mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Understanding the robustness difference between stochastic gradient descent and adaptive gradient methods

arXiv 2308.06703 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2023cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and adaptive gradient methods, such as Adam and RMSProp, have been widely used in training deep neural networks. We empirically show that while the difference between the standard generalization performance of models trained using these methods is small, those trained using SGD exhibit far greater robustness under input perturbations. Notably, our investigation demonstrates the presence of irrelevant frequencies in natural datasets, where alterations do not affect models' generalization performance. However, models trained with adaptive methods show sensitivity to these changes, suggesting that their use of irrelevant frequencies can lead to solutions sensitive to perturbations. To better understand this difference, we study the learning dynamics of gradient descent (GD) and sign gradient descent (signGD) on a synthetic dataset that mirrors natural signals. With a three-dimensional input space, the models optimized with GD and signGD have standard risks close to zero but vary in their adversarial risks. Our result shows that linear models' robustness to ℓ2-norm bounded changes is inversely proportional to the model parameters' weight norm: a smaller weight norm implies better robustness. In the context of deep learning, our experiments show that SGD-trained neural networks have smaller Lipschitz constants, explaining the better robustness to input perturbations than those trained with adaptive gradient methods.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 47 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2023.

Builds on

47 of 78 references.

References · 47

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  3. 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 7,005
  4. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
  5. 2017mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 5,183
  6. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,155
  7. 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
  8. 2015Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classificationcited by 3,611
  9. 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
  10. 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,965
  11. 2019AugMix: A Simple Data Processing Method to Improve Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 901
  12. 2017The Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent on Separable Datacited by 655
35 more
  1. 2016Linear Convergence of Gradient and Proximal-Gradient Methods Under the Polyak-Lojasiewicz Conditioncited by 539
  2. 2018Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: analysis and efficient estimationcited by 415
  3. 2017Implicit Regularization in Matrix Factorizationcited by 322
  4. 2019Gradient Descent Maximizes the Margin of Homogeneous Neural Networkscited by 320
  5. 2018Regularisation of Neural Networks by Enforcing Lipschitz Continuitycited by 314
  6. 2019High Frequency Component Helps Explain the Generalization of Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 310
  7. 2019A Fourier Perspective on Model Robustness in Computer Visioncited by 288
  8. 2020Gradient Starvation: A Learning Proclivity in Neural Networkscited by 267
  9. 2017The Marginal Value of Adaptive Gradient Methods in Machine Learningcited by 250
  10. 2021Improving Robustness using Generated Datacited by 234
  11. 2021Data Augmentation Can Improve Robustnesscited by 194
  12. 2018MMA Training: Direct Input Space Margin Maximization through Adversarial Trainingcited by 172
  13. 2017Dissecting Adam: The Sign, Magnitude and Variance of Stochastic Gradientscited by 139
  14. 2020Adversarial Machine Learning -- Industry Perspectivescited by 122
  15. 2018Low Frequency Adversarial Perturbationcited by 80
  16. 2020Secure and Robust Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Surveycited by 80
  17. 2020Do Wider Neural Networks Really Help Adversarial Robustness?cited by 79
  18. 2021Exploring Architectural Ingredients of Adversarially Robust Deep Neural Networkscited by 74
  19. 2020Opportunities and Challenges in Deep Learning Adversarial Robustness: A Surveycited by 72
  20. 2020An Analysis of Adversarial Attacks and Defenses on Autonomous Driving Modelscited by 68
  21. 2019On the Effectiveness of Low Frequency Perturbationscited by 56
  22. 2021DORO: Distributional and Outlier Robust Optimizationcited by 56
  23. 2018Stable Prediction across Unknown Environmentscited by 55
  24. 2020Revisiting Batch Normalization for Improving Corruption Robustnesscited by 55
  25. 2020The Implicit Bias for Adaptive Optimization Algorithms on Homogeneous Neural Networkscited by 46
  26. 2020Disentangling Adaptive Gradient Methods from Learning Ratescited by 42
  27. 2020Batch Normalization Increases Adversarial Vulnerability and Decreases Adversarial Transferability: A Non-Robust Feature Perspectivecited by 35
  28. 2020A Qualitative Study of the Dynamic Behavior for Adaptive Gradient Algorithmscited by 33
  29. 2020When Does Preconditioning Help or Hurt Generalization?cited by 31
  30. 2018A general system of differential equations to model first order adaptive algorithmscited by 28
  31. 2022Removing Batch Normalization Boosts Adversarial Trainingcited by 24
  32. 2019The Implicit Bias of AdaGrad on Separable Datacited by 16
  33. 2020Towards Understanding the Regularization of Adversarial Robustness on Neural Networkscited by 12
  34. 2022SAGE: Saliency-Guided Mixup with Optimal Rearrangementscited by 6
  35. 2021Improving Hierarchical Adversarial Robustness of Deep Neural Networkscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

8 papers.