Parameter Symmetry and Noise Equilibrium of Stochastic Gradient Descent

Authors: liu  ziyin
mingze  wang
hongchao  li
lei  wu
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-14 15:54:57

Abstract: Symmetries are prevalent in deep learning and can significantly influence the learning dynamics of neural networks. In this paper, we examine how exponential symmetries -- a broad subclass of continuous symmetries present in the model architecture or loss function -- interplay with stochastic gradient descent (SGD). We first prove that gradient noise creates a systematic motion (a ``Noether flow") of the parameters $\theta$ along the degenerate direction to a unique initialization-independent fixed point $\theta^*$. These points are referred to as the noise equilibria because, at these points, noise contributions from different directions are balanced and aligned. Then, we show that the balance and alignment of gradient noise can serve as a novel alternative mechanism for explaining important phenomena such as progressive sharpening/flattening and representation formation within neural networks and have practical implications for understanding techniques like representation normalization and warmup.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and its variants have become the cornerstone algorithms used in deep learning. In the continuous-time limit, the algorithm can be written as [19, 13, 21, 32, 9] :EQUATIONwhere Σ(θ) is the covariance matrix of gradient noise (Section 3) with the prefactor σ 2 = η/(2S) modeling the impact of a finite learning rate η and batch size S; W t denotes the Brownian motion. When σ = 0, Eq. ( 1) corresponds to gradient descent (GD) 1 . However, SGD and GD can exhibit significantly different behaviors, often converging to solutions with significantly different levels of performance [31, 39, 44, 22, 49] . Notably, even when σ 2 ≪ 1, where we expect a close resemblance between SGD and GD over finite time [19] , their long-time behaviors still differ substantially [26] .These observations indicate that gradient noise can bias the dynamics significantly, and revealing its underlying mechanism is thus crucial for understanding the disparities between SGD and GD.2. the treatment of common symmetries, including the rescaling and scaling symmetry in deep learning, can be unified in a single theoretical framework that we call the exponential symmetry; 3. for any θ, every exponential symmetry implies the existence of a unique and attractive fixed point along the degenerate direction for SGD; 4. symmetry and balancing of noise can serve as novel mechanisms for important deep learning phenomena such as progressive sharpening/flattening and latent representation formation. See Figure 1 for an illustration of how symmetry leads to a systematic flow of SGD. This work is organized as follows.We discuss the most relevant works in Section 2. The main theoretical results are presented in Section 4. We apply our theory to understand specific problems and present numerical results in Section 5. The last section concludes this work. All the proofs are presented in the Appendix. 
related works: 
 The dynamics of SGD in the degenerate directions of the loss landscape is a poorly understood problem. There are two closely related prior works. Ref. [48] studies the dynamics of SGD when there is a simple rescaling symmetry and applies it to derive the stationary distribution of SGD for linear networks. Our result is more general because rescaling symmetry is the simplest case of exponential symmetries 2 . Another related work is Ref. [20] , which studies a different special case of exponential symmetry, the scale invariance, and in the presence of weight decay. Their analysis assumes the existence of the fixed point of the dynamics, which we proved to exist. Also related is the study of conservation laws under gradient flow [34, 18, 24, 43, 40] , which we will discuss more closely in Section 4. However, these works do not take the stochasticity of training into account. Comparing with these results that assume no stochasticity, our result could suggest that SGD converges to initialization-independent solutions, whereas the GD finds solutions are strongly initialization-dependent. In addition, Section D extends our main result to discrete-time SGD. 
preliminaries: 
 Setup and Notations. Let ℓ ∶ Ω × Z ↦ R denote the per-sample loss, with Ω and Z denoting the parameter and sample space, respectively. Here, z ∈ Z includes both the input and label and accordingly. We use E z = E to denote the expectation over a given training set. Therefore, L(θ) = E z [ℓ(θ, z)] is the empirical risk function. The covariance of gradient noise is given byΣ(θ) = E z [∇ℓ(θ, z)∇ℓ(θ, z) ⊺ ] -∇L(θ)∇L(θ) ⊺ .Additionally, we useΣ v (θ) ∶= E z [∇ v ℓ(θ, z)∇ v ℓ(θ, z) ⊺ ] -∇ v L(θ)∇ v L(θ)⊺ to denote the covariance of gradient noise impacting on the subset of parameters v. Denote by (θ t ) t≥0 the trajectory of SGD or GD. For any h ∶ Ω ↦ R, we write h t = h(θ t ) and ḣ(θ t ) = d dt h(θ t ) for brevity. When the context is clear, we also use ℓ(θ) to denote ℓ(θ, z).Symmetry. The per-sample loss ℓ(⋅, ⋅) is said to possess the Q-symmetry ifEQUATIONwhere (Q ρ ) ρ∈R is a set of continuous transformation parameterized by ρ ∈ R. Without loss of generality, we assume Q 0 = id. The most common symmetries exist within the model f , namely f θ is invariant under certain transformations of θ. However, our formalism is slightly more general in the sense that it is also possible for the model to be variant while the per-sample loss remains unchanged, which appears in self-supervised learning [50] , for example. 
continuous symmetry and noise equilibria: 
 Taking the derivative with respect to ρ at ρ = 0 in Eq. ( 2), we haveEQUATIONwhere J(θ) = dQρ(θ) dρ | ρ=0 . Denote by C be the antiderivative of J, that is, ∇C(θ) = J(θ). Then, taking the expectation over z in (3) gives the following conservation law for GD solutions (θ t ) t≥0 :EQUATIONEssentially, this is a consequence of Noether's theorem [25] , and C will be called a "Noether charge" in analogy to theoretical physics. The conservation law (4) implies that the GD trajectory is constrained on the manifold {θ ∶ C(θ) = C(θ 0 )}. We refer to Ref. [18] for a study of this type of conservation law under the Bregman Lagrangian [16] .In this paper, we are interested in how C(θ t ) changes, if it changes at all, under SGD. By Ito's lemma, we have the following Noether flow (namely, the flow of the Noether charge):EQUATIONwhere ∇ 2 C denotes the Hessian matrix of C. The derivation is deferred to Appendix B. By definition, Σ(θ t ) is always positive semidefinite (PSD). Thus, we immediately have: if∇ 2 C is PSD throughout training, C(θ t ) is a monotonically increasing function of time. Conversely, if ∇ 2 θ C is negative semidefinite (NPD), C(θ t ) is a monotonically decreasing function of time.The existence of symmetry implies that (with suitable conditions of smoothness) any solution θ resides within a connected, loss-invariant manifold, defined as M θ ∶= {Q ρ (θ) ∶ ρ ∈ R}. We term directions within this manifold as "degenerate directions" since movement along them does not change the loss value. Notably, the biased flow (5) suggests that SGD noise can drive SGD to explore within this manifold along these degenerate directions since the value of C(θ) for θ ∈ M θ can vary.Now, let us focus on a family of symmetries that is common in deep learning. Since the corresponding conserved quantities are quadratic functions of the model parameters, we will refer to this class of symmetries as exponential symmetries.Definition 4.1. (Q ρ ) ρ is said to be a exponential symmetry if J(θ) ∶= d dρ Q ρ (θ)| ρ=0 = Aθ for a symmetric matrix A.This implies when ρ ≪ 1, Q ρ = id + ρA + o(ρ). In the sequel, we also use the words "A-symmetry" and "Q-symmetry" interchangeably since all properties of Q ρ we need can be derived from A. This definition applies to the following symmetries that are common in deep learning:• Rescaling symmetry: Q ρ (a, b) = (a(ρ+1), b/(ρ+1)), which appears in linear and ReLU networks [7, 48] . In this symmetry, A = diag(I a , -I b ), where I is the identity matrix with dimensions matching that of a and b. • Scaling symmetry: Q ρ θ = (ρ + 1)θ, which exists whenever part of the model normalized using techniques like batch normalization [14] , layer normalization [2] , or weight normalization [29] . In this case, A = I. • Double rotation symmetry: This symmetry appears when parts of the model involve a matrix factorization problem, where for an arbitrary invertible matrixB ℓ = ℓ(U W ) = ℓ(U BB -1 W ).Writing the exponential symmetry for this case is a little cumbersome. We need first to view U and W as a single vector, and the exponential transformation is given by a block-wise diagonal matrix diag(B, ..., B, B -1 , ..., B -1 ). See Section 5.1 for more detail.It is possible for only a subset of parameters to have a given symmetry. Mathematically, this corresponds to the case when A is low-rank. It is also common for ℓ to have multiple exponential symmetries at once, often for different (but not necessarily disjoint) subsets of parameters. For example, a ReLU network has a different rescaling symmetry for every hidden neuron.It is obvious that under this Q symmetry, the Noether charge has a simple quadratic form:EQUATIONMoreover, the interplay between this symmetry and weight decay can be explicitly characterized in our framework. To this end, we need the following definition. Definition 4.2. For any γ ∈ R, we say ℓ γ (θ, x) ∶= ℓ(θ, x) + γ∥θ∥ 2 has the Q symmetry as long as ℓ(θ, x) has the Q symmetry.For the SGD dynamics that minimizes L γ (θ) = E x [ℓ γ (θ, x)], it follows from (5) thatEQUATIONThus, a positive γ always causes |C(θ t )| to decay, and the influence of symmetry is determined by the spectrum of A. Denote by A = ∑ j µ j n j n ⊺ j the eigendecomposition of A. Then,Tr[Σ(θ t )A] = ∑ i∶µi>0 µ i n ⊺ i Σ(θ t )n i + ∑ j∶µj <0 µ j n ⊺ j Σ(θ t )n j .This gives a clear interpretation of the interplay between SGD noise and the exponential symmetry: the noise along the positive directions of A causes C(θ t ) to grow, while the noise along the negative directions causes C(θ t ) to decay. In other words, the noise-induced dynamics of C(θ t ) is determined by the competition between the noise along the positive-and negative-eigenvalue directions of A.Time Scales. The above analysis implies that the dynamics of SGD can be decomposed into two parts: the dynamics that directly reduce loss, and the dynamics along the degenerate direction of the loss, which is governed by Eq (5) . These two dynamics have essentially independent time scales. The first part is independent of the σ 2 in expectation, whereas the time scale of the dynamics in the degenerate directions depends linearly on σ 2 .The first time scale t erm is due to the dynamics of empirical risk minimization. The second time scale t equi is the time scale for Eq. ( 5) to reach equilibrium, which is irrelevant to direct risk minimization. When the parameters are properly tuned, t erm is of order 1, whereas t equi is proportional to σ 2 = η/(2S). Therefore, when σ 2 is large, the parameters will stay close to the equilibrium point early in the training, and one can expect that Ċ(θ t ) is approximately zero after t equi . In line with Ref. [20] , this can be called the fast-equilibrium phase of learning. Likewise, when σ 2 ≪ 1, the approach to equilibrium will be slower than the actual time scale of risk minimization, and the dynamics in the degenerate direction only take off when the model has reached a local minimum. This can be called the slow-equilibrium phase of learning.It is important and practically relevant to study the stationary points of dynamics in Eq. (7) . Formally, the stationary point is reached when -γC(θ)+ηTr[Σ(θ)A] = 0. Because we make essentially no assumption about ℓ(θ) and Σ(θ), one might feel that it is impossible to guarantee the existence of a fixed point. Remarkably, we prove below that a fixed point exists and is unique for every connected degenerate manifold.To start, consider the exponential maps generated by A:e λA θ ∶= lim ρ→0 (I + ρA + o(ρ)) λ/ρ θ,which applies the symmetry transformation to θ for λ/ρ times. Then, it follows that if we apply Q ρ transformation to θ infinitely many times and for a perturbatively small ρ,EQUATIONThus, the exponential symmetry implies the symmetry with respect to an exponential map, a fundamental element of Lie groups [11] . Note that exponential-map symmetry is also an exponential symmetry by definition. For the exponential map, the degenerate direction is clear: for any λ, θ connects to e λA θ without any loss function barrier. Therefore, the degenerate direction for any exponential symmetry is unbounded. Now, we prove the following fixed point theorem, which shows that for every exponential symmetry and every θ, there is one and only one corresponding fixed point in the degenerate direction. Then, for any θ and any γ ≥ 0,3 (1) G(θ λ ) (Eq. ( 7)) and -C(θ λ ) are monotonically decreasing functions of λ;(2) there exists a λ * ∈ R ∪ {±∞} such that G(θ λ * ) = 0;(3) in addition, if G(θ λ ) ≠ 0, λ * is unique and G(θ λ ) is strictly monotonic; (4) in addition to (3), if Σ(θ) is differentiable, λ * (θ) is a differentiable function of θ. Remark 4.4. It is now worthwhile to differentiate gradient flow (GF), GD, SGD, and stochastic gradient flow (SGF). Technically, one can prove that the same result holds for discrete-time GD and SGD in expectation, and GF is the only of the four algorithms that do not obey this theorem (See Section D), and so one could argue that the discrete step size is the essential cause of noise balance. Mathematically, the SGF can be seen as a model of the leading order effect of having a finite step size and thus also share this effect (remember that the Ito Lemma contains a second-order term in dθ). That being said, there is a practical caveat: in practice, we find it much easier for models to reach these fixed points with SGD than with GD, and so it is fair to say that this effect is the most dominant when gradient noise is present.Part (1), together with Part (2), implies that the unique stationary point is essentially attractive. This is because Ċ decreases with λ while C increases with it. Let C * = C(θ λ * ). Thus, C(θ) -C * always have the opposite sign of λ * , while d dt C(θ) will have the same sign. Conceptually, this means that C will always move to reduce its distance to C * . Assuming that C * is a constant in time (or close to a constant, which is often the case at the end of training), Part (1) implies that d dt (C(θ) -C * ) ∝ -sgn(C(θ) -C * ), signaling a convergence to C(θ) = C * . In other words, SGD will move to restore the balance if it is perturbed away from λ * = 0. If the matrix ΣA is wellbehaved, one can indeed establish the convergence to the fixed point in the relative distance even if C * is mildly divergent due to diffusion. Because this part is strongly technical and our focus is on the fixed points, we leave the formal statement and its discussion to Appendix B.3. Theorem 4.5. (Informal) Let C * follow a drifted Brownian motion and ΣA satisfy two well-behaved conditions. Then, either C -C * → 0 in L 2 or (C -C * ) 2 /(C * ) 2 → 0 in probability.Parts (2) and (3) show that a unique fixed point exists. We note that it is more common than not for the conditions of uniqueness to hold because there is generally no reason for Tr[Σ(θ)A] or Tr[θθ ⊺ A] to vanish simultaneously, except in some very restrictive subspaces. One major (perhaps the only) reason for the first trace to vanish is when the model is located at an interpolation minimum. However, interpolation minima are irrelevant for modern large-scale problems such as large language models because the amount of available text for training far exceeds the size of the largest models. Even when the interpolation minimum exists, the unique fixed point should still exist when the training is not complete. See Figure 1 . Part (4) means that the fixed points of the dynamics is well-behaved. If the parameter θ has a small fluctuation around a given location, C will also have a small fluctuation around the fixed point solution. This justifies approximating C by a constant value when θ changes slowly and with small fluctuation. Fixed point as a Noise Equilibrium. Let θ * be a fixed point of (7) . It must satisfyEQUATIONHence, a large weight decay leads to a small |C(θ * )|, whereas a large gradient noise leads to a large |C(θ * )|. When there is no weight decay, we get a different equilibrium condition: Tr[Σ(θ * )A] = 0, which can be finite only when A contains both positive and negative eigenvalues. This equilibrium condition is equivalent to∑ i∶µi>0 µ i n ⊺ i Σ(θ * )n i = -∑ j∶µj <0 µ j n ⊺ j Σ(θ * )n j .Namely, the overall gradient fluctuation in the two different subspaces specified by the symmetry A must balance. We will see that the main implication of this result is that the gradient noise between different layers of a deep neural network should be balanced at the end of training. Conceptually, Theorem 4.3 suggests the existence of a special type of fixed point for SGD, which the following definition formalizes. Definition 4.6. θ is a noise equilibrium for a nonconstant function C(θ) if Ċ(θ) = 0 under SGD.Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We believe that all of the experimental results are reproducable in our work. 
applications: 
 Now, we analyze the noise equilibria of a few important problems. These examples are prototypes of what appears frequently in deep learning practice and substantiate our arguments with numerical examples. In addition, an experiment with the scale invariance in normalized tanh networks is presented in Appendix A.1.Exponential symmetry is also observed when the model involves a (generalized) matrix factorization. This occurs in standard matrix completion problems [33] or within the self-attention of transformers through the key and query matrices [35] . For a (generalized) matrix factorization problem, we have the following symmetry in the objective:EQUATIONfor any invertible matrix A and symmetry-irrelevant parameters θ ′ . We consider matrices A that are close to identity:EQUATIONA -1 = I -ρB + O(ρ 2 ). Therefore, for an arbitrary symmetric B, we have a conserved quantity for GD:C B (θ) = Tr[U BU ⊺ ] -Tr[W ⊺ BW ].This conservation law can also be written in the matrix form, which is a well-known result for GD [8, 24] :EQUATIONFor SGD, applying (5) gives the following proposition. Proposition 5.1. Suppose the symmetry (10) holds. Let U = (ũ 1 , ⋯, ũd2 ) ⊺ ∈ R d2×d , W = ( w1 , ⋯, wd0 ) ∈ R d×d0 , where ũi , wj ∈ R d . Let C B (θ) = Tr[U BU ⊺ ] -Tr[W ⊺ BW ]for any symmetric matrix B ∈ R d×d . Then, for SGD, we haveĊB (θ t ) = σ 2 ⎛ ⎝ d2 ∑ i=1 Tr[Σ ũi (θ t )B] - d0 ∑ j=1 Tr[Σ wj (θ t )B] ⎞ ⎠ .This dynamics is analytically solvable when U ∈ R 1×d and W ∈ R d×1 . In this case, taking B = E k,l + E l,k where E i,j denotes the matrix with entries of 1 at (i, j) and zeros elsewhere. For this choice of B, we obtain thatC B (θ) = W k W l -U k U l, and applying the results we have derived, it is easy to show that for some random variable r:ĊB (θ t ) = -Var[r(θ t )]C B (θ t ), which signals an exponential decay. For common problems, Var[r(θ t )] > 0 [48] . Since the choice of B is arbitrary, we have thatW k W l → U k U l for all k and l.The message is rather striking: SGD automatically converges to a solution where all neurons output the same sign (sgn(U i ) = sgn(U j )) at an exponential rate.As a concrete example, let us consider a two-layer linear network (this can also be seen as a variant of standard matrix factorizations):EQUATIONwhere x ∈ R dx is the input data, and y = y ′ + ϵ ∈ R dy is a noisy version of the label. The ground truth mapping is linear and realizable:y ′ = U * W * x.The second moments of the input and noise are denoted asΣ x = E[xx ⊺ ] and Σ ϵ = E[ϵϵ ⊺ ],respectively. Note that this problem is essentially identical to a matrix factorization problem, which is not only a theoretical model of neural networks but also an important algorithm frequently in use for recommender systems [41] . The following theorem gives the fixed point of Noether flow. namely, when the data has an isotropic covariance. We also test SGD with a small weight decay (10 -4 ), which is sufficiently small that the solution we obtained for SGD without SGD still holds approximately. In contrast, training with GD + WD always converges to a norm-balanced solution. Right: the sharpness of the converged model trained with SGD. We see that for some data distributions, SGD converges to a sharper solution, whereas it converges to flatter solutions for other data distributions. This flattening and sharpening effect are both due to the noise-balance effect of SGD. Here, we find that the systematic error between experiment and theory is due to the use of a finite learning rate and decreases as we decrease η.Theorem 5.2. Let r = U W xy be the prediction residual. For all symmetric B, ĊB = 0 ifEQUATIONwhereΓ W = E[∥r∥ 2 xx ⊺ ] + 2γI, Γ U = E[∥x∥ 2 rr ⊺ ] + 2γI.See Figure 8 for the convergence of SGD to this solution under different learning rate, batch size and width. The equilibrium condition takes a more suggestive form when the model is at the global minimum, where U * W * x-y = ϵ. Assuming that ϵ and x are independent and that there is no weight decay, we have: EQUATIONr i = ϵ i and so E[∥x∥ 2 rr ⊺ ] = Tr[Σ x ]Σ ϵ and E[∥r∥ 2 xx ⊺ ] = Tr[Σ ϵ ]Σ x .This condition should be compared with the alignment condition for GD in Eq. (11) , where the alignment is entirely determined by the initialization and perfect alignment is achieved only if the initialization is perfectly aligned. This condition simplifies further if both Σx and Σϵ are isotropic, where the equation simplifies to W W ⊺ /d x = U ⊺ U /d y . Namely, the two layers will be perfectly aligned, and the overall balance depends only on input and output dimensions. Figure 2 -Left shows an experiment that shows that the two-layer linear net is perfectly aligned after training. Here, every point corresponds to the converged solution of an independent run with the same initialization and training procedures but different values of Σ ϵ . In agreement with the theory, the two layers are aligned according to Theorem 5.2 under SGD, but not under GD. In fact, GD finds solutions that are more than an order of magnitude away from SGD.Noise Driven Progressive Sharpening and Flattening. This result implies a previously unknown mechanism of progressive sharpening and flattening, where, during training, the stability of the algorithm steadily improves (during flattening) or deteriorates (during sharpening) [39, 15, 6] . To see this, we first derive a metric of sharpness for this model. Proposition 5.3. For the per-sample loss (12) , let S(θ) ∶= Tr[∇ 2 L(θ)]. Then, S(θ) = d y ∥W Σ 1/2 x ∥ 2 F + ∥U ∥ 2 F Tr[Σ x ].The trace of the Hessian is a good metric of the local stability of the GD and SGD algorithm because the trace upper bounds the largest Hessian eigenvalue. Let us analyze the simplest case of an autoencoding