user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Revisiting the Generalization of Adaptive Gradient Methods

Paper content:
A commonplace belief in the machine learning community is that using adaptive gradient methods hurts generalization.
We re-examine this belief both theoretically and experimentally, in light of insights and trends from recent years.
We revisit some previous oft-cited experiments and theoretical accounts in more depth, and provide a new set of experiments in larger-scale, state-of-the-art settings.
We conclude that with proper tuning, the improved training performance of adaptive optimizers does not in general carry an overfitting penalty, especially in contemporary deep learning.
Finally, we synthesize a ``user's guide'' to adaptive optimizers, including some proposed modifications to AdaGrad to mitigate some of its empirical shortcomings.
Adaptive gradient methods have remained a cornerstone of optimization for deep learning.
They revolve around a simple idea: scale the step sizes according to the observed gradients along the execution.
It is generally believed that these methods enjoy accelerated optimization, and are more robust to hyperparameter choices.
For these reasons, adaptive optimizers have been applied across diverse architectures and domains.
However, in recent years, there has been renewed scrutiny on the distinction between adaptive methods and "vanilla" stochastic gradient descent (SGD).
Namely, several lines of work have purported that SGD, while often slower to converge, finds solutions that generalize better: for the same optimization error (training error), adaptive gradient methods will produce models with a higher statistical error (holdout validation error).
This claim, which can be shown to be true in a convex overparameterized examples, has perhaps muddled the consensus between academic research and practitioners pushing the empirical state of the art.
For the latter group, adaptive gradient methods have largely endured this criticism, and remain an invaluable instrument in the deep learning toolbox.
In this work, we revisit the generalization performance of adaptive gradient methods from an empirical perspective, and examine several often-overlooked factors which can have a significant effect on the optimization trajectory.
Addressing these factors, which does not require trying yet another new optimizer, can often account for what appear to be performance gaps between adaptive methods and SGD.
Our experiments suggest that adaptive gradient methods do not necessarily incur a generalization penalty: if an experiment indicates as such, there are a number of potential confounding factors and simple fixes.
We complete the paper with a discussion of inconsistent evidence for the generalization penalty of adaptive methods, from both experimental and theoretical viewpoints.
In this section we provide two simple examples of stochastic convex problems where it can be seen that when it comes to generalization both AdaGrad and SGD can be significantly better than the other depending on the instance.
Our purpose to provide both the examples is to stress our point that the issue of understanding the generalization performance of SGD vs. adaptive methods is more nuanced than what simple examples might suggest and hence such examples should be treated as qualitative indicators more for the purpose of providing intuition.
Indeed which algorithm will perform better on a given problem, depends on various properties of the precise instance.

assistant: text: Adaptive gradient methods, when done right, do not incur a generalization penalty.