Revisiting LARS for Large Batch Training Generalization of Neural Networks
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the mystery behind the generalization differences between warm-up LARS and non warm-up LARS for training neural networks with large batches
- Provides a technical explanation of the paper's key findings
- Offers a critical analysis of the research and its potential limitations
Plain English Explanation
This paper investigates the reasons behind the varying generalization performance of two different training approaches for neural networks using large batch sizes: warm-up LARS and non warm-up LARS.
Warm-up LARS is a technique that gradually increases the learning rate at the start of training, while non warm-up LARS uses a constant learning rate throughout. The paper aims to uncover the "mystery" behind why these two approaches can lead to different levels of generalization, even when used with the same large batch size.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by introducing the key notations and preliminaries related to the LARS (Layer-Adaptive Rates for Stochasticity) algorithm, which is used to enable effective large batch training of neural networks.
It then delves into the central focus of the research - the mystery behind the generalization differences between warm-up LARS and non warm-up LARS. The paper explores several hypotheses, including the impact of learning rate curriculum, landscape awareness, and the singular value-based adaptive low-rank mechanisms, to explain these observed differences.
Through extensive experiments and analyses, the paper provides insights into the underlying factors that contribute to the generalization gap between the two LARS variants. These findings shed light on the complex interplay between batch size, learning rate, and the optimization landscape during the training of neural networks.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thorough investigation of the generalization differences between warm-up LARS and non warm-up LARS. However, the authors acknowledge that their analysis is limited to specific network architectures and datasets, and further research may be needed to understand the broader applicability of their findings.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential trade-offs or practical considerations that may arise when choosing between the two LARS variants. It would be valuable to understand the implications of these choices in real-world scenarios, such as the computational resources required, training time, and the overall impact on model performance.
Conclusion
This paper offers a detailed exploration of the generalization differences between warm-up LARS and non warm-up LARS for large batch training of neural networks. By delving into the underlying mechanisms and providing technical insights, the researchers have contributed to the understanding of optimization dynamics and their influence on model generalization. While the findings are specific to the examined scenarios, the paper highlights the importance of continuing to investigate the complex interplay between training techniques, batch size, and neural network performance.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Revisiting LARS for Large Batch Training Generalization of Neural Networks
Khoi Do, Duong Nguyen, Hoa Nguyen, Long Tran-Thanh, Nguyen-Hoang Tran, Quoc-Viet Pham
This paper explores Large Batch Training techniques using layer-wise adaptive scaling ratio (LARS) across diverse settings, uncovering insights. LARS algorithms with warm-up tend to be trapped in sharp minimizers early on due to redundant ratio scaling. Additionally, a fixed steep decline in the latter phase restricts deep neural networks from effectively navigating early-phase sharp minimizers. Building on these findings, we propose Time Varying LARS (TVLARS), a novel algorithm that replaces warm-up with a configurable sigmoid-like function for robust training in the initial phase. TVLARS promotes gradient exploration early on, surpassing sharp optimizers and gradually transitioning to LARS for robustness in later phases. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TVLARS consistently outperforms LARS and LAMB in most cases, with up to 2% improvement in classification scenarios. Notably, in all self-supervised learning cases, TVLARS dominates LARS and LAMB with performance improvements of up to 10%.
Read more8/28/2024
0
Training Neural Networks from Scratch with Parallel Low-Rank Adapters
Minyoung Huh, Brian Cheung, Jeremy Bernstein, Phillip Isola, Pulkit Agrawal
The scalability of deep learning models is fundamentally limited by computing resources, memory, and communication. Although methods like low-rank adaptation (LoRA) have reduced the cost of model finetuning, its application in model pre-training remains largely unexplored. This paper explores extending LoRA to model pre-training, identifying the inherent constraints and limitations of standard LoRA in this context. We introduce LoRA-the-Explorer (LTE), a novel bi-level optimization algorithm designed to enable parallel training of multiple low-rank heads across computing nodes, thereby reducing the need for frequent synchronization. Our approach includes extensive experimentation on vision transformers using various vision datasets, demonstrating that LTE is competitive with standard pre-training.
Read more7/30/2024
📶
130
LoRA+: Efficient Low Rank Adaptation of Large Models
Soufiane Hayou, Nikhil Ghosh, Bin Yu
In this paper, we show that Low Rank Adaptation (LoRA) as originally introduced in Hu et al. (2021) leads to suboptimal finetuning of models with large width (embedding dimension). This is due to the fact that adapter matrices A and B in LoRA are updated with the same learning rate. Using scaling arguments for large width networks, we demonstrate that using the same learning rate for A and B does not allow efficient feature learning. We then show that this suboptimality of LoRA can be corrected simply by setting different learning rates for the LoRA adapter matrices A and B with a well-chosen ratio. We call this proposed algorithm LoRA$+$. In our extensive experiments, LoRA$+$ improves performance (1-2 $%$ improvements) and finetuning speed (up to $sim$ 2X SpeedUp), at the same computational cost as LoRA.
Read more7/8/2024
🤔
0
Learning Rate Curriculum
Florinel-Alin Croitoru, Nicolae-Catalin Ristea, Radu Tudor Ionescu, Nicu Sebe
Most curriculum learning methods require an approach to sort the data samples by difficulty, which is often cumbersome to perform. In this work, we propose a novel curriculum learning approach termed Learning Rate Curriculum (LeRaC), which leverages the use of a different learning rate for each layer of a neural network to create a data-agnostic curriculum during the initial training epochs. More specifically, LeRaC assigns higher learning rates to neural layers closer to the input, gradually decreasing the learning rates as the layers are placed farther away from the input. The learning rates increase at various paces during the first training iterations, until they all reach the same value. From this point on, the neural model is trained as usual. This creates a model-level curriculum learning strategy that does not require sorting the examples by difficulty and is compatible with any neural network, generating higher performance levels regardless of the architecture. We conduct comprehensive experiments on 12 data sets from the computer vision (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Tiny ImageNet, ImageNet-200, Food-101, UTKFace, PASCAL VOC), language (BoolQ, QNLI, RTE) and audio (ESC-50, CREMA-D) domains, considering various convolutional (ResNet-18, Wide-ResNet-50, DenseNet-121, YOLOv5), recurrent (LSTM) and transformer (CvT, BERT, SepTr) architectures. We compare our approach with the conventional training regime, as well as with Curriculum by Smoothing (CBS), a state-of-the-art data-agnostic curriculum learning approach. Unlike CBS, our performance improvements over the standard training regime are consistent across all data sets and models. Furthermore, we significantly surpass CBS in terms of training time (there is no additional cost over the standard training regime for LeRaC). Our code is freely available at: https://github.com/CroitoruAlin/LeRaC.
Read more7/23/2024