\right] \Gamma_k + \frac{C_\omega(2\bar A_\theta)^\frac{\theta}{1-\theta}\alpha}{C_\theta} \frac{1}{k^{{\sf E}_2(\gamma,\theta)}},
%\ee
%
%where
%
%\begin{align*}
%{\sf E}_1(\gamma,\theta) & := [(1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)]\frac{2\theta-1}{1-\theta} + \gamma = \frac{2\theta(3\theta-1)}{1-\theta} \cdot \gamma - \frac{(1+\theta)(2\theta-1)}{1-\theta}, \\
% {\sf E}_2(\gamma,\theta) & := [(1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)]\frac{\theta}{1-\theta} + \gamma = \frac{3\theta^2+1}{1-\theta} \cdot \gamma - \frac{(1+\theta)\theta}{1-\theta}.
%\end{align*}
%Let us notice that ${\sf E}_1(\gamma,\theta) = 1$ if and only if $\gamma^\star = \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$. Moreover, we have $\frac{\theta}{3\theta-1} \leq 1$ if and only if $\theta \geq \frac12$ (or if $\theta < \frac13$) and the condition $\frac{1+\theta}{1+3\theta} < \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1} $ holds for all $\theta < 1$. We further obtain ${\sf E}_2(\gamma^\star,\theta) = \frac{2\theta}{3\theta-1} = 1 + \frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}$.
%
%
%Notice that in our case, we very likely have $c \equiv \frac{\underline{A}_\theta^\delta \alpha}{C_\theta} > \frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1} \equiv p$. Hence, in the case $\gamma \equiv \gamma^\star = \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$, we obtain
%%
%\[ \Gamma_t = \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}}) \quad \implies \quad \|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}}) \quad \text{as} \quad t \to \infty. \]
%
%Notice that in the case $\gamma < \gamma^\star$, the optimal rate is given by ${\sf E}_2(\gamma,\theta) - {\sf E}_1(\gamma,\theta) = (1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)$ (by \cref{lemma:rate} (ii)), i.e., we have
%%
%\[ \|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)]}) \quad \text{as} \quad t \to \infty, \]
%%
%which is smaller than the rate $\frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}$ for the choice $\gamma \equiv \gamma^\star$.
%Notice that ${\sf E}_1(\gamma,\theta) = 1$ if $\gamma = \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$. Thus, if we set $\gamma < \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$, then we can apply \Cref{lemma:rate} (b) to \eqref{eq:rate-pre-1} to obtain
\textbf{Sub-Case 2.2:} $\tau = \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$. In this case, we obtain $\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}\cdot \nu + \gamma = 1 + \frac{1-\tau}{3\tau-1}$. Thus, if we choose the constant $\sigma$ in sub-case 2.1 such that $\sigma^\mu > {C_\tau(1-\tau)^2}/[(3\tau-1)\tau\alpha]$ where $\mu = (2\tau-1)/{(1-\tau)}$, we can apply \Cref{lemma:rate} (a) to \eqref{eq:big-estimate} to infer
\[
\|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{1-\tau}{3\tau-1}}).
\]
%\textbf{Case 3:} $\theta = (0,\frac12)$. In this case, we have $\frac{1-\theta}{\theta}>1.$ Since $\|\nabla f(x^{t})\|\to0$, $[\varrho^\prime(u_{t})]^{-1}\to0$, and $\|x^{t+1} - x^{t}\|\to0$ as $t\to\infty$, then for large enough $k$, it follows from \cref{eq:kl-to-gam} that
%\[
%\Gamma_{k+1}\leq\left[1-\frac{N}{4c^{\frac{1}{\theta}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}\alpha_k\right]\Gamma_{k}+\frac{N}{4c^{\frac{1}{\theta}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}\alpha_k\varepsilon_k.
%\]
%Then, applying the estimate in \cref{eq:esti-eps}, we obtain
%\[
%\Gamma_{k+1}\leq\left[1-\frac{N\alpha}{4c^{\frac{1}{\theta}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}\frac{1}{k^\gamma}\right]\Gamma_{k}+\frac{N\bar A_\theta\alpha}{2c^{\frac{1}{\theta}}(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}\frac{1}{k^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta) + \gamma}}.
%\]
%If we set $\gamma<1$, then we can apply \cref{lemma:rate} (b) to the above recursion to obtain
%\[ \|x^k - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]}). \]
%Furthermore, if we set $\alpha > \frac{8c^{\frac{1}{\theta}} \theta(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}{N}$ and $\gamma = 1$, then
%we can apply \cref{lemma:rate} (a) to obtain
%\[ \|x^k - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-2\theta}). \]
%\comm{This is the best rate we can get by the metric function $\Gamma_{m}$, because $\varepsilon_m=\Theta\left(m^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]}\right)$}.
\textbf{Sub-Case 2.3:} $\tau > \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$. Let $\sigma > \frac{C_\tau(1-\tau)^2(1-\gamma)}{(2\tau-1)\tau\alpha}$ be a given constant and let us set $\beta_k := (\sigma k^{\gamma-1})^\frac{1-\tau}{2\tau-1}$. By repeating the steps of sub-case 2.1, we obtain
%
\begin{align*}
\Gamma_{k+1} &\leq \Gamma_k - \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau} [ h_\tau(\Gamma_k) - h_\tau(\beta_k)] - \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau} h_\tau(\beta_k) + \frac{2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}}{C_\tau} \alpha_k \varepsilon_k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}} \\
&\leq \Gamma_k - \frac{\alpha_k}{C_\tau} \frac{\tau}{1-\tau} \frac{\sigma}{k^{1-\gamma}} \left[\Gamma_k - \left(\frac{\sigma}{k^{1-\gamma}}\right)^{\frac{1-\tau}{2\tau -1}}\right] + \frac{2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}A_\tau^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}{C_\tau} \cdot \frac{\alpha}{k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}\cdot\nu+\gamma}}\\
& = \left [ 1 - \frac{\tau\sigma}{C_\tau(1-\tau)} \frac{\alpha}{k} \right] \Gamma_k + \frac{\tau\sigma^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}{C_\tau(1-\tau)} \frac{\alpha}{k^{\frac{\tau}{2\tau-1}\cdot(1-\gamma)+\gamma}} + \frac{2^{\frac{2\tau-1}{1-\tau}}A_\tau^\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}}{C_\tau} \cdot \frac{\alpha}{k^{\frac{\tau}{1-\tau}\cdot\nu+\gamma}}.
\end{align*}
Next, we discuss the last two terms of this estimate to determine the leading order. Using $\tau > 0$, $\gamma > \frac12$, and some algebraic manipulations, we can show
%
\begin{align*} \frac{\tau}{2\tau-1} (1-\gamma) < \frac{\tau}{1-\tau} [(1+3\tau)\gamma - (1+\tau)] \; \iff \; 2\tau^2 - \gamma(1-\tau) < (2\tau-1)(1+3\tau)\gamma \; \iff \; \tau > \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}. \end{align*}
%
Hence, there exists $C_\tau^\prime(\sigma)$ such that we have
%
\[ \Gamma_{k+1} \leq \left [ 1 - \frac{\tau\sigma}{C_\tau(1-\tau)} \frac{\alpha}{k} \right] \Gamma_k + \frac{C_\tau^\prime(\sigma)}{k^{\frac{\tau}{2\tau-1}\cdot(1-\gamma)+\gamma}} \]
%
for all $k$ sufficiently large. Hence, due to $\frac{\tau}{2\tau-1}(1-\gamma)+\gamma = 1 + \frac{(1-\tau)(1-\gamma)}{2\tau-1}$, the choice of $\sigma$ ensures that \Cref{lemma:rate} (a) is applicable. This establishes
%
\[ \|x^t - x^*\| = \mathcal O(t^{-\frac{(1-\tau)(1-\gamma)}{2\tau-1}}). \]
%
Next, we express the obtained rates in terms of the initial KL exponent $\theta$. We first notice that the mapping $\psi_\gamma : [\frac12,1) \to (0,1)$,
%
\[\psi_\gamma(\tau) := \begin{cases} (3\gamma-1)\tau+\gamma-1 & \text{if } \tau < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}, \\ \frac{1-\tau}{3\tau-1} & \text{if } \tau = \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}, \\ \frac{(1-\tau)(1-\gamma)}{2\tau -1} & \text{if } \tau > \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}, \end{cases} \quad \quad \gamma \in \left(\frac12,1\right),\]
%
is continuous on $ [\frac12,1)$, increasing on the interval $[\frac12,\frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}]$, and decreasing on $[\frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1},1)$. Hence, in the case $\theta \geq \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$, we have $\tau = \theta + \varepsilon$ and the optimal rate is attained for $\varepsilon = 0$. In the case $\theta < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}$, the rate is maximized if we choose $\tau$ and $\varepsilon$ such that $\tau = {\gamma}/{(3\gamma-1)}$ which yields $\psi_\gamma(\gamma/(3\gamma-1)) = 2\gamma - 1$. Since the function $\gamma \mapsto \phi(\gamma) := \gamma/(3\gamma-1)$ is monotonically decreasing on $(\frac12,1]$ with $\phi(1) = \frac12$, this establishes the rates formulated in \cref{thm:convergence rate} for all pairs $(\theta,\gamma) \in [0,1) \times (\frac12,1)$.
The special case $\theta = \frac12$ and $\gamma = 1$ is fully covered by case 1. Finally, let us consider $(\theta,\gamma)$ satisfying $\gamma = 1$ and $\theta < \tau = {\gamma}/{(3\gamma-1)} = \frac12$. Then, due to $\theta < \tau$ and invoking \eqref{eq:rate-est-2} and $f(x^t)-f^*+u_t \to 0$, the KL-constant $c$ appearing in \eqref{eq:rate-est-2}, \eqref{eq:kl-to-gam}, and $C_\tau$ can be made arbitrarily small in this situation. Consequently, the requirement on $\alpha$ in case 1 holds automatically if $c$ and $C_\tau$ are sufficiently small (i.e., if $t$ is chosen sufficiently large) and no further restrictions are necessary. In addition, the more general case $\beta \neq 0$ can be discussed in an analogous way by invoking \cref{lemma:rate} with $b \equiv \beta$. The proof is complete.
%
%\textbf{Case 3:} $\theta = 0$. In this case, we have $\|\nabla f(x)\|\geq c^{-1}$ from \eqref{eq:Lojasiewicz ineq} for all $x\in U_{\delta,\eta}$, where $U_{\delta,\eta}$ is defined in \Cref{lemma:uniform KL}. Let us assume on the contrary that the algorithm will not terminate in finite iterations. Choosing $\vartheta=\frac12$ and $C_\rho=1$ in \cref{eq:festi-kl}, then we have
%\[ \frac{Nc^{-1}}{4} \sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \alpha_{t} \leq \delta_{t_0}-\delta_T + N \sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \alpha_{t} [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1}
%\]
%for every $T\geq t_0 + 1$.
%However, when $T\rightarrow \infty$, we also have $ \sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \alpha_{t} [\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1} < \infty $, $\delta_{t_0}-\delta_T < \infty$, and $\sum_{t=t_0+1}^{T} \alpha_{t} \rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, the above inequality is a contradiction. This implies that $\{x^{t}\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to $x^*$ in finite number of steps.
%
%The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Compared to other standard KL results \cite{AttBol09,BolSabTeb14}, the derivation of the convergence rates of \RR is more involved due to the more intricate interaction between the KL exponent $\theta$ and the dynamics of the diminishing step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$. In \cref{fig:rate}, we illustrate the obtained rate results graphically.
%Compared to other standard KL results \cite{AttBol09,BolSabTeb14}, the derivation of the convergence rates of \RR is more involved due to the more intricate interaction between the KL exponent $\theta$ and the step size parameter $\gamma$. In \cref{fig:rate}, we illustrate the obtained rate results graphically. %To conclude this subsection, we note that the additional requirements on $\alpha$ in the case $(\theta,\gamma) = (\frac12,1)$ also occur
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5.8cm]{fig/plot_SHUFFKL_02.eps}
\;\quad\;
\includegraphics[height=5.8cm,trim=0ex -1.2ex 0ex -1ex, clip]{fig/plot_SHUFFKL_03.eps} %,
%\caption{Contour and surface plot of the rate $\Psi$ obtained in \cref{Thm:rate_conv} for different parameters $\gamma \in (\frac23,1)$, $\delta = 0$, ($\alpha_k = \mathcal O(k^{-\gamma})$ and $\sigma_k = \mathcal O(1)$), and KL-exponents $\theta \in [\frac12,1)$. The two purple lines correspond to the contour lines $\{(\theta,\gamma): \theta = {2(1-\gamma)}/{\gamma}\}$ and $\{(\theta,\gamma): \theta = {(1-\frac{\gamma}{2})}/{\gamma}\}$ that appear in the proof of \cref{Thm:rate_conv}.}
\caption{Contour and surface plot of the rates $\mathcal O(t^{-p})$ obtained in \cref{thm:convergence rate} as a multifunction of the step size parameter $\gamma \in (\frac12,1]$ and the KL exponent $\theta \in [0,1)$. The blue line depicts the rate along the set $\{(\theta,1): \theta \in [0,\frac12)\} \cup \{(\theta,\gamma): \theta = \gamma/(3\gamma-1)\}$.}
\label{fig:rate}
% \centering
% \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-10pt}
% \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
% \begin{axis}[samples = 50,xlabel = {$\theta$},ylabel = {$\gamma$},domain = 0:0.5,grid,xmin=0,xmax=1,ymin=0.5, ymax=1.05]
% \addplot[name path = A,black,thick] expression { (1+x)/(1+3*x) };
% \addplot[name path = B,blue,thick] expression { 1 };
% \addplot [ivory!30] fill between [of = A and B, soft clip={domain=0:0.5}];
% \end{axis}
% \begin{axis}[samples = 50,xlabel = {$\theta$},ylabel = {$\gamma$},domain = 0.5:1,grid,xmin=0,xmax=1,ymin=0.5, ymax=1.05]
% \addplot[name path = A,black,thick] expression { (1+x)/(1+3*x) };
% \addplot[name path = B,blue,thick] expression { x/(3*x-1) };
% \addplot [ivory!30] fill between [of = A and B, soft clip={domain=0.5:1}];
% \end{axis}
% \end{tikzpicture}
% \hfill
% \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
% \begin{axis}[samples = 50,xlabel = {$\theta$},ylabel = {$q$},domain = 0:0.5,grid,xmin=0,xmax=1,ymin=0, ymax=1.05]
% \addplot[cuhkpl,very thick,densely dashed] expression { 1 };
% \end{axis}
% \begin{axis}[samples = 50,xlabel = {$\theta$},ylabel = {$q$},domain = 0.5:1,grid,xmin=0,xmax=1,ymin=0, ymax=1.05]
% \addplot[cuhkpl,very thick,densely dashed] expression { (1-x)/(3*x-1) };
% \end{axis}
% \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[ht]
% \centering
% \setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-6pt}
% \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
% \begin{axis}[samples = 200,xlabel = {$\theta$},domain = 0.5:1,grid,xmin=0.5,xmax=1,ymin=0,ymax=1]
% \addplot[name path = A,black,thick] expression { (1+x)/(1+3*x) };
% \addplot[name path = B,black,thick] expression { x/(3*x-1) };
% \addplot [ivory!30] fill between [of = A and B, soft clip={domain=0.5:1}];
% \node at (axis cs:0.6,0.65) {$\Theta$};
% \addplot[cuhkpl,thick,densely dashed] expression { (1-x)/(3*x-1) };
% \end{axis}
% \end{tikzpicture}
% \caption{Plot of the feasible step size region $\Theta := \cup_{\theta \in (\frac12,1)}(\frac{1+\theta}{1+3\theta},\frac{\theta}{3\theta-1})$ and of the associated rate $\theta \mapsto \frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}$ for the choice $\gamma = \gamma^\star$.}
% \label{fig:plot}
%\end{figure}
\subsection{Extension to Almost Sure Results} \label{sec:sto-sure}
As we have mentioned, \RR naturally is a stochastic optimization algorithm. Thus, it is paramount to generalize the convergence results derived for a single trajectory and to discuss convergence in a more rigorous stochastic framework. Fortunately, many of our results do not depend on the specific choice of the random permutations $\{\sigma^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ and can be easily transferred to the fully stochastic setting.
