EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Oliver Hinder
dblp:190/7599
· DBLP profile ↗
13ranked-venue papers
2as first author
8since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 13 · 2 first-author · 8 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Theoretical computer science
11 papers |
Mathematical optimization · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
4 papers |
Optimization for machine learning · 75% Efficient and distributed learning · 17% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 4% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational science and engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 25 heaviest of 28, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization › stochastic optimization
stochastic convex optimization |
2.5 | 3 | 2026 | Clipping the Price of Adaptivity at the Tail · COLT 2026 Accelerated Parameter-Free Stochastic Optimization · COLT 2024 The Price of Adaptivity in Stochastic Convex Optimization · COLT 2024 |
Mathematical optimization
continuous optimization |
1.5 | 3 | 2024 | The Price of Adaptivity in Stochastic Convex Optimization · COLT 2024 Practical Large-Scale Linear Programming using Primal-Dual Hybrid Gradient · NeurIPS 2021 "Convex Until Proven Guilty": Dimension-Free Acceleration of Gradient Descent on Non-Convex Functions · ICML 2017 |
Mathematical optimization › online optimization
parameter-free optimization |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Accelerated Parameter-Free Stochastic Optimization · COLT 2024 The Price of Adaptivity in Stochastic Convex Optimization · COLT 2024 |
Mathematical optimization
nonconvex optimization |
1.5 | 4 | 2020 | Conic Descent and its Application to Memory-efficient Optimization over Positive Semidefinite Matrices · NeurIPS 2020 Near-Optimal Methods for Minimizing Star-Convex Functions and Beyond · COLT 2020 Cutting plane methods can be extended into nonconvex optimization · COLT 2018 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent |
1.2 | 2 | 2023 | DoG is SGD's Best Friend: A Parameter-Free Dynamic Step Size Schedule · ICML 2023 Making SGD Parameter-Free · COLT 2022 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
adaptive algorithm |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Clipping the Price of Adaptivity at the Tail · COLT 2026 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization › convex optimization › first-order methods › gradient-based optimization
adaptive optimization |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Clipping the Price of Adaptivity at the Tail · COLT 2026 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization |
1.0 | 3 | 2020 | Conic Descent and its Application to Memory-efficient Optimization over Positive Semidefinite Matrices · NeurIPS 2020 An efficient nonconvex reformulation of stagewise convex optimization problems · NeurIPS 2020 "Convex Until Proven Guilty": Dimension-Free Acceleration of Gradient Descent on Non-Convex Functions · ICML 2017 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model acceleration |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Accelerated Parameter-Free Stochastic Optimization · COLT 2024 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › convex optimization
stochastic convex optimization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Making SGD Parameter-Free · COLT 2022 |
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic optimization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Making SGD Parameter-Free · COLT 2022 |
Mathematical optimization
convergence analysis |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | A consistently adaptive trust-region method · NeurIPS 2022 |
Mathematical optimization › convergence analysis
iteration complexity |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | A consistently adaptive trust-region method · NeurIPS 2022 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
nonlinear optimization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | A consistently adaptive trust-region method · NeurIPS 2022 |
Mathematical optimization › numerical computation › numerical optimization › second-order methods
trust region methods |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | A consistently adaptive trust-region method · NeurIPS 2022 |
Mathematical optimization
linear programming |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Practical Large-Scale Linear Programming using Primal-Dual Hybrid Gradient · NeurIPS 2021 |
Mathematical optimization › primal-dual method
primal-dual hybrid gradient |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Practical Large-Scale Linear Programming using Primal-Dual Hybrid Gradient · NeurIPS 2021 |
Program verification
neural network verification |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | An efficient nonconvex reformulation of stagewise convex optimization problems · NeurIPS 2020 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization › convex optimization › first-order methods
