Papers › Revisiting Random Weight Perturbation for Efficiently Improving Generalization

Revisiting Random Weight Perturbation for Efficiently Improving Generalization

30 Mar 2024arXiv:2404.00357archive 2025-07-28

Tao Li, Qinghua Tao, Weihao Yan, Zehao Lei, Yingwen Wu, Kun Fang, Mingzhen He, Xiaolin Huang

Improving the generalization ability of modern deep neural networks (DNNs) is a fundamental challenge in machine learning. Two branches of methods have been proposed to seek flat minima and improve generalization: one led by sharpness-aware minimization (SAM) minimizes the worst-case neighborhood loss through adversarial weight perturbation (AWP), and the other minimizes the expected Bayes objective with random weight perturbation (RWP). While RWP offers advantages in computation and is closely linked to AWP on a mathematical basis, its empirical performance has consistently lagged behind that of AWP. In this paper, we revisit the use of RWP for improving generalization and propose improvements from two perspectives: i) the trade-off between generalization and convergence and ii) the random perturbation generation. Through extensive experimental evaluations, we demonstrate that our enhanced RWP methods achieve greater efficiency in enhancing generalization, particularly in large-scale problems, while also offering comparable or even superior performance to SAM. The code is released at https://github.com/nblt/mARWP.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

9 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 9 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from nblt/marwp. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections