Abstract
Deep learning has seen tremendous progress over recent years and has produced impressive results in areas like computer vision, natural language processing, and healthcare analytics. However, one of the key difficult problems with neural networks is a guarantees on seen generalization, where a model trained on some data does well even unseen data. The geometry of the loss surface, commonly called the energy landscape, is another important ingredient determining generalization. Inevitably, a growing body of work suggests that the flatness/sharpness of minima in the energy landscape correlates well against generalization ability: sharper minima (longer-trapped) optimise further and are even weaker on robustness than on overfitting. This has led to techniques that flatten the energy landscape with the hope of directing optimization algorithms to flatter and broader regions of the loss surface.Flattening of the energy landscape means change of training dynamics, objective function or optimization procedure to accelerate convergence towards flat minima. Among these methods, there are regularization strategies, noise injection techniques, entropy-based approaches and new optimization algorithms such as Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM). Flattening methods decrease the sensitivity of a model to small perturbations in model parameters, thus increasing model stability and improving generalization performance across datasets and tasks. Moreover, all of these techniques not only help to alleviate some sources of overfitting but improve robustness against adversarial attacks and distribution shifts that inevitably arise in many real-world applications. Flat Generalization by Energy Landscape Flattening — This paper is a deep dive on energy landscape flattening for better neural generalization. The first part is easy to understand concept of loss landscapes and their role in the performance of models, followed by the thorough analysis of bunch of flattening strategies. It also explores applications, experimental modalities, and recent combinations with state of the arts, including convolutional neural networks and transformer architectures. Further, it also points out the limits that we have today and gives potential future research pathways in this increasingly growing area.The importance of this work is that it provides a bridge between theoretical ideas and practical implementations -- in providing a more structured viewpoint on how to control the geometry of the loss surface in order to create more robust, efficient machine learning systems. This paper is universal and summarizes the relevant studies followed by an integrated framework that researchers and practitioners can use to design models that not only yield more accurate predictions but also ensure robustness and consistency in dynamically changing environments.
Keywords
Energy Landscape, Generalization in Neural Networks, Optimization of Deep Learning, Flat Minima, Sharp Minimum—Regularization Methods, Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM), Loss Surface Analysis and Robustness Over fitting.
References
[1] Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Flat minima. Neural Computation.
[2] Keskar, N. S., et al. (2017). On large-batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima. ICLR.
[3] Chaudhari, P., et al. (2017). Entropy-SGD: Biasing gradient descent into wide valleys. ICLR.
[4] Foret, P., et al. (2021). Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM). ICLR.
[5] Kwon, J., et al. (2021). ASAM: Adaptive Sharpness-Aware Minimization. ICML.
[6] Izmailov, P., et al. (2018). Averaging weights leads to wider optima. UAI.
[7] Maddox, W. J., et al. (2019). Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using SWAG. NeurIPS.
[8] Garipov, T., et al. (2018). Loss surfaces, mode connectivity, and fast ensembling. NeurIPS.
[9] Draxler, F., et al. (2018). Essentially no barriers in neural network loss surfaces. ICML.
[10] Li, H., et al. (2018). Visualizing the loss landscape of neural nets. NeurIPS.
[11] Smith, S. L., & Le, Q. V. (2018). A Bayesian perspective on generalization. ICLR.
[12] Neyshabur, B., et al. (2017). Exploring generalization in deep learning. NeurIPS.
[13] Neyshabur, B., et al. (2018). Towards understanding generalization via sharpness. ICML.
[14] Jiang, Y., et al. (2020). Fantastic generalization measures. ICLR.
[15] Wu, L., et al. (2020). Adversarial weight perturbation helps generalization. NeurIPS.
[16] Zhao, H., et al. (2020). Improved training with noise injection. ICML.
[17] He, F., et al. (2019). Stochastic gradient methods with noise injection. AAAI.
[18] Wen, W., et al. (2020). Learning sparse neural networks. NeurIPS.
[19] Novak, R., et al. (2018). Sensitivity and generalization in neural networks. ICLR.
[20] Keskar, N., & Socher, R. (2017). Improving generalization by noise injection. ICLR Workshop.
[21] Zhu, Z., et al. (2019). Anisotropic noise in SGD. ICML.
[22] Jastrzębski, S., et al. (2017). Three factors influencing minima sharpness. ICML Workshop.
[23] Xing, C., et al. (2018). Walk with SGD. arXiv.
[24] Chaudhari, P., & Soatto, S. (2018). Stochastic gradient descent performs variational inference. ICLR.
[25] Fort, S., & Jastrzębski, S. (2019). Large-scale structure of neural network loss landscapes. NeurIPS.
[26] Gur-Ari, G., et al. (2018). Gradient descent happens in a tiny subspace. ICML.
[27] Lewkowycz, A., et al. (2020). Large learning rates lead to flat minima. NeurIPS.
[28] Andriushchenko, M., & Flammarion, N. (2022). Sharpness-Aware Minimization revisited. ICML.
[29] Bartlett, P., et al. (2021). Benign overfitting in deep learning. PNAS.
[30] Damian, A., et al. (2021). SGD dynamics and generalization. ICML.