In the following, we briefly specify the underlying stochastic model for \RR which allows us to describe the stochastic components of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff} in a unified way. Based on the structure of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}, we can define a suitable sample space $\Omega$ via $\Omega := \Lambda^\infty := \{\omega = (\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3,\dots): \omega_i \in \Lambda \, \text{for all} \, i\}$. Each sample $\omega \in \Omega$ then corresponds to a specific sequence of (randomly chosen) permutations as generated, e.g., by a single run of \Cref{algo:gm-shuff}. Similar to infinite coin toss models, this sample space can be naturally equipped with a $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal F$ and a probability function $\mathbb P$ to form a proper probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\Prob)$.
Given this stochastic model, let us now consider a general stochastic process of iterates $\{X^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ generated by \RRp. So far the analysis in the previous sections was concerned with the investigation of a single trajectory $\{X^t(\omega)\}_{t \geq 1} \equiv \{x^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ for some fixed $\omega \in \Omega$. Since the proof of \cref{Prop:convergence} is purely deterministic, we can immediately infer:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item Under assumption \ref{A1} and the step size condition \eqref{eq:ass-step}, the stochastic process $\{f(X^t)\}_{t \geq 1}$ surely converges to some random variable $F^* : \Omega \to \R$ and we have $\lim_{t \to \infty} \|\nabla f(X^t)\| = 0$ surely (i.e., for all $\omega \in \Omega$).
\end{itemize}
%
Generalizing the KL inequality-based results derived in \Cref{sec:sequential} requires some more subtle changes. In particular, the set of accumulation points $\mathcal C$ defined in \eqref{eq:limit point set} will depend on the selected sample $\omega \in \Omega$ and the trajectories of $\{X^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ might generally converge to different limit points. As a consequence, we need to work with proper stochastic extensions of the KL conditions formulated in \cref{Assumption:2}. Let us first formally introduce the set of accumulation points $\mathcal C$ of $\{X^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ as the set-valued multifunction
%
\[ \mathcal C : \Omega \rightrightarrows \Rn, \quad \mathcal C(\omega) := \{ x \in \Rn: \exists~\text{a subsequence} \; \{t_\ell\}_\ell \; \text{such that} \; X^{t_\ell}(\omega) \to x \text{ as } \ell \to \infty\}. \]
%
We can then consider the following stochastic versions of condition \ref{B1} and \ref{B3}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{Assumption:3}
We assume the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textup{\textrm{(C.\arabic*)}},topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
\item \label{C1} The stochastic process $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is bounded almost surely, i.e., we have $\sup_t \|X^t\| < \infty$ almost surely.
\item \label{C2} There exists an event $\mathcal K \in \mathcal F$ with $\Prob(\mathcal K) = 1$ such that the KL inequality holds for every $\bar x \in \bigcup_{\omega \in \mathcal K}\mathcal C(\omega)$ and each respective desingularizing function $\varrho$ can be selected from the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Notice that assumption \ref{C2} still holds if $f$ is a subanalytic or semialgebraic function. Furthermore, since the sequence $\{f(X^t)\}$ converges surely to some $F^*$, condition \ref{C1} is satisfied when $f$ is coercive or when it has bounded level sets. Under \ref{C1} and \ref{C2}, we can now derive an almost sure variant of the convergence results established in \cref{cor:conv} and \cref{thm:convergence rate}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:sto-rate} Suppose that the assumptions \ref{A1}, \ref{C1}, and \ref{C2} are satisfied and consider the family of step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$:
%
\be \label{eq:final-steps} \alpha_t = \frac{\alpha}{(t+\beta)^\gamma}, \quad \alpha > 0, \quad \beta \geq 0, \quad \gamma \in \left(\frac{1}{2},1\right]. \ee
%
Then, the stochastic process $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ almost surely converges to a $\mathrm{crit}(f)$-valued random vector $X^* : \Omega \to \mathrm{crit}(f)$. Furthermore, let $\Theta : \Omega \to [0,1)$ denote the function that maps each sample $\omega \in \mathcal K$ to the KL exponent of $f$ at $X^*(\omega)$. Then, the event
%
\[ \mathcal G_\gamma := \left\{ \omega \in \Omega: \limsup_{t \to \infty} \; t^{\Psi_\gamma(\omega)} \cdot \|X^t(\omega) - X^*(\omega)\| < \infty \right\} \]
%
occurs almost surely for every $\gamma \in (\frac12,1]$, where the rate function $\Psi_\gamma : \Omega \to \R_+$ is given by
%
\be \label{eq:psi} \Psi_\gamma(\omega) := \begin{cases} 2\gamma-1 & \text{if } \Theta(\omega) < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}, \\ \frac{(1-\Theta(\omega))(1-\gamma)}{2\Theta(\omega)-1} & \text{if } \Theta(\omega) \geq \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1} \; \text{and} \; (\Theta(\omega),\gamma) \neq (\frac12,1), \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \ee
%
% {\mathds 1}_{\{\Theta(\omega) < \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}\}}(\omega) \cdot (2\gamma-1) + {\mathds 1}_{\{\Theta(\omega) \geq \frac{\gamma}{3\gamma-1}\}}(\omega) \cdot \frac{(1-\Theta(\omega))(1-\gamma)}{2\Theta(\omega)-1}. \]
%
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Assumptions \ref{C1} and \ref{C2} imply that there is an event $\mathcal E \in \mathcal F$ with $\Prob(\mathcal E) = 1$ such that $\{X^t(\omega)\}_{t\geq 1}$ is bounded for all $\omega \in \mathcal E$ and the {\L}ojasiewicz inequality holds for every $\bar x \in \mathcal C(\omega)$ and all $\omega \in \mathcal E$. Hence, the results in \cref{cor:conv} and \cref{thm:convergence rate} can be applied to all trajectories $\{X^t(\omega)\}_{t\geq 1}$, $\omega \in \mathcal E$ and we can infer $\mathcal E \subseteq \mathcal H_\gamma$ which proves \cref{thm:sto-rate}. \end{proof}
Finally, before concluding this subsection, let us note that \cref{thm:sto-rate} currently does not provide any rate for the special case $(\Theta(\omega),\gamma) = (\frac12,1)$. Since the KL constant $c \equiv C(\omega)$ is now a random variable, proper selection of the step size parameter $\alpha$ (as stated in \cref{thm:convergence rate}) would require knowledge about the distribution of $C(\omega)$. Of course, in this case, the convergence rate $\mathcal O(t^{-1})$ can still be ensured for all such $\omega$ satisfying $\alpha > 2C(\omega)^2/N$.
