Soft ascent-descent as a stable and flexible alternative to flooding
Matthew J. Holland, Kosuke Nakatani
Abstract
As a heuristic for improving test accuracy in classification, the "flooding" method proposed by Ishida et al. (2020) sets a threshold for the average surrogate loss at training time; above the threshold, gradient descent is run as usual, but below the threshold, a switch to gradient ascent is made. While setting the threshold is non-trivial and is usually done with validation data, this simple technique has proved remarkably effective in terms of accuracy. On the other hand, what if we are also interested in other metrics such as model complexity or average surrogate loss at test time? As an attempt to achieve better overall performance with less fine-tuning, we propose a softened, pointwise mechanism called SoftAD (soft ascent-descent) that downweights points on the borderline, limits the effects of outliers, and retains the ascent-descent effect of flooding, with no additional computational overhead. We contrast formal stationarity guarantees with those for flooding, and empirically demonstrate how SoftAD can realize classification accuracy competitive with flooding (and the more expensive alternative SAM) while enjoying a much smaller loss generalization gap and model norm.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on21
- Sharpness-aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving GeneralizationPierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, Behnam NeyshaburICLR 2021 · 1,861 citations
- Fantastic Generalization Measures and Where to Find ThemYiding Jiang, Behnam Neyshabur, Hossein Mobahi, Dilip Krishnan et al.ICLR 2020 · 705 citations
- Why are Adaptive Methods Good for Attention Models?Jingzhao Zhang, Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Andreas Veit, Seungyeon Kim et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 397 citations
- ASAM: Adaptive Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Scale-Invariant Learning of Deep Neural NetworksJungmin Kwon, Jeongseop Kim, Hyunseo Park, In Kwon ChoiICML 2021 · 385 citations
- On the Origin of Implicit Regularization in Stochastic Gradient DescentSamuel L. Smith, Benoit Dherin, David G. T. Barrett, Soham DeICLR 2021 · 235 citations
Related papers
- Do We Need Zero Training Loss After Achieving Zero Training Error?Takashi Ishida, Ikko Yamane, Tomoya Sakai, Gang Niu et al.ICML 2020 · 155 citations
- Understanding Gradient Regularization in Deep Learning: Efficient Finite-Difference Computation and Implicit BiasRyo Karakida, Tomoumi Takase, Tomohiro Hayase, Kazuki OsawaICML 2023 · 23 citations
- Revisiting Sharpness-Aware Minimization: A More Faithful and Effective ImplementationJianlong Chen, Zhiming ZhouICLR 2026 · 1 citation
- iFlood: A Stable and Effective RegularizerYuexiang Xie, Zhen Wang, Yaliang Li, Ce Zhang et al.ICLR 2022 · 6 citations
- Criterion Collapse and Loss Distribution ControlMatthew J. HollandICML 2024 · 2 citations
