Changing the Training Data Distribution to Reduce Simplicity Bias Improves In-distribution Generalization
Dang Nguyen, Paymon Haddad, Eric Gan, Baharan Mirzasoleiman
Abstract
Can we modify the training data distribution to encourage the underlying optimization method toward finding solutions with superior generalization performance on in-distribution data? In this work, we approach this question for the first time by comparing the inductive bias of gradient descent (GD) with that of sharpness-aware minimization (SAM). By studying a two-layer CNN, we rigorously prove that SAM learns different features more uniformly, particularly in early epochs. That is, SAM is less susceptible to simplicity bias compared to GD. We also show that examples containing features that are learned early are separable from the rest based on the model's output. Based on this observation, we propose a method that (i) clusters examples based on the network output early in training, (ii) identifies a cluster of examples with similar network output, and (iii) upsamples the rest of examples only once to alleviate the simplicity bias. We show empirically that USEFUL effectively improves the generalization performance on the original data distribution when training with various gradient methods, including (S)GD and SAM. Notably, we demonstrate that our method can be combined with SAM variants and existing data augmentation strategies to achieve, to the best of our knowledge, state-of-the-art performance for training ResNet18 on CIFAR10, STL10, CINIC10, Tiny-ImageNet; ResNet34 on CIFAR100; and VGG19 and DenseNet121 on CIFAR10. Our code is available at https://github.com/BigML-CS-UCLA/TADA.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c584cb77-66b5-4599-b099-9b79c93cf54fCited by top-tier papers2
- Do We Need All the Synthetic Data? Targeted Image Augmentation via Diffusion ModelsDang Nguyen, Jiping Li, Jinghao Zheng, Baharan MirzasoleimanICLR 2026 · 3 citations
- Align-SAM: Seeking Flatter Minima for Better Cross-Subset AlignmentVan-Anh Nguyen, Mehrtash Harandi, Thanh-Toan Do, Linh Ngo Van et al.ICLR 2026
Builds on35
- Tokens-to-Token ViT: Training Vision Transformers from Scratch on ImageNetLi Yuan, Yunpeng Chen, Tao Wang, Weihao Yu et al.ICCV 2021 · 2,462 citations
- Sharpness-aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving GeneralizationPierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, Behnam NeyshaburICLR 2021 · 1,861 citations
- DivideMix: Learning with Noisy Labels as Semi-supervised LearningJunnan Li, Richard Socher, Steven C. H. HoiICLR 2020 · 1,326 citations
- Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data HurtPreetum Nakkiran, Gal Kaplun, Yamini Bansal, Tristan Yang et al.ICLR 2020 · 1,108 citations
- Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models BetterKatherine Lee, Daphne Ippolito, Andrew Nystrom, Chiyuan Zhang et al.ACL 2022 · 844 citations
Related papers
- Sharpness-Aware Minimization Enhances Feature Quality via Balanced LearningJacob Mitchell Springer, Vaishnavh Nagarajan, Aditi RaghunathanICLR 2024 · 13 citations
- Sharpness-Aware Minimization Efficiently Selects Flatter Minima Late In TrainingZhanpeng Zhou, Mingze Wang, Yuchen Mao, Bingrui Li et al.ICLR 2025
- Towards Understanding Sharpness-Aware MinimizationMaksym Andriushchenko, Nicolas FlammarionICML 2022 · 190 citations
- On Saddle Point Avoidance and Stationary Distribution of Sharpness-Aware MinimizationTao Sun, Fan Jia, Bao WangKDD 2026 · 1 citation
- Why Does Sharpness-Aware Minimization Generalize Better Than SGD?Zixiang Chen, Junkai Zhang, Yiwen Kou, Xiangning Chen et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 32 citations