\section{An Analysis Framework and Shuffled Proximal Point Method}
In \Cref{sec:convergence analysis}, we have established the strong limit-point convergence results for \RR under the KL inequality. One remarkable feature of our results is that \RR is a non-descent method and the existing standard KL analysis framework is no longer applicable. In this section, we summarize the main steps and core ideas in an analysis framework. Furthermore, as an immediate application of such a framework, we show that the shuffled proximal point method also shares the same convergence results as those of {\sf RR}.
\subsection{An Analysis Framework}\label{sec:framework}
Consider the problem
\[
\minimize_{x\in \R^n} \ f(x),
\]
where the function $f: \R^n \rightarrow \R$ is smooth and bounded from below. To solve this problem, suppose further we design a generic \emph{non-descent} algorithm $\cal A$ with \emph{diminishing step sizes} $\alpha_t$, which iterates as
\[
x^{t} = \mathcal{A} (x^{t-1}, \alpha_t), \quad t = 1,2,\ldots
\]
Typical requirements on the diminishing step sizes are
\[
\alpha_t >0, \quad \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \alpha_t = \infty, \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \alpha_t^p < \infty
\]
for some positive integer $p\geq 2$.
The goal is to establish the strong limit-point convergence and derive the corresponding rate of convergence for algorithm $\mathcal{A}$.
Our proof in \Cref{sec:convergence analysis} consists of three main steps, which we summarize below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[({\sf A})] \textbf{Approximate descent property:} Based on the algorithmic properties of $\mathcal A$, suppose that one has
\[
f({x}^t)\leq f({x}^{t-1})- \kappa_1 \alpha_t \|\nabla{f}({x}^{t-1})\|^2- \frac{\kappa_2}{\alpha_t}\|{x}^{t}-{x}^{t-1}\|^2 +\kappa_3 \alpha_t^q,
\]
where $\kappa_1>0, \kappa_2 \geq 0,\kappa_3 > 0$ are positive constants and $q\geq p \geq 2$ is a positive integer.
\item[({\sf B})] \textbf{Weak convergence result:} Based on the approximate descent property in ({\sf A}), establish weak convergence of $\{x^t\}_{t \geq 1}$, i.e., $\lim_{t \to \infty} \|\nabla f(x^t)\| = 0$. Consequently, any accumulation point of the sequence of iterates $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is a stationary point of $f$.
\end{enumerate}
As already mentioned, the so-called sufficient decrease property is a typical ingredient of the standard KL analysis framework. With the help of this algorithmic property, it is quite straightforward to establish the weak convergence result formulated in ({\sf B}); see, e.g., \cite[Section 3.2]{BolSabTeb14}. However, due to the potential non-descent nature of the algorithmic scheme $\mathcal A$, it is unlikely to establish such a sufficient decrease property. Instead, based on the approximate descent property ({\sf A}), one can follow a more elementary analysis to prove weak convergence results via properly invoking diminishing step sizes. Such a strategy allows to avoid the ubiquitous sufficient decrease property. %Intuitively speaking, the approximate descent property and the diminishing step sizes can be viewed as a special `descent property'.
Upon showing the weak convergence result, it is possible to infer several standard conclusions about the set of accumulation points and to derive a uniformized version of the KL inequality.
If the function $f$ further satisfies the KL inequality, then one can perform the last step:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[({\sf C})] \textbf{Utilizing the KL inequality of $f$ to obtain strong limit-point convergence results.} Based on the KL inequality, verify that the whole sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq1}$ converges to a stationary point of $f$ and derive the corresponding convergence rates depending on the KL exponent $\theta$ and step size strategy.
\end{enumerate}
One core idea is to derive an auxiliary descent-type condition for the iterates $\{x^t\}_{t \geq 1}$. Such a condition can be shown by accumulating the potential ascent (i.e., the non-descent terms $\kappa_3 \alpha_t^q$) in the approximate descent property of each step of the algorithm $\mathcal A$. It is also important to use the slightly stronger variant of the KL inequality that takes absolute value of ``$f(x) - f^*$''. This allows to overcome the difficulties caused by the non-descent nature of $\{f(x^t)\}_{t\geq 1}$. % as well as to impose the KL inequality on the objective function $f$ itself.
Then, one can combine the standard KL analysis framework and the dynamics of the diminishing step sizes to establish strong limit-point convergence and derive the corresponding convergence rates depending on the KL exponent $\theta$ and chosen step sizes.
The strong limit-point convergence is typically a consequence of the finite length property of $\{x^t\}_{t\geq1}$, i.e., $\kappa_2 \sum_t \|x^t - x^{t-1}\| <\infty$. However, the approximate descent property ({\sf A}) allows the choice $\kappa_2 = 0$. In this case, one can still establish $\sum_t \alpha_t \|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| <\infty$. One possible way to establish strong limit-point convergence in this situation is to show a bound of the form $\|x^t -x^{t-1}\|\leq c_1 \alpha_t\|\nabla f(x^{t-1})\| + c_2 \alpha_t^{\bar p}$, where $\bar p \geq p$ and $c_1,c_2>0$ are positive constants. Note that such a bound can be mild for a large class of non-descent methods \cite{BerTsi00}. Then, strong convergence can be obtained by further invoking the conditions on the diminishing step sizes.
In principle, the above systematic strategy can be applied to non-descent methods that possess the approximate descent property ({\sf A}). One example is \RRp, as verified in \Cref{lemma:descent}. In the next subsection, we introduce another algorithm that also satisfies this approximate descent property, and hence it has the same strong limit-point convergence results shown in \Cref{sec:convergence analysis} as well.
\subsection{Shuffled Proximal Point Method and its Convergence}\label{sec:prox point}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Shuffled Proximal Point Method}
\label{algo:proxpoint-shuff}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Choose an initial point $x^0\in\Rn$;
\State Set iteration count $t=1$;
\While{stopping criterion not met}
\State Update the step size $\alpha_t$ according to a certain rule;
\State Generate a uniformly random permutation $\sigma^{t}$ of $\{1,\ldots, N\}$;
\State Set $\tilde x_0^{t}=x^{t-1}$;
\For{$i = 1,2,\ldots, N$}
\State Update the inner iterate via
\[
\tilde x_{i}^{t}\in \argmin_{x\in \R^n} \ f(x, \sigma^{t}_{i}) + \frac{1}{2\alpha_{t}} \|x - \tilde x_{i-1}^t\|^2;
\]
\EndFor
\State Set $x^t = \tilde x_{N}^{t}$;
\State Update iteration count $t = t+1$;
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
As an application of the systematic framework stated in the last subsection, we consider another non-descent method---namely, the shuffled proximal point method---and establish its strong limit-point convergence result under the KL inequality.
The shuffled proximal point method has the same algorithmic framework as \RR except for the updating step \eqref{eq:RS update}. As its name suggests, the shuffled proximal point method performs the following proximal point step:
\be \label{eq:prox point update}
\tilde x_{i}^{t}\in \argmin_{x\in \R^n} \ f(x, \sigma^{t}_{i}) + \frac{1}{2\alpha_{t}} \|x - \tilde x_{i-1}^t\|^2.
\ee
It is easy to see that the shuffled proximal point method covers the incremental proximal point method (cf. \cite{bertsekas2011}) as a special case.
The pseudocode is depicted in \Cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff}.
Let us first interpret the update \eqref{eq:prox point update} as certain gradient-type step. The first-order optimality condition of $\tilde x^t_i$ implies that
\be\label{eq:interpret PPM update}
\tilde x_{i}^{t} = \tilde x_{i-1}^{t} - \alpha_{t} \nabla f(\tilde x_{i}^t, \sigma^{t}_{i}).
