On the Implicit Bias of Adam

Overview

• The paper analyzes the implicit regularization effects of the RMSProp and Adam optimization algorithms, which are commonly used in training deep neural networks.
• It was previously found that the gradient descent algorithm has an implicit regularization effect due to the finite step size, which penalizes the two-norm of the loss gradients.
• This paper shows that the implicit regularization in RMSProp and Adam depends on their hyperparameters and the training stage, but it involves a different norm - either the (perturbed) one-norm of the loss gradients or an impeding of its reduction.
• Numerical experiments are conducted to demonstrate these effects and discuss how they can influence the generalization performance of the trained models.

Plain English Explanation

Optimization algorithms like gradient descent, RMSProp, and Adam are commonly used to train deep neural networks. These algorithms don't just find the best set of model parameters - they also have an "implicit regularization" effect, which means they subtly encourage the model to have certain desirable properties, even without explicit regularization techniques.

Previous research showed that gradient descent's implicit regularization is related to the size of the steps it takes - larger steps tend to produce models with smaller gradients (the rate of change of the loss function). This is beneficial because smaller gradients often lead to better generalization, or the ability to perform well on new, unseen data.

This new paper analyzes the implicit regularization effects of RMSProp and Adam. It finds that these algorithms also have implicit regularization, but the details are a bit different. Depending on the algorithm's hyperparameters and the stage of training, the implicit regularization either encourages smaller one-norm gradients (the sum of the absolute values of the gradients) or makes it harder for the one-norm to decrease.

The researchers also ran experiments to see how these implicit regularization effects influence the final performance of the trained models. The results suggest that understanding these effects can help us use optimization algorithms more effectively to improve the generalization of deep learning models.

Technical Explanation

The paper builds on prior work that used backward error analysis to find ordinary differential equations (ODEs) that approximate the trajectory of gradient descent. This analysis showed that the finite step size of gradient descent implicitly regularizes the solutions by penalizing the two-norm (Euclidean length) of the loss gradients.

In this paper, the researchers prove that similar implicit regularization exists in the RMSProp and Adam optimization algorithms, but the norm involved is different. Depending on the algorithm's hyperparameters and the stage of training, the corresponding ODE terms either penalize the (perturbed) one-norm of the loss gradients or impede its reduction.

The one-norm is the sum of the absolute values of the gradient components, which is related to the Dollar-ellinfty-Dollar norm commonly used in optimization literature. The researchers provide theoretical analysis and numerical experiments to demonstrate these implicit regularization effects and discuss how they can influence the generalization performance of the trained models.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a rigorous theoretical analysis of the implicit regularization effects in RMSProp and Adam, building on previous work on gradient descent. The insights are valuable for understanding how these widely used optimization algorithms behave and how their hyperparameters can impact the training and generalization of deep learning models.

However, the analysis is limited to the specific norms involved (two-norm and one-norm) and does not explore other potential implicit regularization effects. Additionally, the numerical experiments, while informative, could be expanded to cover a wider range of network architectures, datasets, and training scenarios to better understand the practical implications of the findings.

It would also be interesting to see if these implicit regularization effects interact with other techniques, such as explicit regularization or data augmentation, and how they might be leveraged to improve the generalization of deep learning models.

Conclusion

This paper makes an important contribution to the understanding of optimization algorithms used in deep learning. By analyzing the implicit regularization effects in RMSProp and Adam, the researchers shed light on how these algorithms can implicitly encourage desirable properties in the trained models, such as smaller gradients.

These insights can help deep learning practitioners make more informed choices when selecting and tuning optimization algorithms for their specific tasks and datasets. Ultimately, a better understanding of these implicit biases can lead to more effective and robust deep learning models that generalize well to new, unseen data.