Beyond a Single Explanation of the Adam--SGD Gap
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Prior work has identified several factors that can contribute to the performance gap between Adam and SGD, spanning data aspects, architecture design, and optimization properties. Yet these explanations are often studied in isolation, leaving their relative importance unclear. In this work, we revisit these hypotheses through a controlled empirical study across vision, language, genomics, and graph tasks, spanning modern and classical architectures, and carefully designed training setups. Our results suggest that no single factor consistently explains the Adam--SGD gap. For instance, the Adam advantage can (1) persist under a uniform vocabulary distribution yet nearly disappear under a heavy-tailed one; (2) reverse in favor of SGD in softmax-attention models; and (3) become larger under soft architectural modifications, e.g., when ReLU is replaced by a GeLU nonlinearity. This suggests that the gap arises from nontrivial data and architecture interactions, rather than from a single common factor. Yet, we observe a pattern across our settings: a crossover batch size at which the relative advantage shifts from SGD to Adam as the batch size scales. These empirical results are captured by our theoretical gap model, which predicts this batch-size-dependent crossover. Our perspective helps reconcile several existing hypotheses while offering practical insights across domains.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 55 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2026.
Builds on
55 of 72 references.
References · 55
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2017Graph Attention Networkscited by 8,854
- 2021RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embeddingcited by 4,581
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,425
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,104
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 919
- 2020On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecturecited by 906
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
- 2024MiniCPM: Unveiling the Potential of Small Language Models with Scalable Training Strategiescited by 694
38 more
- 2016Language Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networkscited by 688
- 2018signSGD: Compressed Optimisation for Non-Convex Problemscited by 561
- 2024Gated Delta Networks: Improving Mamba2 with Delta Rulecited by 483
- 2023TinyStories: How Small Can Language Models Be and Still Speak Coherent English?cited by 425
- 2021Early Convolutions Help Transformers See Bettercited by 395
- 2024Rotary Position Embedding for Vision Transformercited by 226
- 2019Limitations of the Empirical Fisher Approximation for Natural Gradient Descentcited by 213
- 2023Small-scale proxies for large-scale Transformer training instabilitiescited by 182
- 2025Training Deep Learning Models with Norm-Constrained LMOscited by 177
- 2021Primer: Searching for Efficient Transformers for Language Modelingcited by 162
- 2023Graph Inductive Biases in Transformers without Message Passingcited by 150
- 2020Stochastic Polyak Step-size for SGD: An Adaptive Learning Rate for Fast Convergencecited by 137
- 2017Dissecting Adam: The Sign, Magnitude and Variance of Stochastic Gradientscited by 136
- 2022Signal Propagation in Transformers: Theoretical Perspectives and the Role of Rank Collapsecited by 136
- 2020Towards Theoretically Understanding Why SGD Generalizes Better Than ADAM in Deep Learningcited by 125
- 2024Why Transformers Need Adam: A Hessian Perspectivecited by 123
- 2020Descending through a Crowded Valley - Benchmarking Deep Learning Optimizerscited by 118
- 2019Which Algorithmic Choices Matter at Which Batch Sizes? Insights From a Noisy Quadratic Modelcited by 116
- 2023Noise Is Not the Main Factor Behind the Gap Between SGD and Adam on Transformers, but Sign Descent Might Becited by 114
- 2025The Polar Express: Optimal Matrix Sign Methods and Their Application to the Muon Algorithmcited by 104
- 2022On the SDEs and Scaling Rules for Adaptive Gradient Algorithmscited by 100
- 2023Linear attention is (maybe) all you need (to understand transformer optimization)cited by 97
- 2025Understanding Gradient Orthogonalization for Deep Learning via Non-Euclidean Trust-Region Optimizationcited by 81
- 2021High-probability Bounds for Non-Convex Stochastic Optimization with Heavy Tailscited by 80
- 2024Heavy-Tailed Class Imbalance and Why Adam Outperforms Gradient Descent on Language Modelscited by 78
- 2025Practical Efficiency of Muon for Pretrainingcited by 74
- 2024nGPT: Normalized Transformer with Representation Learning on the Hyperspherecited by 68
- 2024How Does Critical Batch Size Scale in Pre-training?cited by 68
- 2017Sub-sampled Cubic Regularization for Non-convex Optimizationcited by 63
- 2024From Gradient Clipping to Normalization for Heavy Tailed SGDcited by 48
- 2023Benchmarking Neural Network Training Algorithmscited by 46
- 2025In Search of Adam's Secret Saucecited by 40
- 2025Small Batch Size Training for Language Models: When Vanilla SGD Works, and Why Gradient Accumulation Is Wastefulcited by 36
- 2025Accelerating Neural Network Training: An Analysis of the AlgoPerf Competitioncited by 30
- 2024Recurrent neural networks: vanishing and exploding gradients are not the end of the storycited by 25
- 2022How to Fine-Tune Vision Models with SGDcited by 23
- 2024Adaptive Methods through the Lens of SDEs: Theoretical Insights on the Role of Noisecited by 22
- 2025Scaling Laws for Gradient Descent and Sign Descent for Linear Bigram Models under Zipf's Lawcited by 19
50 most cited of 55 All 55 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026A Defense of the Quadratic Modelcited by 6
- 2026A Defense of the Quadratic Model23 Jul 2026