task, where the model is at the global minimum. Here, Σ x ∝ I dx , Σ ϵ ∝ I dy . For a random Gaussian initialization with variance σ 2 W and σ 2 U , the trace at initialization is, in expectation,S init = d y dTr[Σ x ](σ 2 W + σ 2 U ).At the end of the training, the model is close to the global minimum and satisfies Proposition 5.3. Here, the rank of U and W matters and is upper bounded by min(d, d x ), and at the global minimum, U and W are full-rank (equal to min(d, d x )), and all the singular values are 1. Thus,EQUATION)The change in the sharpness during training thus depends crucially on the initialization scheme. For Xavier init, σ 2 U = (d y + d) -1 and σ 2 W = (d + d x ) -1 , and so S init ≈ S end (but S init is slightly smaller). Thus, for the Xavier init., the sharpness of loss experiences a small sharpening during training. For Kaiming init., σ 2 U = 1 and σ 2 W = d -1x . Therefore, it always holds that S init ≥ S end , and so the stability improves as the training proceeds. The only case when the Kaiming init. does not experience progressive flattening is when d = d x = d y , which agrees with the common observation that training is easier if the widths of the model are balanced [12] . See Figure 4 for an experiment. In previous works, the progressive sharpening happens when the model is trained with GD [6] ; our theory suggests an alternative mechanism for it. When the learning rate (η = 0.008) is too large, SGD diverges (orange line). However, when one starts training at a small learning rate (0.001) and increases η to 0.008 after 5000 iterations, the training remains stable. This is because SGD training improves the stability condition during training, which is in agreement with the theory. In contrast, the stability condition of GD and that of SGD with a Xavier init increases only slightly. Also, note that both Xavier and Kaiming init. under SGD converges to the same stability condition because the equilibrium is unique.A practical technique that the theory explains is using warmup to stabilize training in the early stage. This technique was first proposed in Ref. [10] for training CNNs, where it was observed that the training is divergent if we start the training at a fixed large learning rate η max . However, this divergent behavior disappears if we perform a warmup training, where the learning rate is increased gradually from a minimal value to η max . Later, the same technique is found to be crucially useful for training large language models [27] . Our theory shows that the gradient noise can drive Kaiming init. to a stabler status where a larger learning can be applied.Flat or Sharp? Prior works have often argued that SGD prefers flatter solutions to sharper ones (e.g., see Ref. [42] ). The exact solution we found, however, implies a subtle picture: for some datasets, SGD prefers sharper solutions, while for others, SGD prefers flatter solutions. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between SGD training and the sharpness of the found solution. See Figure 3 for the dependence of the flatness on the data distribution. A related question is whether SGD noise creates a similar effect as weight decay training. The answer is also negative: weight decay always prefers smaller norms and, thus, norm-balanced solutions, which are not necessarily noise-aligned solutions. Figure 3 shows that SGD can also lead to unbalanced solutions, unlike weight decay.Here, we apply our result to derive the exact solution of an arbitrarily deep and wide deep linear network, which has been under extensive study due to its connection in loss landscape to deep neural networks [4, 5, 17, 23, 47, 38] . Deep linear networks have also been a major model for understanding the implicit bias of GD [1] . The per-sample loss for a deep linear network can be written as:EQUATIONwhere W i is an arbitrary dimensional matrix for all i. The global minimum is realizable: y = V x + ϵ, for i.i.d. noises ϵ. Because there is a double rotation symmetry between every two neighboring matrices, the Noether charge can be defined with respect to every such pair of matrices. Let B i be a symmetric matrix; we define the charges to beC Bi = W T i B i W i .The noise equilibrium solution is given by the following theorem.Theorem 5.4. Let W D ...W 1 = V . Let V ′ = √ Σ ϵ V √ Σ x such that V ′ = LS ′ R is its SVD and d = rank(V ′ ).Then, for all i and all B i , a noise equilibrium for C Bi at the global minimum isEQUATIONfor i = 2, ⋯, D -1. U i are arbitrary matrices satisfying U T i U i = I d×d , and Σ i are diagonal matrices such that This solution has quite a few striking features. Surprisingly, the norms of all intermediate layers are balanced:EQUATIONEQUATION)All intermediate layers are thus rescaled orthogonal matrices aligned with the neighboring matrices and the only two matrices that process information are the first and the last layer. See Figure 5 for an illustration of this effect. This explains an experimental result first observed in Ref. [30] , where the authors showed that the neural networks find similar solutions when the model is initialized with the standard init., where there is no alignment at the start, and with the aligned init. Thus, the balance and alignment between different layers in the neural networks can be attributed to the rescaling symmetry between each pair of matrices.Lastly, let us consider what happens if the loss function only has an approximate symmetry. As a minimal model, let us consider the following loss function:ℓ = ℓ 1 (θ, x) + ζℓ 2 (θ).Here, ℓ 1 has the A-symmetry, whereas ℓ 2 (θ) has no symmetry nor randomness and so ℓ 2 does not affect Σ at all. ζ determines the relative strength between the two terms. In totality, ℓ no longer has the A-symmetry.As before, letEQUATIONThis equilibrium condition thus depends strongly on how large ζ is. When ζ is small, we see that SGD still favors the fixed point given by Theorem 4.3, but with a first-order correction in ζ.Conversely, if ζ is large and σ 2 is small, we can expand around a local minimum of the loss function θ * , and so the fixed point becomesEQUATIONwhere H is the Hessian of ℓ 2 . Certainly, this implies that SGD will stay around a point that deviates from the local minimum by an O(σ 2 ) amount. This stationary point potentially has many solutions. For example, one class of solution is when θθ * is an eigenvector of H with eigenvalue h * > 0 and eigenvector n, we can denote s = (θθ * ) ⊺ n and obtain a direct solution of s:EQUATION)This deviation disappears in the limit σ 2 → 0. Therefore, this implicit regularization effect is only a consequence of SGD training and is not present under GD. With this condition, one can obtain a clear expression of the deviation of the quantity C from its local minimum value C * ∶= (θ * ) ⊺ Aθ * . We have thatEQUATIONThus, our results in the previous section still apply. The quantity C will be systematically larger than the local minimum values of C if the approximate symmetry matrix A is PD. It is systematically smaller if A is ND. When A contains both positive and negative eigenvalues, the deviation of C A set of experiments is shown in Figure 6 , where we compare the latent representation of a twolayer tanh net with the prediction of 5.2. This is a natural example because fully connected networks are believed to be approximated by deep linear networks because they have the same connectivity patterns. We thus compare the prediction of Theorem 5.2 with the experimental results of nonlinear networks. Here, the task is a simple autoencoding task, where x ∈ R 40 and y = x + ϵ. x is sampled from an isotropic Gaussian, and ϵ is an independent non-isotropic (but diagonal) Gaussian noise such that Var[ϵ 1 ] = 5 and Var[ϵ i ] = 1 for i ≠ 1. We train with SGD or GD for 10 4 iterations.The experimental results show that if trained with SGD, the learned representation agrees with the prediction of Theorem 5.2 well, whereas under GD, the model learned a completely different representation. This suggests that our result may be greatly useful for understanding the structures of latent representations of trained neural networks because the quantity W Σx W has a clean interpretation as the normalized covariance matrix of pre-activation hidden representation. Also, this result is not a special feature of tanh networks. Appendix A.4 also shows that the same phenomenon can be observed for swish [28] , ReLU, and leaky-ReLU nets.Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?Answer: [No] Justification: The code or data of the experiments are simple and easy to reproduce following the description in the main text.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
conclusion: 
 In this work, we have studied how continuous symmetries affect the learning dynamics and fixed points of SGD. The result implies that SGD converges to initialization-independent solutions at the end of training, in sharp contrast to GD, which converges to strongly initialization-dependent solutions. We constructed the theoretical framework of exponential symmetries to study the special tendency of SGD to stay close to a special fixed point along the constant directions of the loss landscape. We proved that every exponential symmetry leads to a mapping of every parameter to a unique and essentially attractive fixed point. This point also has a clean interpretation: it is the point where the gradient noises of SGD in different subspaces balance and align. Because of this property, we termed these fixed points the "noise equilibria." The advantage of our result is that it only relies on the existence of symmetries and is independent of the particular definitions of model architecture or data distribution. A limitation of our work is that we only focus on the problems that exponential symmetries can describe. It would be important to extend the result to other types of symmetries in the future. Another interesting future direction is to study these noise equilibria of more advanced models, which may deepen both our understanding of deep learning and neuroscience.the National Key Basic Research Program of China (No. 2015CB856000). We thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.Figure 7 : When there is scaling symmetry, the norm of the parameters increases monotonically under SGD but remains unchanged under GD. Left: evolution of the total model norm for two-layer nonlinear networks where there is a rescaling symmetry. Mid: evolution of the second layer. Right: evolution of the first layer. This shows that the evolution of each layer can be vastly different, but the total norm of the parameters with the scaling symmetry is always monotonically increasing. Also, note that for net B, each layer also has the rescaling symmetry, and so the norm of each layer for net-B is also increasing. In contrast, net-A does not have layer-wise symmetry, and the individual norms can be either increasing or decreasing. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [No] Justification: Here the dynamics is deterministic and there is no need to consider the error bars here.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.• The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). • It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations. • The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [No] Justification: We believe there is no risks for misuse for the data and models.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer:[NA]Justification: [NA] Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.• We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review. 
 
