Organizations: the School of Information Science and Engineering, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang 050091, China · the School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China · the International Institute of Next Generation Internet, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau 519020
Euclidean gradient descent algorithms barely capture the geometry of objective function-induced hypersurfaces and risk driving update trajectories off the hypersurfaces. Riemannian gradient descent algorithms address these issues but fail to represent complex hypersurfaces via a single classic manifold. We propose geodesic gradient descent (GGD), a generic and learning-rate-free Riemannian gradient descent algorithm. At each iteration, GGD uses an n-dimensional sphere to approximate a local neighborhood on the objective function-induced hypersurface, adapting to arbitrarily complex geometries. A tangent vector derived from the Euclidean gradient is projected onto the sphere to form a geodesic, ensuring the update trajectory stays on the hypersurface. Parameter updates are performed using the endpoint of the geodesic. The maximum step size of the gradient in GGD is equal to a quarter of the arc length on the n-dimensional sphere, thus eliminating the need for a learning rate. Experimental results show that compared with the classic Adam algorithm, GGD achieves test MSE reductions ranging from 35.79% to 48.76% for fully connected networks on the Burgers' dataset, and cross-entropy loss reductions ranging from 3.14% to 11.59% for convolutional neural networks on the MNIST dataset.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The convergence direction in Euclidean space.
Fig. 2: The Riemannian gradient [ 5 ] .
Fig. 3: The convergence process of GGD algorithm.
Fig. 4: The variation curve of RBFs.
Fig. 5: Different vectors in the tangent space of a circle and their corresponding projected geodesics on the circle.
Optimizer
Hyper parameters
SGD
learning rate=0.001
SGDM
learning rate=0.001;momentum=0.9
ADAM
learning rate=0.001; β1 =0.9; β2 =0.999
Muon
learning rate=0.001; β1 =0.9
SSGD
learning rate=0.001
GGD
μ =0; σ and R0 are adjusted.
TABLE I: The hyper parameters of the optimizers compared in this paper.
Nets
Structures
MSE
SGD [ 1 ]
SGDM [ 15 ]
Adam [ 2 ]
Muon [ 4 ]
SSGD [ 11 ]
GGD(ours)
reduction (GGD V.S. Adam)
FCN_1
3,6,1
Training
1.83E-3
9.23E-3
1.37E-4
4.60E-4
1.81E-3
1.00E-4
27.01%
Test
2.80E-3
1.60E-3
4.47E-4
1.07E-3
2.61E-3
2.29E-4
48.76%
FCN_2
3,4,6,4,1
Training
1.47E-3
6.40E-4
1.88E-5
4.31E-5
2.27E-3
1.91E-5
-1.59%
Test
2.04E-3
1.20E-3
3.03E-4
2.13E-4
3.07E-3
1.80E-4
40.59%
FCN_3
3,10*10,1
Training
1.27E-3
4.27E-4
2.00E-6
1.73E-5
1.19E-3
5.12E-7
74.40%
Test
3.74E-3
3.88E-3
8.83E-4
2.34E-3
3.13E-3
5.67E-4
35.79%
TABLE II: The training loss of gradient descent optimizations on Burgers’ dataset.
Fig. 6: The training and validation progress of all comparative algorithms on Burgers’ dataset.
Nets
Structures
Errors
SGD [ 1 ]
SGDM [ 15 ]
Adam [ 2 ]
Muon [ 4 ]
SSGD [ 11 ]
GGD(ours)
reduction (GGD V.S. Adam)
CNN_1
2*(3*3)+10
Tr CE
1.96E-01
6.72E-02
1.74E-02
3.94E-02
7.89E-01
1.36E-2
11.49%
Te CE
1.38E-01
4.87E-02
3.97E-02
3.79E-02
6.97E-01
3.44E-02
11.59%
Acc
95.92%
98.34%
98.85%
98.71%
89.12%
99.04%
—
CNN_2
3*(3*3)+10
Tr CE
2.93E-01
8.56E-02
1.32E-02
2.32E-02
1.91
1.16E-02
12.12%
Te CE
1.70E-01
5.00E-02
2.87E-02
3.11E-02
1.85
2.78E-02
3.14%
Acc
95.20%
98.48%
99.14%
99.00%
63.30%
99.16%
—
TABLE III: The training loss of gradient descent optimizations on MNIST dataset.