accelerated first-order methods |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Near-Optimal Methods for Minimizing Star-Convex Functions and Beyond · COLT 2020 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization › convex optimization › first-order methods
conditional gradient method |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Conic Descent and its Application to Memory-efficient Optimization over Positive Semidefinite Matrices · NeurIPS 2020 |
Mathematical optimization
semidefinite programming |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Conic Descent and its Application to Memory-efficient Optimization over Positive Semidefinite Matrices · NeurIPS 2020 |
Mathematical optimization › integer programming
cutting planes |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Cutting plane methods can be extended into nonconvex optimization · COLT 2018 |
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization › convex optimization › first-order methods › gradient-based optimization
accelerated gradient methods |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | "Convex Until Proven Guilty": Dimension-Free Acceleration of Gradient Descent on Non-Convex Functions · ICML 2017 |
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Datasets and Benchmarks for Nanophotonic Structure and Parametric Design Simulations · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Making SGD Parameter-Free · COLT 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
tail events · 2.0clipping · 2.0optimization algorithm · 2.0electrodynamic simulation · 2.0iterate stabilization · 1.5dog · 1.5UniXGrad · 1.5minimax lower bounds · 0.8convex analysis · 0.8stochastic gradient descent · 0.7adam · 0.7time-uniform concentration · 0.6parameter-free step size · 0.6adaptive trust-region · 0.6projected gradient descent · 0.4accelerated gradient methods · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Clipping the Price of Adaptivity at the TailabstractAdaptive stochastic convex optimization (SCO) methods face a fundamental “price of adaptivity” barrier: under the standard set of assumptions, they cannot efficiently adapt to large uncertainty in both the initial distance to optimality and the Lipschitz constant. We circumvent this barrier by requiring a small amount of additional structure common to many learning problems. Specifically, we assume that the objective decomposes into a model and a loss function, enabling us to intervene by modifying the model’s output before it passes to the loss function. Under this assumption, we design a method that clips the learned model output in tail events where it deviates too much from the output of a fixed reference model. Our method matches the optimal bounds for known-parameter SCO up to logarithmic factors in the uncertainty in the distance and Lipschitz parameters, thus efficiently adapting to large uncertainty in both. Itai Kreisler, Yair Carmon, Oliver Hinder |
COLT | 3 |
| 2024 | The Price of Adaptivity in Stochastic Convex OptimizationabstractWe prove impossibility results for adaptivity in non-smooth stochastic convex optimization. Given a set of problem parameters we wish to adapt to, we define a “price of adaptivity” (PoA) that, roughly speaking, measures the multiplicative increase in suboptimality due to uncertainty in these parameters. When the initial distance to the optimum is unknown but a gradient norm bound is known, we show that the PoA is at least logarithmic for expected suboptimality, and double-logarithmic for median suboptimality. When there is uncertainty in both distance and gradient norm, we show that the PoA must be polynomial in the level of uncertainty. Our lower bounds nearly match existing upper bounds, and establish that there is no parameter-free lunch. Yair Carmon, Oliver Hinder |
COLT | 2 |
| 2024 | Accelerated Parameter-Free Stochastic OptimizationabstractWe propose a method that achieves near-optimal rates for \emph{smooth} stochastic convex optimization and requires essentially no prior knowledge of problem parameters. This improves on prior work which requires knowing at least the initial distance to optimality $d_0$. Our method, \textsc{U-DoG}, combines \textsc{UniXGrad} (Kavis et al., 2019) and \textsc{DoG} (Ivgi et al., 2023) with novel iterate stabilization techniques. It requires only loose bounds on $d_0$ and the noise magnitude, provides high probability guarantees under sub-Gaussian noise, and is also near-optimal in the non-smooth case. Our experiments show consistent, strong performance on convex problems and mixed results on neural network training. Itai Kreisler, Maor Ivgi, Oliver Hinder, Yair Carmon |
COLT | 3 |