 Appendix: A.1 Scale InvarianceThe scale invariance appears when common normalization techniques such as batch normalization [14] and layer normalization [2] are used. Let ℓ(θ, x) denote a per-sample loss such that for any ρ ∈ R + : ℓ(θ, x) = ℓ(ρθ, x), where θ ∈ R d . For this symmetry, A = I. Thus, by Eq. ( 7), we have during SGD training thatEQUATIONThus, without weight decay, the parameter norm increases monotonically and even diverges, particularly for under-parameterized models where the gradient noise is typically non-degenerate.Here, we numerically compare two networks trained on GD and SGD: Net-A: f (x) = ∑ j uj ∥w∥ tanh(w ⊺ j x/∥u∥ F ); and Net-B: f (x) = ∑ j uij ∥u∥ tanh(w ⊺ j x/∥w∥ F ). Here, w and u are matrices and w j denotes the j-th row of w and u j denotes the j-th column of u. The two networks are different functions of u and w. However, both networks have the global scale invariance: if we scale both U and W by an arbitrary positive scalar ρ, the network output and loss function remain unchanged for any sample x. We train these two networks on simple linear Gaussian data with GD or SGD. Figure 7 shows the result. Clearly, for SGD, both networks have a monotonically increasing norm, whereas the norm remains unchanged when the training proceeds with GD. What's more, Net-B has two additional layer-wise scale invariances where one can scale only u (or only w) by ρ while keeping the loss function unchanged. This means that both layers will have a monotonically increasing norm, which is not the case for Net-A.Recent works have studied the dynamics of SGD under the scale-invariant models when weight decay is present [36, 20] . Our result shows that the model parameters will diverge without weight decay, leading to potential numerical problems. Combining the two results, the importance of having weight decay becomes clear: it prevents the divergence of models.Here, we give the details for the experiment in Figure 2 . We train a two-layer linear net with d 0 = d 2 = 30 and d = 40. The input data is x ∼ N (0, 1), and y = x + ϵ, where ϵ is i.i.d. Gaussian with unit variance. At the end of SGD training, every element of the matrix U ⊺ Γ U U is close to that of W Γ W W ⊺ , and they are therefore very well aligned. Such a phenomenon does not happen for GD.See Figure 8 . Here, we complement the experiment in the main text with other types of activations. The experimental setting is exactly the same except that we switch the activation to swish, ReLU, and Leaky-ReLU. This shows that the prediction of Proposition 13 may have a surprisingly wide applicability. See Figure 9 . B.1 Ito's Lemma and Derivation of Eq. (5) Let a vector X t follow the following stochastic process:EQUATION)for a matrix G t . Then, the dynamics of any function of X t can be written as (Ito's Lemma)EQUATIONApplying this result to quantity C(θ) under the SGD dynamics, we obtain thatEQUATIONwhere we have used µ t = ∇L, G t = √ σ 2 Σ(θ). By Eq. ( 3), we have thatEQUATIONandEQUATIONBecause Σ(θ) and √ Σ(θ) share eigenvectors, we have thatEQUATIONTherefore, we have derived:EQUATIONWe first prove a lemma that links the gradient covariance at θ to the gradient covariance at θ λ . Lemma B.1.EQUATIONProof. By the definition of the exponential symmetry, we have that for an arbitrary λ, ℓ(θ) = ℓ(e λA θ).Taking the derivative of both sides, we obtain thatEQUATIONThe standard result of Lie groups shows that e λA is full-rank and symmetric, and its inverse is e -λA . Therefore, we haveEQUATIONNow, we apply this relation to the trace of interest. By definition,EQUATION= e -λA Σ(θ)e -λA .Because e λA is a function of A, it commutes with A. Therefore,EQUATION= Tr[e -2λA Σ(θ)A].Now, we are ready to prove the main theorem.Proof. First of all, it is easy to see that C(θ λ ) is a monotonically increasing function of λ. By definition,EQUATIONwhere we have decomposed the matrix e λA Ae λA = Z + + Z -into two symmetric matrices such that Z + only contains nonnegative eigenvalues, and Z -only contains nonpositive eigevalues. Because e λA commute with A, they share the eigenvectors. Using elementary Lie algebra shows that the eigenvalues of Z + are a + e λa+ and that of Z -are a -e λa-, where a + ≥ 0 and a 0 ≤ 0. This implies that θ T Z + θ and θ T Z -θ are monotonically increasing functions of λ.EQUATIONSimilarly, the regularization term isEQUATIONNow, by assumption, if G(θ λ ) ≠ 0, we have eitherTr[Σ(θ)A] ≠ 0 or Tr[θθ ⊺ A] ≠ 0.If Tr[Σ(θ)A] = θ ⊺ Aθ = 0, we have already proved item (2) of the theorem. Therefore, let us consider the case when either (or both)Tr[Σ(θ)A] ≠ 0 or θ ⊺ Aθ ≠ 0Without loss of generality, we assume γ ≥ 0, and the case of γ < 0 follows an analogous proof. In such a case, we can write the trace in terms of the eigenvectors n i of A:-γθ ⊺ λ Aθ λ + ηTr[Σ(θ λ )A] = η ∑ µi>0 e -2λ|µi| |µ i |σ 2 i + γ ∑ µi<0 e -2λ|µi| |µ i | θ2 i I1(λ) - ⎛ ⎝ η ∑ µi<0 e 2λ|µi| |µ i |σ 2 i + γ ∑ µi>0 e 2λ|µi| |µ i | θ2 i ⎞ ⎠ I2(λ) =∶ I(λ),where µ i is the i-th eigenvalue of A, θi = (n ⊺ i θ i ) 2 , σ 2 i = n ⊺ i Σ(θ)n i ≥ 0 is the norm of the projection of Σ in this direction.By definition, I 1 is either a zero function or strictly monotonically increasing function with I 1 (-∞) = +∞, I 1 (+∞) = 0 Likewise, I 2 is either a zero function or a strictly monotonically increasing function with I 2 (-∞) = 0, I 2 (+∞) = +∞. By the assumption Tr(Σ(θ)A) ≠ 0 or Tr(θθ ⊺ A) ≠ 0, we have that at least one of I 1 and I 2 must be a strictly monotonic function.• If I 1 or I 2 is zero, we can take λ to be either +∞ or -∞ to satisfy the condition.• If both I 1 and I 2 are nonzero, then I = I 1 -I 2 is a strictly monotonically decreasing function with I(-∞) = +∞ and I(+∞) = -∞. Therefore, there must exist only a unique λ * ∈ R such that I(λ * ) = 0.For the proof of (4), we denote the multi-variable function J(θ; λ) ∶= G(θ λ ). Given that Σ(θ) is differentiable, ∂J ∂θ exists. It is easy to see that ∂J ∂λ is continuous. Moreover, for any θ and λ = λ * (θ),- ∂J 2∂λ = η ∑ µi>0 e -2λ|µi| |µ i | 2 σ 2 i + γ ∑ µi<0 e -2λ|µi| |µ i | 2 θ2 i + η ∑ µi<0 e 2λ|µi| |µ i | 2 σ 2 i + γ ∑ µi>0 e 2λ|µi| |µ i | 2 θ2 i ≠ 0.Consequently, according to the Implicit Function Theorem, the function λ * (θ) is differentiable.Additionally, ∂λ ∂θ = -∂J ∂θ ∂J ∂λ .Combining the above two lemmas, one can prove the following corollary. Corollary B.4.Ċ C -C * ≤ ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ -σ 2 Tr[Σ(θ * )A 2 + ] (θ * ) ⊺ A 2 + θ * , if C -C * < 0; -σ 2 Tr[Σ(θ * )A 2 -] (θ * ) ⊺ A 2 -θ * , if C -C * > 0. (62)Now, one can prove that as long as C * is not moving too fast, C converges to C * in mean square. Lemma B.5. Let the dynamics of C * be a drifted Brownian motion: dC * = µdt + sdW , where W is a Brownian motion with variance s 2 . If there exists c 0 > 0 such thatEQUATION)Proof. By assumption, ĊEQUATION)Let us first focus on the case when C -C * > 0. By the definition of C * and Ito's lemma,EQUATIONEQUATION)Its solution is given byEQUATION)Alternatively, if C -C * < 0, we let Z = e σ 2 c0t (C * -C), and obtainEQUATIONThus,EQUATION)where we have used Ito's isometry in the first line. By construction,EQUATION)The proof is complete.Let → p denote convergence in probability. One can now prove the following theorem, the convergence of the relative distance to zero in probability. Theorem B.6. Let the assumptions be the same as Lemma.EQUATION)Proof. By Lemma B.5 and Markov's inequality:Pr(|C(t) -C * (t)| > t 1/4 ) → 0. (74)Now, consider the distribution of (C * ) 2 . Because C * is a Gaussian variable with mean µt and variance s 2 t, we have thatEQUATION)where we have used the Frechet inequality in the second line. This finishes the proof.B.4 Proof of Proposition 5.1Proof. Recall that U = (ũ 1 , ⋯, ũd2 ) ⊺ ∈ R d2×d , W = ( w1 , ⋯, wd0 ) ∈ R d×d0 , where ũi , wi ∈ R d . θ = vec(U, W ) = (ũ ⊺ 1 , ⋯, ũ⊺ d2 , w⊺ 1 , ⋯, w⊺ d0 ) ⊺ ∈ R (d2+d0)d . Ċ = ηTr(Σ(θ)∇ 2 θθ C), For ∇ 2 θθ C, it holds that ∇ 2 ũi,ũj C = { B, i = j; 0, otherwise. , ∇ 2 wi, wj C = { -B, i = j; 0, otherwise. ∇ 2 ũi, wj C = 0.Therefore,Tr[Σ(θ)∇ 2 θθ C] = n ∑ i=1 Tr [∇ θ ℓ i ∇ θ ℓ ⊺ i ∇ 2 θθ C] = n ∑ i=1 ( d2 ∑ k=1 Tr [∇ ũk ℓ i ∇ ũk ℓ ⊺ i B] - d0 ∑ l=1 Tr [∇ wl ℓ i ∇ wl ℓ ⊺ i B]) = d2 ∑ k=1 Tr[Σ(ũ k )B] - d0 ∑ l=1 Tr[Σ( wl )B].The proof is complete.Proof. The loss function isℓ = ∥U W x -y∥ 2 + γ(∥U ∥ 2 F + ∥W ∥ 2 F ).Let us adopt the following notation:U = (ũ 1 , ⋯, ũdy ) ⊺ ∈ R dy×d , W = ( w1 , ⋯, wdx ) ∈ R d×dx , where ũi , wi ∈ R d . θ = vec(U, W ) = (ũ ⊺ 1 , ⋯, ũ⊺ dy , w⊺ 1 , ⋯, w⊺ dx ) ⊺ ∈ R (dx+dy)d . Due to ∇ ũi ℓ = W x(ũ ⊺ i W x -y i ) + 2γ ũi , ∀i ∈ [d y ]; ∇ wj ℓ = dy ∑ i=1 ũi x j (ũ ⊺ i W x -y i ) + 2γ wj , ∀j ∈ [d x ];the diagonal blocks of the Hessian ∇ 2 θθ ℓ have the following form:∇ 2 ũi,ũi ℓ = W xx ⊺ W ⊺ + 2γI, ∀i ∈ [d y ]; ∇ 2 wj , wj ℓ = x 2 j dy ∑ i=1 ũi ũ⊺ i + 2γI, ∀j ∈ [d x ].The trace of the Hessian is a good metric of the local stability of the GD and SGD algorithm because the trace upper bounds the largest Hessian eigenvalue. For this loss function, the trace of the Hessian of the empirical risk isS(U, W ) ∶= Tr[∇ 2 