\ee
Clearly, this formula is similar to the update of \RRp. The only difference is that the gradient in \eqref{eq:interpret PPM update} is evaluated implicitly at $\tilde x_{i}^t$, while the gradient in \RR is evaluated at $\tilde x_{i-1}^t$. This observation motivates us to follow similar arguments to those of \Cref{lemma:descent} and \Cref{lemma:approx descent} for showing the approximate descent property of \Cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:approx descent PPM}
Suppose that assumption \ref{A1} is valid. Let $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be the sequence generated by \cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem} with step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ satisfying
$\alpha_t \in (0,{1}/{(\sqrt{2}{\sf L}N)}]$ and $\sum_{t=1}^\infty \alpha_t^3 < \infty$.
Then, for all $t\geq 1$, we have
\be\label{eq:approx descent PPM}
f(x^t) \leq f(x^{t-1}) - \frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 -\frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t}\left\| x^t-x^{t-1} \right\|^2 + 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3.
\ee
Here, $\sG := \left( f(x^{0})- \bar f_{\min} \right) \exp\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} 6\sL^3 N^3 \alpha_j^3\right)$ is a finite positive constant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By following similar arguments to \Cref{lemma:descent}, we have
\[
\begin{aligned}
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} &\leq f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min} -\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 - \frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t} \|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2\\
& \quad +\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)-\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|^2
\end{aligned}
\]
and
\[
\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\left\|\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(x^{t-1},\sigma^{t}_i)-\frac{1}{N}{\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\nabla{f}(\tilde x^{t}_{i},\sigma^{t}_i)\right\|^2 \leq 6 \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3 \left( f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min} \right)
\]
as long as $N\geq 2$. Combining these two estimates yields
\[
f(x^t) - \bar f_{\min} \leq (1+6 \sL^3 N^3 \alpha_t^3 ) \left( f(x^{t-1}) - \bar f_{\min} \right) -\frac{N\alpha_t}{2}\|\nabla{f}(x^{t-1})\|^2 - \frac{1 - \sL N \alpha_t}{2N \alpha_t} \|x^t-x^{t-1}\|^2,
\]
which has a similar form to the recursion shown in \Cref{lemma:descent}. Then, we can conduct exactly the same analysis as that of \Cref{lemma:approx descent} to derive the desired result.
\end{proof}
\Cref{lemma:approx descent PPM} verifies the approximate descent property of \Cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff}. Indeed, the recursion is the same as that of {\sf RR}. Therefore, we can then follow our analysis framework ({\sf A})--({\sf C}) to establish similar strong limit-point convergence results to that of \RR for \Cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff}, which we put in the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:PPM} Suppose that the conditions \ref{A1}, \ref{C1}, and \ref{C2} are satisfied and let the stochastic process $\{X^t\}_{t \geq 1}$ be generated by \Cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff} utilizing step sizes of the form \eqref{eq:final-steps}. Then, $\{X^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ almost surely converges to a $\mathrm{crit}(f)$-valued random vector $X^* : \Omega \to \mathrm{crit}(f)$. Furthermore, let $\Theta : \Omega \to [0,1)$ denote the function that maps each sample $\omega \in \mathcal K$ to the KL exponent of $f$ at $X^*(\omega)$. Then, the event
%
\[ \mathcal H_\gamma := \left\{ \omega \in \Omega: \limsup_{t \to \infty} \; t^{\Psi_\gamma(\omega)} \cdot \|X^t(\omega) - X^*(\omega)\| < \infty \right\} \]
%
occurs almost surely for every $\gamma \in (\frac12,1]$, where the rate function $\Psi_\gamma : \Omega \to \R_+$ is given as in \cref{eq:psi}.
\end{corollary}
%\begin{corollary}\label{coro:finite length PPM}
% Suppose that \Cref{Assumption:1} \ref{A1} and \Cref{Assumption:2} \ref{B1}-\ref{B3} are valid. Let $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ be the sequence generated by \cref{algo:proxpoint-shuff} for solving problem \eqref{eq:problem}. In addition, we assume that the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ satisfy the conditions in \eqref{eq:kl-step}.
% Then, the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to some stationary point $x^*$ of $f$.
%\end{corollary}
%
%We also the following corollary for the rate of convergence.
%
%
%\begin{corollary}\label{coro:convergence rate PPM}
% Under the setting of \Cref{coro:finite length PPM}. In addition, assume that the desingularization function $\varrho$ in \cref{Def:KL-property} is selected from the class of {\L}ojasiewicz functions $\mathcal L$ and the step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ are updated according to \eqref{eq:step size} with $\gamma \in \left(\frac{1+\theta}{1+3\theta},1\right]$.
% Then, the following assertions hold for sufficiently large $t$:
% \begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*),topsep=0pt,itemsep=0ex,partopsep=0ex]
% \item If $\theta=0$, then the sequence $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ converges to $x^*$ in finite iterations.
% %\item If $\theta\in(0,\frac12)$, then there exists a constant $\tilde c>0$ such that
% %\[\|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c\cdot t^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]}.\]
% %Moreover, if we set $\gamma=1$ and $\alpha>\frac{8c^{\frac{1}{\theta}} \theta(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{\theta}-1}}{N}$, then
% %\[\|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c \cdot t^{-2\theta}.\]
% \item If $\theta \in (0, \frac12]$ and we set $\gamma <1$, then there exists a constant $\tilde c>0$ such that
% \[\|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c \cdot t^{-\frac{5\gamma -3}{2}}.\]
% Moreover, if we set $\gamma=1$ and $\alpha> \frac{2c^2}{N}$, then there exists a constant $\tilde c>0$ such that
% \[\|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c \cdot t^{-1}.\]
% \item If $\theta\in(\frac12,1)$ and we set $\gamma < \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$, then there exists a constant $\tilde c>0$ such that
% \[ \|x^t - x^*\| \leq \tilde c \cdot t^{-[(1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)]}. \]
% Moreover, if we set $\alpha > \frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1} \frac{C_\theta}{\underline{A}_\theta^{(2\theta - 1)/ (1-\theta)} } $ and $\gamma = \frac{\theta}{3\theta-1}$, where $\underline{A}_\theta$ is a numerical constant appeared in \eqref{eq:esti-eps} and $C_\theta=\left( 2^{\frac{4\theta-1}{1-\theta}}c^{\frac{1}{1-\theta}}(1-\theta) \right) / N^{\frac{\theta}{1-\theta}}$, then
% \[ \|x^t - x^*\| \leq t^{-\frac{1-\theta}{3\theta-1}}. \]
% \end{enumerate}
% Here, $x^*$ is some stationary point of $f$.
%\end{corollary}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we studied \RR for smooth nonconvex optimization problems with a finite-sum structure. \RR is a practical algorithm and widely utilized. Different from the existing convergence results for {\sf RR}, we established the first strong limit-point convergence results for \RR with appropriate diminishing step sizes under the KL inequality. In addition, we derived the corresponding rate of convergence, depending on the KL exponent $\theta$ and on suitably selected diminishing step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t\geq 1}$. When $\theta \in [0,1/2]$, \RR converges at a rate of $\cO(t^{-1})$. When $\theta\in ({1}/{2}, 1)$, \RR has a convergence rate of the form $\cO(t^{-q})$ with $q\in (0,1)$. Our results generalizes the existing works that assume strong convexity to much more general nonconvex settings.
Our results also revealed a new KL analysis framework, which generalizes the standard one to cover a class of non-descent methods with diminishing step sizes.
