Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

When Descent Is Too Stable: Event-Triggered Hamiltonian Learning to Optimize

About

Fixed-budget nonconvex optimization can fail not because local descent is unstable, but because it is too stable: after reaching a nearby stationary point, an optimizer may spend the remaining evaluations refining an uninformative local minimum. We formulate this failure mode as a control problem over optimizer dynamics, where the learner must decide when to descend, when to exploit a promising basin, and when stagnation should trigger movement elsewhere. We introduce SHAPE, a structured adaptive port-Hamiltonian task-family optimizer for event-triggered minima hunting under local information. Starting from gradient-descent dynamics, SHAPE lifts optimization to an augmented phase space $(q, p)$, where the primal state $q$ represents the candidate solution, the cotangent variable $p$ carries directional sensitivity, and a controller $u$ provides processed information from current gradient oracle. Within each stage, a learned Hamiltonian vector field induces structured local descent; across stages, a fixed event clock in the implementation updates ports and memory when local equilibria are detected, with stage-dependent horizons treated in the analysis as a direct generalization. This design preserves a passivity-compatible structure while allowing the same trained policy to use clean, stochastic, or estimated gradient inputs. Experiments on fixed-budget nonconvex optimization tasks show that SHAPE improves best-so-far performance compared with fixed-policy optimizers. These results suggest that adaptive Hamiltonian energy shaping provides a principled mechanism for balancing descent, exploration, and budget allocation in difficult optimization landscapes.

Yi Wang, Chandrajit Bajaj• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Function OptimizationAckley d = 2
Final Distance0.273
6
Function OptimizationAckley d=20
Final Distance0.228
6
Function OptimizationAckley d = 100
Final Distance0.178
6
Function OptimizationLevy d = 2
Final Distance0.357
6
Function OptimizationLevy d=20
Final Distance0.171
6
Function OptimizationRastrigin d = 2
Final Distance1.157
6
Function OptimizationRastrigin d = 20
Final Distance1.468
6
Function OptimizationRastrigin d = 100
Final Distance2.437
6
LJ cluster optimizationLJ cluster low-dimensional (d=6)
Final Distance0.324
6
LJ cluster optimizationLJ cluster high-dimensional (d=18)
Final Distance0.509
6
Showing 10 of 26 rows

Other info

Follow for update