θθ ℓ -2γI] = dy ∑ i=1 Tr[W xx ⊺ W ⊺ ] + dx ∑ j=1 Tr[x 2 j dy ∑ i=1 ũi ũ⊺ i ] =d y Tr[W Σ x W ⊺ ] + ∥U ∥ 2 F Tr[Σ x ] = d y ∥W Σ 1/2 x ∥ 2 F + ∥U ∥ 2 F Tr[Σ x ], where Σ x = xx ⊺ . C Proof of Theorem 5.2 Proof. First, we split U and W like U = (u 1 , ⋯, u d ) ∈ R dy×d and W = (w ⊺ 1 , ⋯, w ⊺ d ) ⊺ ∈ R d×dx . The quantity under consideration is C B = Tr[U BU ⊺ ] -Tr[W ⊺ BW ]for an arbitrary symmetric matrix B. What will be relevant to us is the type of B that is indexed by two indices k and l such that⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ B (k,l) ij = B (k,l) ji = 1 if i = k and j = l or i = l and j = k; B (k,l) ij = 0 otherwise. (79) Specifically, for k, l ∈ [d], we select B (k,l) i,j = δ i,k δ j,l + δ i,l δ j,k in C B .With this choice, for an arbitrary pair of k and l,EQUATIONEQUATIONTherefore,EQUATIONEQUATIONwhere we have definedr i = ũ⊺ i W x -y i and Σ ′ W = E[∥r∥ 2 xx ⊺ ]. Likewise, we have that E dx ∑ j=1 Tr [Σ( wj )B (k) ] = E dx ∑ j=1 x 2 j Tr ⎡ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎛ ⎝ dy ∑ i=1 ũi (ũ ⊺ i W x -y i ) ⎞ ⎠ ⎛ ⎝ dy ∑ i=1 (ũ ⊺ i W x -y i )ũ ⊺ i ⎞ ⎠ B (k) ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ = Tr [E[∥x∥ 2 U ⊺ rr ⊺ U B (k,l) ]] = Tr[Σ ′ U U B (k,l) U ⊺ ] = 2u ⊺ k Σ ′ u u l .where we have definedΣ ′ u = E[∥x∥ 2 rr ⊺ ]. Therefore, we have found that for arbitrary pair of k and lEQUATIONThe fixed point of this dynamics is:EQUATIONwhere Σ w = ηΣ ′ w + γI and Σ U = ηΣ ′ u + γI. Because this holds for arbitrary k and l, the equation can be written in a matrix form:EQUATION′ (W ′ ) ⊺ = (U ′ ) ⊺ U ′ .(91) Namely, U ′ and (W ′ ) ⊺ must have the same right singular vectors and singular values. This gives us the following solution. Let V ′ = LSR be the singular value decomposition of V ′ , where L and R are orthogonal matrices an S is a positive diagonal matrix. Then, for an arbitrary orthogonal matrix F , the following choice of U ′ and W ′ satisfies the two conditions:EQUATIONThis finishes the proof.In fact, our results hold in a similar form for discrete-time GD and SGD. Let us focus on the exponential symmetries with the symmetric matrix A.The following equation holds with probability 1:EQUATIONFor discrete-time SGD, it is notationally simpler and without loss of generality to regard ℓ(θ) as the minibatch-averaged loss, which is the notation we adopt here. This is because if a symmetry holds for every per-sample loss, then it must also hold for every empirical average of these per-sample losses.The dynamics of SGD gives ∆θ t = -η∇ θ ℓ(θ t , z).(94) This means that ∆θ t ⋅ J(θ) = 0.Therefore, we have thatEQUATIONTherefore,EQUATIONwhereΣd (θ) = ∇ θ ℓ(θ)∇ ⊺ θ ℓ(θ)is by definition PSD. Already, note the similarity between Eq. (98) and its continuous-time version. The qualitative discussions carry over: if A is PSD, C t increases monotonically. Now, while the first-order terms in η also vanish in the r.h.s, the problem is that the r.h.s. becomes stochastic because Σ d (θ t ) is different for every time step. However, one can still analyze the expected flow and show that the expected flow (over the sampling of minibatches) is zero at a unique point in a way similar to the continuous-time limit of the problem. Therefore, we defineEQUATIONEQUATIONWe can now prove the following theorem. Note that this theorem applies for any batch size, and so it applies to both SGD and GD. Theorem D.1. (Discrete-time fixed point theorem of SGD.) Let the per-sample loss satisfy the A exponential symmetry and θ λ ∶= exp[λA]θ. Then, for any θ and any γ ∈ R,(1) G d (θ λ ) is a monotonically decreasing function of λ; (2) there exists a λ * ∈ R ∪ {±∞} such that G d (θ λ ) = 0; (3) in addition, if Tr[Σ d (θ)A] ≠ 0 or Tr[θθ ⊺ A] ≠ 0, λ * is unique and G d (θ λ ) is strictly monotonic; (4) in addition to (3), if Σ d (θ) is differentiable, λ * (θ) is a differentiable function of θ.Proof. Similarly, let us establish the relationship between ∇ℓ(θ) and ∇ℓ(exp(λA)). By the definition of the exponential symmetry, we have that for an arbitrary λ, ℓ(θ) = ℓ(e λA θ).(101) Taking the derivative of both sides, we obtain thatEQUATIONThe standard result of Lie groups shows that e λA is full-rank and symmetric, and its inverse is e -λA . Therefore, we haveEQUATIONNow, we apply this relation to the trace of interest. By definition,EQUATIONBecause e λA is a function of A, it commutes with A. Therefore,EQUATIONSimilarly, the regularization term isEQUATIONNow, if Tr[Σ d (θ)A] = θ ⊺ Aθ = 0, we have already proved item (2) of the theorem. Therefore, let us consider the case when either (or both)Tr[Σ d (θ)A] ≠ 0 or θ ⊺ Aθ ≠ 0Without loss of generality, we assume γ ≥ 0, and the case of γ < 0 follows an analogous proof. In such a case, we can write the trace in terms of the eigenvectors n i of A:-γθ ⊺ λ Aθ λ + ηTr[Σ d (θ λ )A] = η ∑ µi>0 e -2λ|µi| |µ i |σ 2 i + γ ∑ µi<0 e -2λ|µi| |µ i | θ2 i I1(λ) - ⎛ ⎝ η ∑ µi<0 e 2λ|µi| |µ i |σ 2 i + γ ∑ µi>0 e 2λ|µi| |µ i | θ2 i ⎞ ⎠ I2(λ) =∶ I(λ),where µ i is the i-th eigenvalue of A, θi = (n ⊺ i θ i ) 2 , σ 2 i = n ⊺ i Σ d (θ)n i ≥ 0 is the norm of the projection of Σ d in this direction.By definition, I 1 is either a zero function or strictly monotonically increasing function with I 1 (-∞) = +∞, I 1 (+∞) = 0 Likewise, I 2 is either a zero function or a strictly monotonically increasing function with I 2 (-∞) = 0, I 2 (+∞) = +∞. By the assumption Tr(Σ d (θ)A) ≠ 0 or Tr(θθ ⊺ A) ≠ 0, we have that at least one of I 1 and I 2 must be a strictly monotonic function.• If I 1 or I 2 is zero, we can take λ to be either +∞ or -∞ to satisfy the condition.• If both I 1 and I 2 are nonzero, then I = I 1 -I 2 is a strictly monotonically decreasing function with I(-∞) = +∞ and I(+∞) = -∞. Therefore, there must exist only a unique λ * ∈ R such that I(λ * ) = 0.The proof of (4) follows from the Implicit Function Theorem, as in the continuous-time case.The final question is this: what does it mean for θ to reach a point where G d (θ) = 0? An educated guess can be made: the fluctuation in C does not vanish, but the flow takes C towards this vanishing flow point -something like a Brownian motion trapped in a local potential well [37] . However, it is difficult to say more without specific knowledge of the systems.We first prove the following theorem, which applies to an arbitrary parameter that are not necessarily local minima of of the loss.Theorem E.1. Let r = W D ⋯W 1 xy, ξ i+1 ∶= W D ⋯W i+2 and h i ∶= W i-1 ⋯W 1 . For all layer i, the equilibrium is achieved atEQUATIONwhereEQUATIONProof. By Proposition 5.1,EQUATIONThe derivatives areEQUATIONEQUATIONTherefore, the two terms on R.H.S of Eq. ( 111) are given byEQUATIONETr [(EQUATIONBecause the matrix B is arbitrary, we can let B i,j = δ i,k δ j,l + δ i,l δ j,k . Then, the two terms becomeEQUATIONETr [(EQUATIONHere, we define the vectors W i = ( w⊺ i,1 , ⋯, w⊺ i,d ) ⊺ and W i+1 = ( wi+1,1 , ⋯, wi+1,d ). Because Eq. ( 116) and (117) hold for arbitrary k, l, we haveEQUATIONETr [(EQUATIONFor Eq. ( 111) to be 0, we must haveEQUATIONwhich is Eq. ( 109). The proof is complete.We are now ready to prove Theorem 5.4. (121) Then, Eq. ( 109) can be written asEQUATIONTo solve Eq. ( 122), we substitute W D and W 1 withEQUATIONThe global minimum condition can be written asEQUATIONThen, we can decompose the matricesEQUATIONwhereΣ D , ⋯, Σ 1 ∈ R d×d , L ∈ R dy×d , U i ∈ R di×d , R ∈ R d×dx with d ∶= rank(V ′) and arbitrary d i .The matrices U i satisfy U ⊺ i U i = I d×d . By substituting the decomposition into Eq. ( 123), we haveEQUATIONSince these diagonal matrices commute with each other, we can see Σ i = cI d×d . Then we move on to fix the parameter c. By taking i = 1 and i = D -1 in Eq. ( 126), we obtain EQUATIONEQUATIONEQUATIONWith the SVD decomposition V ′ = LS ′ R, we haveEQUATIONTherefore, the solutions for c and Σ 1 are c = (EQUATION)The scaling of the diagonal matrices are shown asEQUATION)The proof is complete.Justification: We believe that the assumptions are clarified and complete proofs are provided for the theoretical parts.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.• All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and crossreferenced. • All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems. • The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition. • Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material. • Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not. • If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable. • Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways.For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed. • While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. , with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset). (d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility.In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.These are known as "continuous symmetries." Prior works also studied SGD training under discrete symmetries[45, 3], which are different from continuous symmetries.A similar result can be proved for the discrete-time SGD. See Section D. 