We summarized the main ingredients of our proofs in an analysis framework, which is of independent interest. This more general KL analysis framework can potentially be applied to many other non-descent methods with diminishing step sizes.
%In this paper, we studied \RR for smooth nonconvex optimization problems with a finite-sum structure. Different from the existing convergence results for {\sf RR}, under the well-known Kurdyka-{\L}ojasiewicz (KL) inequality, we established strong limit-point convergence results for \RR with appropriate diminishing step sizes. In addition, we derived the corresponding rate of convergence, depending on the KL exponent and on the selected step sizes. For a suitable choice of the diminishing step sizes $\{\alpha_t\}_{t \geq 1}$, our rate results can be summarized as three folds: 1) If $\theta = 0$ at the target stationary point $x^*$, then $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ will converge to $x^*$ in finite steps. 2) If $\theta\in (0,\frac{1}{2}]$ at $x^*$, then $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ will converge to $x^*$ at a rate of $\mathcal O(\frac{1}{t})$. Remarkably, this rate matches that of the best existing result of \RR for strongly convex optimization. 3) If $\theta \in (\frac{1}{2},1)$ at $x^*$, then $\{x^t\}_{t\geq 1}$ will converge to $x^*$ at a rate of $\mathcal O(t^{-(1-\theta)/(3\theta -1)})$.
%Our results revealed a new KL analysis framework, which generalizes the standard one to cover a class of non-descent methods with diminishing step sizes.
%We summarized our main steps and core ideas in an analysis framework, which is of independent interest. We believe that our results and the more general analysis framework can also serve as a blueprint for the KL inequality-based convergence analysis of other non-descent methods with diminishing step sizes.
\appendix
\section{Proof of \cref{lemma:uniform KL}} \label{app:sec-unikl}
\begin{proof} The first steps of the proof are identical to the derivation of \cite[Lemma 6]{BolSabTeb14}. However, in contrast to \cite[Lemma 6]{BolSabTeb14}, we also need to guarantee that the uniformized desingularizing function $\varrho$ satisfies the quasi-additivity-type condition \eqref{eq:qrho}. For ease of exposition, let us first restate the proof presented in \cite{BolSabTeb14}.
By \cref{lemma:limit point set}, the set $\mathcal C$ is compact and we have $f(x) = f^*$ for all $x \in \mathcal C$. Since $\mathcal C$ is compact, it can be covered by a finite number of open balls $B_{r_i}(x^i)$, $x^i \in \mathcal C$, $r_i > 0$, $i = 1,...,m$, on which the KL inequality holds. In particular, for each $i = 1,...,m$, there exist $\eta_i > 0$ and a desingularizing function $\varrho_i \in \mathcal Q_{\eta_i}$ such that
%
\[ \varrho_{i}^\prime(|f(x) - f(x^i)|) \cdot \|\nabla f(x)\| = \varrho_{i}^\prime(|f(x) - f^*|) \cdot \|\nabla f(x)\| \geq 1 \]
%
for all $x \in B_{r_i}(x^i) \cap \{x \in \Rn: 0 < |f(x)-f^*| < \eta_i\}$. As in the proof of \cite[Lemma 6]{BolSabTeb14}, we now choose $\delta > 0$ sufficiently small such that $\{x \in \Rn: \mathrm{dist}(x,\mathcal C) < \delta\} \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^m B_{r_i}(x^i)$. Furthermore, setting $\eta := \min_{1 \leq i \leq m} \eta_i$ and $\varrho(x) := \sum_{i=1}^p \varrho_i(x)$, it follows $\varrho \in \mathcal S_\eta$ and
%
\[ \varrho^\prime(|f(x)-f^*|)\cdot \|\nabla f(x)\| = \sum_{i=1}^m \varrho_i^\prime(|f(x)-f^*|)\cdot \|\nabla f(x)\| \geq 1 \quad \forall~x \in U_{\delta,\eta}. \]
%
The proof is complete if we can also show $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$. Let $C_{\rho_i} > 0$ denote the quasi-additivity constant in \cref{eq:qrho} associated with each $\varrho_i$, $i=1,...,m$, and let $x,y \in (0,\eta)$, $x+y < \eta$, be arbitrary. Without loss of generality, let us assume $x \leq y$. Then, the concavity of the mapping $\varrho_i$ implies $\varrho_i^\prime(x) \geq \varrho_i^\prime(y)$ for all $i \in \{1,...,m\}$. In addition, let $j \in \{1,...,m\}$ be given with $\varrho_j^\prime(y) = \max_{1\leq i \leq m} \varrho_i^\prime(y)$. Using $\varrho_i^\prime(t) > 0$ for all $t \in (0,\eta)$, $i \in \{1,...,m\}$, and \cref{eq:qrho} for $\varrho_j$, we obtain
%
\begin{align*} \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime(x+y)} & = \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime_j(x+y) + \sum_{i \neq j}\varrho^\prime_i(x+y)} \leq \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime_j(x+y)} \\ & \leq C_{\rho_j} \left[ \frac{1}{\varrho_j^\prime(x)} + \frac{1}{\varrho_j^\prime(y)} \right] \leq \frac{2C_{\rho_j}}{\varrho^\prime_j(y)} \leq \frac{2m
C_{\rho_j}}{\varrho^\prime(y)} \leq 2m \max_{1\leq i \leq m} C_{\rho_i} \left[ \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime(x)} + \frac{1}{\varrho^\prime(y)} \right]. \end{align*}
%
This verifies that $\varrho$ satisfies condition \cref{eq:qrho} with $C_\rho := 2m \max_{1\leq i \leq m} C_{\rho_i}$ and thus, we have $\varrho \in \mathcal Q_\eta$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of \cref{lemma:step size}} \label{app:sec-pf-step}
\begin{proof}
%Recall that
%\[
%[\varrho^\prime(u_{t-1})]^{-1} = \frac{1}{c(1-\theta)}u_{t-1}^\theta \quad \text{and} \quad u_{t-1} = 2\sG \sL^3 N^3 \sum_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3.
%\]
%
We first note that the improper integral $\int_{t}^\infty \frac{\alpha^3}{(y+\beta)^{3\gamma}} \, \mathrm{d}y$ is finite. By the integral comparison test, we have
%
%\[ \frac{6}{{\sf L}^2{\sf G}^2N^3}u_{t-1} = \sum_{i=t}^\infty \alpha_i^3 \leq \alpha_t^3 + \int_{t}^\infty \frac{\alpha^3}{(x+\beta)^{3\gamma}} \, \mathrm{d}x = \alpha_t^3 + \frac{\alpha^3}{3\gamma-1}\frac{1}{(t+\beta)^{3\gamma-1}}. \]
\[
\sum_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3 \leq \alpha_t^3 + \int_{t}^\infty \frac{\alpha^3}{(y+\beta)^{3\gamma}} \, \mathrm{d}y = \alpha_t^3 + \frac{\alpha^3}{3\gamma-1}\frac{1}{(t+\beta)^{3\gamma-1}}
\]
%
and
\[
\sum_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3 \geq \int_{t}^\infty \frac{\alpha^3}{(y+\beta)^{3\gamma}} \, \mathrm{d}y = \frac{\alpha^3}{3\gamma-1}\frac{1}{(t+\beta)^{3\gamma-1}}.
\]
Using the monotonicity and subadditivity of the mapping $x \mapsto x^\theta$ and the bounds on $\sum_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3$, we can infer
%
\[
\frac{a_\theta}{(t+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta}} \leq \left[{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3\right]^\theta \leq \alpha^{3\theta}_t + \frac{a_\theta}{(t+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta}},
\]
where $a_\theta := \alpha^{3\theta}/(3\gamma-1)^\theta$.
