1: \begin{abstract}

2: Under mild regularity conditions, gradient-based methods converge globally to a critical point in the single-loss setting. This is known to break down for vanilla gradient descent when moving to \emph{multi-loss} optimization, but can we hope to build some algorithm with global guarantees? We negatively resolve this open problem by proving that desirable convergence properties cannot simultaneously hold for \emph{any} algorithm. Our result has more to do with the existence of games with no satisfactory outcomes, than with algorithms per se. More explicitly we construct a two-player game with zero-sum interactions whose losses are both coercive and analytic, but whose only simultaneous critical point is a strict maximum. Any `reasonable' algorithm, defined to avoid strict maxima, will therefore fail to converge. This is fundamentally different from single losses, where coercivity implies existence of a global minimum.  Moreover, we prove that a wide range of existing gradient-based methods almost surely have bounded but non-convergent iterates in a constructed \emph{zero-sum} game for suitably small learning rates. It nonetheless remains an open question whether such behavior can arise in high-dimensional games of interest to ML practitioners, such as GANs or multi-agent RL.

3: \end{abstract}

4: