Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the implicit bias of Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM) in deep linear networks, revealing a departure from gradient descent's behavior, particularly with increasing depth. For L=2 layer networks, $\ell_\infty$-SAM's convergence is highly initialization-dependent, while $\ell_2$-SAM exhibits "sequential feature amplification," where minor data coordinates are initially emphasized before shifting to major ones. This challenges the sufficiency of infinite-time implicit bias analyses for understanding SAM's dynamics.
SAM's implicit bias in deep linear networks flips the script on feature learning, prioritizing minor data coordinates early in training before amplifying major ones, a behavior unseen in gradient descent.
We study the implicit bias of Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM) when training $L$-layer linear diagonal networks on linearly separable binary classification. For linear models ($L=1$), both $\ell_\infty$- and $\ell_2$-SAM recover the $\ell_2$ max-margin classifier, matching gradient descent (GD). However, for depth $L = 2$, the behavior changes drastically -- even on a single-example dataset. For $\ell_\infty$-SAM, the limit direction depends critically on initialization and can converge to $\mathbf{0}$ or to any standard basis vector, in stark contrast to GD, whose limit aligns with the basis vector of the dominant data coordinate. For $\ell_2$-SAM, we show that although its limit direction matches the $\ell_1$ max-margin solution as in the case of GD, its finite-time dynamics exhibit a phenomenon we call "sequential feature amplification", in which the predictor initially relies on minor coordinates and gradually shifts to larger ones as training proceeds or initialization increases. Our theoretical analysis attributes this phenomenon to $\ell_2$-SAM's gradient normalization factor applied in its perturbation, which amplifies minor coordinates early and allows major ones to dominate later, giving a concrete example where infinite-time implicit-bias analyses are insufficient. Synthetic and real-data experiments corroborate our findings.
