Optimizer Dynamics at the Edge of Stability with Differential Privacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it