Efficiently Escaping Saddle Points under Generalized Smoothness via Self-Bounding Regularity

We study the optimization of non-convex functions that are not necessarily smooth (gradient and/or Hessian are Lipschitz) using first order methods. Smoothness is a restrictive assumption in machine learning in both theory and practice, motivating significant recent work on finding first order stationary points of functions satisfying generalizations of smoothness with first order methods. We develop a novel framework that lets us systematically study the convergence of a large class of first-order optimization algorithms (which we call decrease procedures) under generalizations of smoothness. We instantiate our framework to analyze the convergence of first order optimization algorithms to first and second order stationary points under generalizations of smoothness. As a consequence, we establish the first convergence guarantees for first order methods to second order stationary points under generalizations of smoothness. We demonstrate that several canonical examples fall under our framework, and highlight practical implications.

• Authors are listed in alphabetical order. 2 There are several definitions of a SOSP; see Remark 5 for why we use this definition here.

39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025).

• The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only a subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.

• At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).

• Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.

Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?

Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide a full description of the training and test details of our experiments. These are provided in the Appendix along with our experimental results; the Appendix is the only place our experimental results are presented.

Guidelines:

• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.

• The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material.

Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?

Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide suitable error bars and detail all the settings of our experiments.

Guidelines:

• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.

• The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).

• The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)

• The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).

• It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.

• It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.