Fig. 7: The training and validation progress of all comparative algorithms on MNIST dataset.
Fig. 8: The accuracy validation progress of all comparative algorithms on MNIST dataset.
Experiment
iterations
Networks
SGD
SGDM
Adam
Muon
SSGD
GGD
Burgers’
1000
FCN_1
102.59
123.56
147.95
127.15
182.39
161.30
FCN_2
179.99
181.81
265.88
242.45
271.87
238.66
FCN_3
501.80
606.11
801.47
727.92
832.16
697.33
MNIST
200
CNN_1
3258.90
3220.50
3409.10
3692.38
3625.72
3468.02
CNN_2
3613.33
3799.60
3872.47
3667.76
3677.74
3668.26
CNN_3
3615.88
3631.42
3788.23
3437.67
3633.23
3617.78
TABLE IV: The training time (seconds) of the 6 algorithms.
Fig. 9: The variations of Rt in Burgers’ and MNIST experiments.
Recently, several instances of non-Euclidean SGD, including SignSGD, Lion, and Muon, have attracted significant interest from the optimization community due to their practical success in training deep neural networks. Consequently, a number of works have attempted to explain this success by developing theoretical convergence analyses. Unfortunately, these results cannot properly justify the superior performance of these methods, as they could not beat the convergence rate of vanilla Euclidean SGD. We resolve this important open problem by developing a new unified convergence analysis under the structured smoothness and gradient noise assumption. In particular, our results indicate that non-Euclidean SGD (i) can exploit the sparsity or low-rank structure of the upper bounds on the Hessian and gradient noise, (ii) can provably benefit from popular algorithmic tools such as extrapolation or momentum variance reduction, and (iii) can match the state-of-the-art convergence rates of adaptive and more complex optimization algorithms such as AdaGrad and Shampoo.
The Edge of Stability (EoS) is a phenomenon where the sharpness (largest eigenvalue) of the Hessian approaches and then hovers near the stability threshold 2/η during gradient descent (GD) with step size η. Despite (apparently) violating classical smoothness assumptions, EoS has been widely observed in deep learning, but its theoretical foundations remain incomplete. We provide an interpretation of EoS through the lens of Directional Smoothness [Mishkin et al., 2024]. This interpretation naturally extends to non-Euclidean norms, which we use to define generalized sharpness under an arbitrary norm. Our generalized sharpness measure includes previously studied vanilla GD and preconditioned GD as special cases, as well as methods for which EoS has not been studied, such as ℓ∞-descent, Block CD, Spectral GD, and their normalized versions. Through experiments on neural networks, we show that non-Euclidean GD with our generalized sharpness also exhibits progressive sharpening followed by oscillations around or above the threshold 2/η. Practically, our framework provides a geometry-aware spectral diagnostic that can be applied across a broad class of non-Euclidean gradient methods.
Rustem Islamov, Michael Crawshaw, Jeremy Cohen +1
University of Basel, Switzerland · George Mason University, USA · Flatiron Institute, USA
High-capacity associative memories based on Kernel Logistic Regression (KLR) exhibit a "Ridge of Optimization" characterized by extreme stability and a highly skewed weight spectrum. However, the dynamical process by which learning converges to this critical regime has remained unclear. This paper provides a geometric analysis of the learning trajectories on the statistical manifold of a KLR-trained Hopfield network. By comparing the paths of Gradient Descent (GD) and Natural Gradient Descent (NGD), we elucidate the mechanisms governing the optimization process. Our analysis reveals that learning on the Ridge proceeds in two distinct phases. We show that the extreme curvature of the Ridge causes standard GD to follow a highly oscillatory, non-geodesic path. In stark contrast, NGD explicitly corrects for this geometry, following the ideal geodesic path and completely overcoming the instabilities faced by GD. We demonstrate experimentally that NGD not only converges significantly faster but also achieves a solution with superior generalization performance. These results establish that the highly structured geometry of the Ridge is optimally suited for information-geometric optimization, providing a new perspective on the interplay between learning dynamics and emergent representation geometry.
Akira Tamamori
Faculty of Information Science, Aichi Institute of Technology 1247 Yachigusa, Yakusa-cho, Toyota-shi, Aichi 470-0392, Japan