Decision: The paper studied the learning dynamics of SGD when there is a symmetry in the loss function (called exponential symmetry).
Reviewer rhMv and QY9h appreciate the contributions of the paper. Reviewer HyRa offered a bolderline review, but agreed upon positive ratings. 

Overall, I recommend accept.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper takes important steps toward showing that the noise in SGD pushed the dynamics along symmetry directions toward a unique fixed point. This differs in an important way from GD and gradient flow (GF) where one can show that in the presence of continuous symmetries (called exponential symmetries in the paper) there will be conserved quantities $C$, such as layer imbalance. These conserved quantities ensure that runs starting with different values of $C$ end up on different points along a minimum manifold (with some caveats). 
This paper shows that SGD noise causes drift toward a fixed point on a minimum manifold.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: There exist multiple other works addressing the same questions. Two particular ones with very similar claims that the authors may have missed are: 
[1] Chen, Feng, Daniel Kunin, Atsushi Yamamura, and Surya Ganguli. "Stochastic collapse: How gradient noise attracts sgd dynamics towards simpler subnetworks." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2023).
[2] Yang, Ning, Chao Tang, and Yuhai Tu. "Stochastic gradient descent introduces an effective landscape-dependent regularization favoring flat solutions." Physical Review Letters 130, no. 23 (2023): 237101.

