Optimizer Dynamics at the Edge of Stability with Differential Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning models can reveal sensitive information about individual training examples, and while differential privacy (DP) provides guarantees restricting such leakage, it also alters optimization dynamics in poorly understood ways. We study the training dynamics of neural networks under DP by comparing Gradient Descent (GD), and Adam to their privacy-preserving variants. Prior work shows that these optimizers exhibit distinct stability dynamics: full-batch methods train at the Edge of Stability (EoS), while mini-batch and adaptive methods exhibit analogous edge-of-stability behavior. At these regimes, the training loss and the sharpness--the maximum eigenvalue of the training loss Hessian--exhibit certain characteristic behavior. In DP training, per-example gradient clipping and Gaussian noise modify the update rule, and it is unclear whether these stability patterns persist. We analyze how clipping and noise change sharpness and loss evolution and show that while DP generally reduces the sharpness and can prevent optimizers from fully reaching the classical stability thresholds, patterns from EoS and analogous adaptive methods stability regimes persist, with the largest learning rates and largest privacy budgets approaching, and sometimes exceeding, these thresholds. These findings highlight the unpredictability introduced by DP in neural network optimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".