%\[
%A_\theta := \frac{(2\sG\sL^3N^3\alpha^3)^\theta}{c(1-\theta)(3\gamma-1)^\theta}
%\]
%and
%\[
%B_\theta := \frac{(2\sG\sL^3N^3)^\theta}{c(1-\theta)}
%\]
% are positive numerical constants.
%
Thus, we obtain
\be\label{eq:rate-est-3}
\sum_{t=k}^\infty \frac{a_\theta \alpha}{(t+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta +\gamma}} \leq \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t \left[{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3\right]^\theta \leq \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t^{1+3\theta} + \sum_{t=k}^\infty \frac{a_\theta\alpha}{(t+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta+\gamma}}.
\ee
Now, we can utilize the integral comparison test again to derive the following bounds:
%
\[
\sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t^{3\theta+1} \leq \alpha_k^{1+3\theta} + \int_{k}^\infty \frac{\alpha^{1+3\theta}}{(y+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma}} \, \mathrm{d}y = \alpha_k^{1+3\theta} + \frac{k+\beta}{(1+3\theta)\gamma-1} \cdot \alpha_k^{1+3\theta};
\]
\[
\sum_{t=k}^\infty \frac{1}{(t+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta+\gamma}} \leq \frac{1}{(k+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta+\gamma}} + \frac{[(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]^{-1}}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}};
\]
\[
\sum_{t=k}^\infty \frac{1}{(t+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta+\gamma}} \geq \frac{[(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]^{-1}}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}}.
\]
%
Setting $\nu := (1+3\theta)\gamma - (1+\theta)$ and plugging the above three bounds into \eqref{eq:rate-est-3} yields
%
\begin{align*}
\frac{a_\theta\alpha \nu^{-1}}{(k+\beta)^{\nu}} & \leq \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t \left[{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3\right]^\theta \\
&\leq \left[ \alpha_k^{1+3\theta} + \frac{k+\beta}{(1+3\theta)\gamma-1} \cdot \alpha_k^{1+3\theta} \right] + \frac{a_\theta\alpha}{(k+\beta)^{(3\gamma-1)\theta+\gamma}} + \frac{a_\theta\alpha \nu^{-1}}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}} \\
& = \left\{ a_\theta\left[\frac{\alpha}{k+\beta}+\frac{\alpha}{\nu}\right] +\left[\frac{\alpha^{1+3\theta}}{(k+\beta)^{1+\theta}} + \frac{\alpha^{1+3\theta}}{(\gamma+3\theta\gamma-1)(k+\beta)^{\theta}}\right]\right\} \cdot\frac{1}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}}\\
&\leq \underbracket{\begin{minipage}[t][4.5ex][t]{41ex}\centering$\left[\frac{a_\theta\alpha}{1+\beta}+\frac{a_\theta\alpha}{\nu} +\frac{\alpha^{1+3\theta}}{(1+\beta)^{1+\theta}} + \frac{\alpha^{1+3\theta}}{(\gamma+3\theta\gamma-1)(1+\beta)^{\theta}}\right]$\end{minipage}}_{=: \, \bar a_\theta} \cdot \frac{1}{(k+\beta)^{\nu}}.
\end{align*}
%
In summary, \eqref{eq:rate-est-3} reduces to
%
\[
\frac{\underline{a}_\theta}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}} \leq \sum_{t=k}^\infty \alpha_t \left[{\sum}_{j=t}^\infty \alpha_j^3\right]^\theta \leq \frac{\bar{a}_\theta}{(k+\beta)^{(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)}},
\]
%
where $\underline{a}_\theta := a_\theta\alpha [(1+3\theta)\gamma-(1+\theta)]^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{absil2005}
{\sc P.-A. Absil, R.~Mahony, and B.~Andrews}, {\em Convergence of the iterates
of descent methods for analytic cost functions}, SIAM Journal on
Optimization, 16 (2005), pp.~531--547.
\bibitem{agarwal2012}
{\sc A.~Agarwal, P.~L. Bartlett, P.~Ravikumar, and M.~J. Wainwright}, {\em
Information-theoretic lower bounds on the oracle complexity of stochastic
convex optimization}, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 58 (2012),
pp.~3235--3249.
\bibitem{AttBol09}
{\sc H.~Attouch and J.~Bolte}, {\em On the convergence of the proximal
algorithm for nonsmooth functions involving analytic features}, Math.
Program., 116 (2009), pp.~5--16.
\bibitem{AttBolRedSou10}
{\sc H.~Attouch, J.~Bolte, P.~Redont, and A.~Soubeyran}, {\em Proximal
alternating minimization and projection methods for nonconvex problems: an
approach based on the {K}urdyka-{{\L}}ojasiewicz inequality}, Math. Oper.
Res., 35 (2010), pp.~438--457.
\bibitem{AttBolSva13}
{\sc H.~Attouch, J.~Bolte, and B.~F. Svaiter}, {\em Convergence of descent
methods for semi-algebraic and tame problems: proximal algorithms,
forward-backward splitting, and regularized {G}auss-{S}eidel methods}, Math.
Program., 137 (2013), pp.~91--129.
\bibitem{bertsekas2011}
{\sc D.~P. Bertsekas}, {\em Incremental proximal methods for large scale convex
optimization}, Mathematical programming, 129 (2011), p.~163.
\bibitem{Ber16}
{\sc D.~P. Bertsekas}, {\em Nonlinear programming}, Athena Scientific
Optimization and Computation Series, Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA,
third~ed., 2016.
\bibitem{BerTsi00}
{\sc D.~P. Bertsekas and J.~N. Tsitsiklis}, {\em Gradient convergence in
gradient methods with errors}, SIAM J. Optim., 10 (2000), pp.~627--642.
\bibitem{BolDanLew06}
{\sc J.~Bolte, A.~Daniilidis, and A.~Lewis}, {\em The {{\L}}ojasiewicz
inequality for nonsmooth subanalytic functions with applications to
subgradient dynamical systems}, SIAM J. Optim., 17 (2006), pp.~1205--1223.
\bibitem{BolDanLew-MS-06}
{\sc J.~Bolte, A.~Daniilidis, and A.~Lewis}, {\em A nonsmooth {M}orse-{S}ard
theorem for subanalytic functions}, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 321 (2006),
pp.~729--740.
\bibitem{BolDanLewShi07}
{\sc J.~Bolte, A.~Daniilidis, A.~Lewis, and M.~Shiota}, {\em Clarke
subgradients of stratifiable functions}, SIAM J. Optim., 18 (2007),
pp.~556--572.
\bibitem{BolSabTeb14}
{\sc J.~Bolte, S.~Sabach, and M.~Teboulle}, {\em Proximal alternating
linearized minimization for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems}, Math.
Program., 146 (2014), pp.~459--494.
\bibitem{boct2016}
{\sc R.~I. Bo{\c{t}}, E.~R. Csetnek, and S.~C. L{\'a}szl{\'o}}, {\em An
inertial forward--backward algorithm for the minimization of the sum of two
nonconvex functions}, EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, 4 (2016),
pp.~3--25.
\bibitem{boct2020}
{\sc R.~I. Bo{\c{t}} and D.-K. Nguyen}, {\em The proximal alternating direction
method of multipliers in the nonconvex setting: convergence analysis and
rates}, Mathematics of Operations Research, 45 (2020), pp.~682--712.
\bibitem{bottou2009}
{\sc L.~Bottou}, {\em Curiously fast convergence of some stochastic gradient
descent algorithms}, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Learning and Data
Science, Paris, 2009.