I ask the authors to clarify the distinction between their work and the above. [1] is also about the effect of SGD noise on the symmetry directions, afaik. 
[2] also derives the effective dynamics of SGD as a Langevin equation and shows a result similar to yours, namely that along symmetric minima, the noise drives the system toward the least sharp minimum.
questions: questions: There are many details int he computations and proofs which I think need to be clarified. One aspect which I think is an error is related to the Lie algebra of the symmetries discussed in the paper. Most derivations in the paper hold for symmetric Lie algebra elements (i.e. generators of scaling and hyperbolic directions in the group) but fail for rotations. A relevant work which studies the parameter space more thoroughly is:
[3] Zhao, Bo, Iordan Ganev, Robin Walters, Rose Yu, and Nima Dehmamy. "Symmetries, flat minima, and the conserved quantities of gradient flow." ICLR (2023). 

My questions are as follows:



line 49: ref [40] may be wrong (it doesn't discuss conservation laws) maybe another paper by Zhao is meant: Zhao et al ICLR 2023 "Symmetries, flat minima, and the conserved quantities of gradient flow". 
sec 4: important caveat about conserved quantities is that the antiderivative C may not always exist. An important case is when the symmetry is a rotation. (see Zhao et al "symmetries, flat minima ..." ICLR 2023) In this case, the Noether charge is zero. 

1. line 78: eq 5: to clarify, $\nabla^T C \nabla \ell(\theta, z) = 0$ is always zero due to eq 2 and 3, right? Is that why both terms in eq 30 (App B) vanish? 
However, there are some statements in Appendix B which seem inaccurate to me: 
  a. when $\Sigma  = GG^T$, the matrix $G$ need not be square and $G = \sqrt{\Sigma}$ is just one of the possible $G$. What is your argument for this $G$ being the correct $G$? 
  b. I don't agree with your statement that "Because $\Sigma$ and $\sqrt{\Sigma}$ share eigenvector..." eq 31 would vanish. Trivial example: the 2x2 matrices $A=diag(1,-1)$ and the identity matrix share eigenvectors, but the vector $v=(1,1)$, $Av = 0$, but $Iv \ne 0$. I think the real reason is that $\Sigma = GG^T$. Doing SVD, $G = USV^T$ and $\Sigma = US^2U^T$. Then eq 30 yields $\nabla^T C U S= 0$. Assuming the covariance is nondegenerate (i.e. $S_{ii}\ne 0$ for all $i$), we must have  $\nabla^T C U = 0$ which also implies $\nabla^T C G = 0$. 

2. line 83: at a minimum, some symmetry orbits (i.e. invariant manifold) may collapse to a point, e.g. rotation symmetry in a quadratic loss as in linear regression $\|\theta x -y \|^2$.    

3. line 104: Instead of "double rotation" this should be called double linear transformation, becuase the group is not just $O(h)$, but rather $GL(h)$

4. eq 6: As noted above, this Noether charge vanishes for rotations $SO(h)$ because $A$ is anti symmetric and hence $\theta^T A \theta=0$ (see Zhao ICLR 2023).   

5. line 114: why? Why the explicit weight decay? Why in defining the symmetry do you ignore $\|\theta\|^2$ which doesn't have rescaling or $GL(n)$ symmetry, only rotation symmetry $O(n)$?

6. Eq 7: what happens to the cross terms of $\theta^t \nabla \ell$ in $\Sigma_\gamma$? 

7. line 118: eigenvalues and vectors of A can be complex (e.g. for Lie algebra of rotation), so $n^T$ needs to be $n^\dagger$. 

8. line 214-215: I don't understand how you arrive at $\dot{C} = \mathrm{Var}[r]C$. I think you mean when the hidden dimension is 1, not the output, right? I hidden is $d>1$, let $\sigma=\Sigma_{u_i}$, then for $B= E_{kl}+E_{lk}$ we have  $\mathrm{Tr}[\Sigma_{u_i}B] = \sigma_{lk}+\sigma_{kl}$, which are off-diagonal terms in the covariance matrix, unless $k=l$. 

9. eq 13: When $\gamma\ne 0$, eq 13 does not have the symmetry (11) for symmetric Lie algebra element $B$. The reason is $\|W\|_F$ is invariant under rotations where $A^{-1} = A^T$. The Lie algebra of rotations (infinitesimal $A = I+\rho B$) has anti-symmetric $B$. 

10. line 235: under what condition will the covariances $\Sigma_x$ and $\Sigma_\epsilon$ be isotropic? I don't think this happens often in SGD. I think you need adaptive gradient optimizers or Newton's method to have isotropic $\Sigma_\epsilon$. 

11. eq 39,40: $\nabla^T_{\theta_\lambda} \ell = [\nabla_{\theta_\lambda} \ell]^T e^{-\lambda A^T}$, so we don't have (40)  and in (41) there should $e^{-\lambda A^T}A e^{-\lambda A}$. 

12. line 531: $Z_++Z_-$ will have complex eigenvalues when $A$ is not symmetric. Diagonalizing $A$, your arguments about $Z_\pm$ only hold for symmetric $A$.
limitations: limitations: There are some gaps in the derivations (see questions) which I hope the authors can fill. 
Additionally, the experiments seem to only look at two aspects: alignment of weights in matrix factorization (which is already known under weight decay, afaik), and bias toward less sharp minima (again, known). I would have liked to see a more direct test of the mechanism the paper claims is driving this movement toward flatter minima. At least, the balancing of the weights or some other direct result from the paper would have been desirable.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper considers the relationship between the behavior of SGD for solving empirical risk minimization and the exponential symmetry.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: The weaknesses are the following. Please see Questions for details.  
- The mathematical preliminaries are insufficient. 
- The assumptions seem to be strong. 
- The explanations of contributions are insufficient.
questions: questions: - SGD for minimizing $L(\theta) = E_z [\ell (\theta,z)]$ is defined by (1): $d \theta_t = - \nabla L(\theta_t) dt + \sqrt{2 \sigma^2 \Sigma (\theta_t)} d W_t$ using $\sigma^2 = \eta/(2S)$, where $\eta > 0$ is a step-size and $S > 0$ is a batch size. My first question is "Which is a problem considered in this paper: the expected risk minimization or the empirical risk minimization?"  $L$ is defined by using the expectation $E$ (Lines 56-57), however, Line 57 says "the empirical risk function."
- Line 19 says that SGD with $\sigma = 0$ implies GD. I do not understand it, since $\sigma^2 = \eta/(2S) = 0$ iff $\eta = 0$, which contradicts $\eta > 0$.
- Line 21: I do not understand what $\sigma^2 \ll 1$ is. 
- Line 58: Please define $\Sigma_v (\theta)$ explicitly. 
- Line 93: a --> an 
- Eq (7): Is $-4 \gamma$ in (7) replaced with $-2 \gamma$?
- Line 142: I do not understand the definition of "fixed point." Please define "fixed point" explicitly. A fixed point $x$ of a mapping $T \colon R^d \to R^d$ is defined by $x = T(x)$. The definition of "fixed point" considered in this paper seems to be different from a fixed point of a mapping (see Theorem 4.3).
- Eq (8): I do not understand the relationship between $\ell (\theta, z)$ and $\ell$ defined by (8). Why do we consider $\ell$ in (8) not $\ell (\theta, z)$? I think that the main objective of this paper is to minimize $L(\theta) = E_z [\ell (\theta, z)]$. 
- Eq (9): We cannot define (9) when $\gamma = 0$. Please define $C(\theta^\star)$ explicitly. 
- Eq (11): $\theta'$ is not defined. 
- Section 5.1: This section considers a matrix factorization: Given $A$, find $U$ and $W$ such that $A = UW$. The assumption of $A$ seems to be strong such that $A$ is close to the identity matrix $I$ (Lines 204 and 205). 
- Proposition 5.1: The assumption "the symmetry (11) holds" (based on $A \approx I$) seems to be strong. Please provide practical examples of empirical risk minimization and SGD satisfying (11). 
- Figure 2: There are not definitions of the matrix size, a batch size $S$, $\eta$, and $\ell (\theta,x)$.
- Line 222: $\epsilon$ is not defined. 
- Theorem 5.2: Is the theorem based on (11)? If so, please provide some examples of $\dot{C}_B = 0$ under (11). 
- Figure 3: There are not definitions of $d_x$, $d_y$, $\epsilon$, $S$, and so on. Moreover, I do not understand why a warm-up with $\eta_\min = 0.001$, $\eta_\max = 0.008$, and the switching steps $5000$ is used. Please justify the setting from the theoretical results.  
- ...
- Additional comments: I would like to know new insights that come from the theoretical results in this paper. This is because I am not surprised at the results. For example, can we apply the results to training more practical deep neural networks on practical datasets? Then, can we say new insights for training practical deep neural networks? Moreover, can we estimate appropriate step-size $\eta$, batch size $S$, and hyperparameter $\gamma$ using the theoretical results before implementing SGD? Anyway, I would like to know contributions of this paper.
limitations: limitations: N/A
paper_summary: paper_summary: The authors study the effect of exponential symmetries on the learning dynamics of SGD. They establish the theorem that every exponential symmetry implies the existence of a unique and attractive fixed point in SGD dynamics, which could explain phenomena in machine learning such as matrix factorization and progressive sharpening or flattening.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1.	C is not guaranteed to exist. (Line 70)
2.	Usually, the stability of the learning is determined by the largest eigenvalue of the Hessian instead of the trace as discussed in the paper. The trace may not be an upper bound on the largest eigenvalue as it can contain negative eigenvalues.
3.	I think it’s missing dependence on $\gamma$ in proposition 5.3.
4.	The authors proved that in deep linear networks, the noise will lead to a balanced norm for all intermediate layers. This is an important theorem, but it lacks empirical verification. It is important to verify that the empirics actually match the theorem, which would strengthen the paper by a lot. Such an experiment should not be hard to run.
5.	There is a lack of clarity in how the analyses in Section 5.4 (Equation 24) relate to Figure 4.
questions: questions: 1.	In line 124-128, the authors state that the SGD dynamics can be decomposed into two independent parts. Why does equation (5) have no effect on the loss? I would expect the noise will result in fluctuation of the loss at the end of training, which means that the decomposition should not hold.
2.	For the double rotation symmetry, why it is hard to write the matrix A explicitly? It seems that A can just be any symmetric matrix as discussed in section 5.1. Also, why do you require A to be symmetric when defining the exponential symmetry? I am wondering if the results can be generalized to a general matrix A.
3.	I don’t understand why one needs to assume C* to be a constant in line 163. By definition, C is a deterministic function that only depends on $\theta$.
limitations: limitations: The authors have included the limitations. For additional points, please see my comments above.

