Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
We present a tightened convergence analysis of clipped gradient descent on $(L_0, L_1)$-smooth functions, with quantitative constants. Building on the ideas of Koloskova et al (2023), we refactor several case disjunctions to reveal the central role of a control of the bias derived from fundamental properties of $\ell_2$-projection, simplifying proofs. We also extend the domain of validity from $η\leq 1 / (9 β)$ to $η< 1 /β$ where $β= L_0 + c L_1$ for clipping constant $c$, which matches the more traditional analysis of smooth functions. We strengthen the convergence criterion from $\left( \min_{t < T} \mathbb{E}[\lVert \nabla f(x_t) \rVert_2] \right)$ to $\left( \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t < T} \mathbb{E}[\lVert \nabla f(x_t) \rVert_2] \right)$ with matching speed, and lower the final achievable loss from $\mathcal{O}(\min(σ^2/c, σ))$ to the more precise $6 \min(σ^2 /c, 3 σ)$.