| 2023 | DoG is SGD's Best Friend: A Parameter-Free Dynamic Step Size ScheduleabstractWe propose a tuning-free dynamic SGD step size formula, which we call Distance over Gradients (DoG). The DoG step sizes depend on simple empirical quantities (distance from the initial point and norms of gradients) and have no ``learning rate'' parameter. Theoretically, we show that, for stochastic convex optimization, a slight variation of the DoG formula enjoys strong, high-probability parameter-free convergence guarantees and iterate movement bounds. Empirically, we consider a broad range of vision and language transfer learning tasks, and show that DoG's performance is close to that of SGD with tuned learning rate. We also propose a per-layer variant of DoG that generally outperforms tuned SGD, approaching the performance of tuned Adam. A PyTorch implementation of our algorithms is available at https://github.com/formll/dog. Maor Ivgi, Oliver Hinder, Yair Carmon |
ICML | 2 |
| 2023 | Datasets and Benchmarks for Nanophotonic Structure and Parametric Design SimulationsabstractNanophotonic structures have versatile applications including solar cells, anti-reflective coatings, electromagnetic interference shielding, optical filters, and light emitting diodes. To design and understand these nanophotonic structures, electrodynamic simulations are essential. These simulations enable us to model electromagnetic fields over time and calculate optical properties. In this work, we introduce frameworks and benchmarks to evaluate nanophotonic structures in the context of parametric structure design problems. The benchmarks are instrumental in assessing the performance of optimization algorithms and identifying an optimal structure based on target optical properties. Moreover, we explore the impact of varying grid sizes in electrodynamic simulations, shedding light on how evaluation fidelity can be strategically leveraged in enhancing structure designs. Jungtaek Kim 0001, Oliver Hinder, Paul W. Leu |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2022 | Making SGD Parameter-FreeabstractWe develop an algorithm for parameter-free stochastic convex optimization (SCO) whose rate of convergence is only a double-logarithmic factor larger than the optimal rate for the corresponding known-parameter setting. In contrast, the best previously known rates for parameter-free SCO are based on online parameter-free regret bounds, which contain unavoidable excess logarithmic terms compared to their known-parameter counterparts. Our algorithm is conceptually simple, has high-probability guarantees, and is also partially adaptive to unknown gradient norms, smoothness, and strong convexity. At the heart of our results is a novel parameter-free certificate for SGD step size choice, and a time-uniform concentration result that assumes no a-priori bounds on SGD iterates. Yair Carmon, Oliver Hinder |
COLT | 2 |
| 2022 | A consistently adaptive trust-region methodabstractAdaptive trust-region methods attempt to maintain strong convergence guarantees without depending on conservative estimates of problem properties such as Lipschitz constants. However, on close inspection, one can show existing adaptive trust-region methods have theoretical guarantees with severely suboptimal dependence on problem properties such as the Lipschitz constant of the Hessian. For example, TRACE developed by Curtis et al. obtains a $O(\Delta_f L^{3/2} \epsilon^{-3/2}) + \tilde{O}(1)$ iteration bound where $L$ is the Lipschitz constant of the Hessian. Compared with the optimal $O(\Delta_f L^{1/2} \epsilon^{-3/2})$ bound this is suboptimal with respect to $L$. We present the first adaptive trust-region method which circumvents this issue and requires at most $O( \Delta_f L^{1/2} \epsilon^{-3/2}) + \tilde{O}(1)$ iterations to find an $\epsilon$-approximate stationary point, matching the optimal iteration bound up to an additive logarithmic term. Our method is a simple variant of a classic trust-region method and in our experiments performs competitively with both ARC and a classical trust-region method. Fadi Hamad, Oliver Hinder |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2021 | Practical Large-Scale Linear Programming using Primal-Dual Hybrid GradientabstractWe present PDLP, a practical first-order method for linear programming (LP) that can solve to the high levels of accuracy that are expected in traditional LP applications. In addition, it can scale to very large problems because its core operation is matrix-vector multiplications. PDLP is derived by applying the primal-dual hybrid gradient (PDHG) method, popularized by Chambolle and Pock (2011), to a saddle-point formulation of LP. PDLP enhances PDHG for LP by combining several new techniques with older tricks from the literature; the enhancements include diagonal preconditioning, presolving, adaptive step sizes, and adaptive restarting. PDLP improves the state of the art for first-order methods applied to LP. We compare PDLP with SCS, an ADMM-based solver, on a set of 383 LP instances derived from MIPLIB 2017. With a target of $10^{-8}$ relative accuracy and 1 hour time limit, PDLP achieves a 6.3x reduction in the geometric mean of solve times and a 4.6x reduction in the number of instances unsolved (from 227 to 49). Furthermore, we highlight standard benchmark instances and a large-scale application (PageRank) where our open-source prototype of PDLP, written in Julia, outperforms a commercial LP solver. David L. Applegate, Mateo Díaz, Oliver