Comments: title: reply
Thanks for the feedback
reply
Reply to the authors' comments
Reply to the authors' comments
Answer to the Contribution Question
comment: Thanks for your reply. We will revise our manuscript to make sure that the terminology is as accurate as possible.

The existence of antisymemtric noether charge, to the best of our knowledge, has not been pointed out in any previous literature, and may be an important and interesting future problem to study.
thank you for the answers. The point you make about Noether charge for rotations is interesting (is that mentioned elsewhere?). The log doesn't generalize easily to nonsquare matrices, but I think a variant of what you say may hold for higher dims. I Adlai see your did mention symmetric A in your definition. My general advice would be not to coopt general terms such as exponential symmetry for a subset of actual exponential symmetries. This is bad practice and misleads subsequent works that cite yours. So I suggest you use more specific expressions for Defs 4.1 and 4.2. 
About Ref [2], yes I understand your result predicts bit ways depending on parameters. But the more useful fixed point is similar to ref 2. I think y should mention that work and then emphasize that your results can go both ways. 
I am happy with your response and I think this is a significant paper. Therefore I am reading my score to 7.
Hi! We noticed that you have not communicated with us during the discussion period. It would be really helpful to us when revising and improving our manuscript if we could hear more from you.  We would be happy to hear any additional thoughts or feedback you have on our work and on our previous reply!
Thanks for the update and additional question.

**Since $S$ is a fixed batch size, we should replace $S$ with $S_t$?**

$S$ is fixed and does not change with time, and so one should not write it as $S_t$. Here, this limit is a mathematical limit of differential equations. One mathematically rigorous way to construct this limit is to define it as a limit of a sequence of differential equations. Operationally, this (roughly) corresponds to running the experiment first with $S=1$. Then, run an independent experiment with $S=2$. Then, with $S=3$, and ad infinitum. During each of these running, $S$ is held fixed, and so does not change with $t$.

**I do not know why $\sigma$ is less than 1.**

This factor is just a hyperparameter determined by the user of SGD. If the user uses a learning rate of $0.1$ and a batch size of $100$, one naturally has $\sigma=0.1/(2\times 100) \ll 1$.
I also thank you for replies on my comments. I misread the manuscript. I am sorry for my first review. I still have some minor concerns for your replies. 
- I do not understand why $S \to \infty$ is done. Since $S$ is a fixed batch size, we should replace $S$ with $S_t$?
- I do not know why $\sigma$ is less than $1$. Do you mean that $\sigma_t = \eta/(2S_t)$ is less than $1$ for a sufficiently large $t$?
I would like to thank the authors for detailed comments. I have read all of them. As a result, I would like to raise my score. However, I still have some concerns. I will write the above form.
I appreciate the author’s response to my review. The author has addressed most of my concerns and the author also added more empirical experiments to verify the theorems claimed in the paper. All these have strengthened the paper and as a result, I am increasing my score. 

As a side note, I have also reviewed the comments from the other reviewers. While there is some debate regarding the soundness, precision of language, and overall presentation of the paper, I respectfully disagree with reviewer HyRa in rating the contribution of this paper as ‘poor’. Although some of the related works and discussions are indeed missing (as noted by rhMv), the results in this paper are novel to the best of my knowledge and contribute meaningfully to a better understanding of the role of SGD.
**I would like to know new insights that come from the theoretical results in this paper. This is because I am not surprised at the results. For example, can we apply the results to training more practical deep neural networks on practical datasets? Then, can we say new insights for training practical deep neural networks... Anyway, I would like to know contributions of this paper..**


Essentially, the answer will have to depend on the subjective opinion of the reader. A contribution for researchers in one field may not seem like a contribution for researchers in other fields. The subjectiveness here is clearly reflected in the fact that the other reviewers rate our contribution as "excellent" while you rate it as "poor." How does understanding an insect's brain help us understand the training of diffusion models? It probably does not, and the problem is not with the brains of insects but with this question being ill-posed. Also, keep in mind that NeurIPS is not just a conference for practical deep learning but also a conference for neuroscience and many other interdisciplinary fields of science.  

With these caveats in mind, we clarify our contribution from different angles below. In short, our theory is interdisciplinary, requiring knowledge and expertise from many different fields to understand, and it could be significant to these related fields. We believe that our research has the potential to inspire new research in pure mathematics, neuroscience, deep learning, physics, and practices in deep learning.

1. Pure Mathematics: Lie-group symmetries have been leveraged to solve ordinary differential equations (e.g., see the book Elementary Lie group analysis and ordinary differential equations). However,  leveraging the Lie group to solve stochastic differential equations is a novel concept and tool for pure and applied mathematics, and our result advances our understanding of stochastic systems. The tool we developed is sufficiently general that it may even be applied to problems outside the field of deep learning.

2. Neuroscience: Understanding how latent representations are formed in animal brains is a fundamental scientific problem in neuroscience. Until now, there has been a very limited understanding of this, and our theory suggests one mechanism of how latent representations form and can inspire neuroscientists to understand biological brains. The fact that symmetry in the solutions can be a core mechanism for latent representation is a novel and potentially surprising message. For example, compare the latent representations in our paper with the biological data in Figure 7B in www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(18)30581-6

3. Theory and Mathematics of Deep Learning: The most important contribution of our work is on the mathematical tool side. We established a new mathematical tool (the formalism of the noise-equilibrium fixed points of SGD), and this formalism has the potential to be applied to many problems in deep learning. For example, we showed its relevance to flattening and sharpening effects during training, the warm-up technique, and the solution of deep matrix factorizations. We emphasize that developing new mathematical tools is an important progress per se. Understanding deep learning is a difficult task, and without new mathematical tools, this would be impossible.

4. Physics: Symmetry is a fundamental concept of physics. The standard understanding was that when a continuous symmetry exists, a conserved quantity exists during the dynamics. This concept has also played an important role in machine learning; for example, see the well-known result in https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00900, where the symmetry and its related conserved quantities are leveraged to prove the convergence of the matrix factorization problem. Our theory, however, shows that this picture is no longer right when the dynamics are stochastic -- conserved quantities no longer exist in general, and, in place of them, we now have unique fixed points where the gradient noises must balance. This is a novel and potentially surprising new concept. 

5. Practices in Deep Learning: Lastly, our theory also has implications for the practices of deep learning, although we do not claim this to be a main contribution. The first contribution is that our theory helps us understand when SGD prefers flatter solutions. The concept of flatness is of practical importance (for example, practitioners leverage it to design algorithms: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01412). Another practical insight our theory directly offers is the importance of data preprocessing because our theory shows that the data distribution has a major impact on the learning trajectory and the final solution it reaches. For example, see the newly added experiments in Figure 7, where we directly show that the orientation of the data distribution has a direct effect on the balancedness and sharpness of the learned solution.