\bibitem{bottou2012}
{\sc L.~Bottou}, {\em Stochastic gradient descent tricks}, in Neural Networks:
Tricks of the Trade, Springer, 2012, pp.~421--436.
\bibitem{gurbu2019}
{\sc M.~G{\"u}rb{\"u}zbalaban, A.~Ozdaglar, and P.~Parrilo}, {\em Why random
reshuffling beats stochastic gradient descent}, Mathematical Programming, 186
(2021), pp.~49--84.
\bibitem{gurbu2015}
{\sc M.~G{\"u}rb{\"u}zbalaban, A.~Ozdaglar, and P.~A. Parrilo}, {\em
Convergence rate of incremental gradient and incremental {N}ewton methods},
SIAM Journal on Optimization, 29 (2019), pp.~2542--2565.
\bibitem{haochen2019}
{\sc J.~Z. {HaoChen} and S.~Sra}, {\em Random shuffling beats {SGD} after
finite epochs}, in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2019,
pp.~2624--2633.
\bibitem{HuLiYu20}
{\sc Y.~Hu, J.~Li, and C.~K.~W. Yu}, {\em Convergence rates of subgradient
methods for quasi-convex optimization problems}, Comput. Optim. Appl., 77
(2020), pp.~183--212.
\bibitem{kurdyka1998}
{\sc K.~Kurdyka}, {\em On gradients of functions definable in o-minimal
structures}, in Annales de l'institut Fourier, vol.~48, 1998, pp.~769--783.
\bibitem{kurdyka2000}
{\sc K.~Kurdyka, T.~Mostowski, and A.~Parusinski}, {\em Proof of the gradient
conjecture of {R}. {T}hom}, Annals of Mathematics, (2000), pp.~763--792.
\bibitem{kurdyka1994}
{\sc K.~Kurdyka and A.~Parusinski}, {\em $\mathbf{w}_f$-stratification of
subanalytic functions and the {{\L}}ojasiewicz inequality}, Comptes rendus de
l'{A}cad{\'e}mie des sciences. S{\'e}rie 1, Math{\'e}matique, 318 (1994),
pp.~129--133.
\bibitem{lai2020}
{\sc Z.~Lai and L.-H. Lim}, {\em Recht-r{\'e} noncommutative
arithmetic-geometric mean conjecture is false}, in International Conference
on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2020, pp.~5608--5617.
\bibitem{li2015global}
{\sc G.~Li and T.~K. Pong}, {\em Global convergence of splitting methods for
nonconvex composite optimization}, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25 (2015),
pp.~2434--2460.
\bibitem{li2016douglas}
{\sc G.~Li and T.~K. Pong}, {\em Douglas--rachford splitting for nonconvex
optimization with application to nonconvex feasibility problems},
Mathematical programming, 159 (2016), pp.~371--401.
\bibitem{liu2019quadratic}
{\sc H.~Liu, A.~M.-C. So, and W.~Wu}, {\em Quadratic optimization with
orthogonality constraint: explicit {\l}ojasiewicz exponent and linear
convergence of retraction-based line-search and stochastic variance-reduced
gradient methods}, Mathematical Programming, 178 (2019), pp.~215--262.
\bibitem{lojasiewicz1959}
{\sc S.~{\L}ojasiewicz}, {\em Sur le probl{\`e}me de la division}, Studia
Mathematica, 18 (1959), pp.~87--136.
\bibitem{lojasiewicz1963}
{\sc S.~{\L}ojasiewicz}, {\em Une propri{\'e}t{\'e} topologique des
sous-ensembles analytiques r{\'e}els}, Les {\'e}quations aux d{\'e}riv{\'e}es
partielles, 117 (1963), pp.~87--89.
\bibitem{lojasiewicz1993}
{\sc S.~{\L}ojasiewicz}, {\em Sur la g{\'e}om{\'e}trie semi- et
sous-analytique}, Annales de l'institut Fourier (Grenoble), 43 (1993),
pp.~1575--1595.
\bibitem{zhi1994analysis}
{\sc Z.-Q. Luo and P.~Tseng}, {\em Analysis of an approximate gradient
projection method with applications to the backpropagation algorithm},
Optimization Methods and Software, 4 (1994), pp.~85--101.
\bibitem{mishchenko2020}
{\sc K.~Mishchenko, A.~Khaled Ragab~Bayoumi, and P.~Richt{\'a}rik}, {\em Random
reshuffling: Simple analysis with vast improvements}, Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems, 33 (2020).
\bibitem{Nagaraj2019}
{\sc D.~Nagaraj, J.~Prateek, and N.~Praneeth}, {\em {SGD} without replacement:
Sharper rates for general smooth convex functions}, in International
Conference on Machine Learning, 2019, pp.~4703--4711.
\bibitem{nemirovskij1983}
{\sc A.~S. Nemirovskij and D.~B. Yudin}, {\em Problem complexity and method
efficiency in optimization}, Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete
Mathematics, Wiley, Chichester, 1983.
\bibitem{nesterov2003}
{\sc Y.~Nesterov}, {\em Introductory lectures on convex optimization: A basic
course}, vol.~87, Springer Science \& Business Media, 2003.
\bibitem{nguyen2020unified}
{\sc L.~M. Nguyen, Q.~Tran-Dinh, D.~T. Phan, P.~H. Nguyen, and M.~van Dijk},
{\em A unified convergence analysis for shuffling-type gradient methods},
Accepted to Journal of Machine Learning Research, (2021).
\bibitem{ochs2014}
{\sc P.~Ochs, Y.~Chen, T.~Brox, and T.~Pock}, {\em ipiano: Inertial proximal
algorithm for nonconvex optimization}, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 7
(2014), pp.~1388--1419.
\bibitem{pock2016}
{\sc T.~Pock and S.~Sabach}, {\em Inertial proximal alternating linearized
minimization (ipalm) for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems}, SIAM Journal on
Imaging Sciences, 9 (2016), pp.~1756--1787.
\bibitem{polyak1963}
{\sc B.~T. Polyak}, {\em Gradient methods for the minimisation of functionals},
USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 3 (1963),
pp.~864--878.
\bibitem{Pol87}
{\sc B.~T. Polyak}, {\em Introduction to optimization}, Translations Series in
Mathematics and Engineering, Optimization Software, Inc., Publications
Division, New York, 1987.
\newblock Translated from the Russian, With a foreword by Dimitri P. Bertsekas.
\bibitem{recht2012}
{\sc B.~Recht and C.~R{\'e}}, {\em Toward a noncommutative arithmetic-geometric
mean inequality: conjectures, case-studies, and consequences}, in Conference
on Learning Theory, JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2012,
pp.~11--1.
\bibitem{shamir2016}
{\sc O.~Shamir}, {\em Without-replacement sampling for stochastic gradient
methods}, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016,
pp.~46--54.
\bibitem{solodov1998incremental}
{\sc M.~V. Solodov}, {\em Incremental gradient algorithms with stepsizes
bounded away from zero}, Computational Optimization and Applications, 11
(1998), pp.~23--35.
\bibitem{solodov1998}
{\sc M.~V. Solodov and S.~Zavriev}, {\em Error stability properties of
generalized gradient-type algorithms}, Journal of Optimization Theory and
Applications, 98 (1998), pp.~663--680.
\bibitem{tseng1998incremental}
{\sc P.~Tseng}, {\em An incremental gradient(-projection) method with momentum
term and adaptive stepsize rule}, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 8 (1998),
pp.~506--531.
\bibitem{wang2019}
{\sc Y.~Wang, W.~Yin, and J.~Zeng}, {\em Global convergence of admm in
nonconvex nonsmooth optimization}, Journal of Scientific Computing, 78
(2019), pp.~29--63.
\end{thebibliography}