Hinder, Haihao Lu, Miles Lubin, Brendan O'Donoghue, Warren Schudy |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2020 | Near-Optimal Methods for Minimizing Star-Convex Functions and BeyondabstractIn this paper, we provide near-optimal accelerated first-order methods for minimizing a broad class of smooth nonconvex functions that are unimodal on all lines through a minimizer. This function class, which we call the class of smooth quasar-convex functions, is parameterized by a constant $$\gamma \in (0,1]$$: $$\gamma = 1$$ encompasses the classes of smooth convex and star-convex functions, and smaller values of $$\gamma$$ indicate that the function can be "more nonconvex." We develop a variant of accelerated gradient descent that computes an $$\epsilon$$-approximate minimizer of a smooth $$\gamma$$-quasar-convex function with at most $$O(\gamma^{-1} \epsilon^{-1/2} \log(\gamma^{-1} \epsilon^{-1}))$$ total function and gradient evaluations. We also derive a lower bound of $$\Omega(\gamma^{-1} \epsilon^{-1/2})$$ on the worst-case number of gradient evaluations required by any deterministic first-order method, showing that, up to a logarithmic factor, no deterministic first-order method can improve upon ours. Oliver Hinder, Aaron Sidford, Nimit Sharad Sohoni |
COLT | 1 |
| 2020 | An efficient nonconvex reformulation of stagewise convex optimization problemsabstractConvex optimization problems with staged structure appear in several contexts, including optimal control, verification of deep neural networks, and isotonic regression. Off-the-shelf solvers can solve these problems but may scale poorly. We develop a nonconvex reformulation designed to exploit this staged structure. Our reformulation has only simple bound constraints, enabling solution via projected gradient methods and their accelerated variants. The method automatically generates a sequence of primal and dual feasible solutions to the original convex problem, making optimality certification easy. We establish theoretical properties of the nonconvex formulation, showing that it is (almost) free of spurious local minima and has the same global optimum as the convex problem. We modify projected gradient descent to avoid spurious local minimizers so it always converges to the global minimizer. For neural network verification, our approach obtains small duality gaps in only a few gradient steps. Consequently, it can provide tight duality gaps for many large-scale verification problems where both off-the-shelf and specialized solvers struggle. Rudy Bunel, Oliver Hinder, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2020 | Conic Descent and its Application to Memory-efficient Optimization over Positive Semidefinite MatricesabstractWe present an extension of the conditional gradient method to problems whose feasible sets are convex cones. We provide a convergence analysis for the method and for variants with nonconvex objectives, and we extend the analysis to practical cases with effective line search strategies. For the specific case of the positive semidefinite cone, we present a memory-efficient version based on randomized matrix sketches and advocate a heuristic greedy step that greatly improves its practical performance. Numerical results on phase retrieval and matrix completion problems indicate that our method can offer substantial advantages over traditional conditional gradient and Burer-Monteiro approaches. John C. Duchi, Oliver Hinder, Andrew Naber, Yinyu Ye 0001 |
NeurIPS | 2 |
| 2018 | Cutting plane methods can be extended into nonconvex optimizationabstractWe show that it is possible to obtain an $O(\epsilon^{-4/3})$ runtime — including computational cost — for finding $\epsilon$-stationary points of nonconvex functions using cutting plane methods. This improves on the best known epsilon dependence achieved by cubic regularized Newton of $O(\epsilon^{-3/2})$ as proved by Nesterov and Polyak (2006). Our techniques utilize the convex until proven guilty principle proposed by Carmon, Duchi, Hinder, and Sidford (2017). Oliver Hinder |
COLT | 1 |
| 2017 | "Convex Until Proven Guilty": Dimension-Free Acceleration of Gradient Descent on Non-Convex FunctionsabstractWe develop and analyze a variant of Nesterov’s accelerated gradient descent (AGD) for minimization of smooth non-convex functions. We prove that one of two cases occurs: either our AGD variant converges quickly, as if the function was convex, or we produce a certificate that the function is “guilty” of being non-convex. This non-convexity certificate allows us to exploit negative curvature and obtain deterministic, dimension-free acceleration of convergence for non-convex functions. For a function $f$ with Lipschitz continuous gradient and Hessian, we compute a point $x$ with $\|\nabla f(x)\| \le \epsilon$ in $O(\epsilon^{-7/4} \log(1/ \epsilon) )$ gradient and function evaluations. Assuming additionally that the third derivative is Lipschitz, we require only $O(\epsilon^{-5/3} \log(1/ \epsilon) )$ evaluations. Yair Carmon, John C. Duchi, Oliver Hinder, Aaron Sidford |
ICML | 3 |