Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How to Fine-Tune Vision Models with SGD

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.09359 v2 pith:EJYR2UKB submitted 2022-11-17 cs.CV cs.LG

classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords adamwlessbytesfine-tuningmemorymodelsparametervision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

SGD and AdamW are the two most used optimizers for fine-tuning large neural networks in computer vision. When the two methods perform the same, SGD is preferable because it uses less memory (12 bytes/parameter with momentum and 8 bytes/parameter without) than AdamW (16 bytes/parameter). However, on a suite of downstream tasks, especially those with distribution shifts, we find that fine-tuning with AdamW performs substantially better than SGD on modern Vision Transformer and ConvNeXt models. We find that large gaps in performance between SGD and AdamW occur when the fine-tuning gradients in the first "embedding" layer are much larger than in the rest of the model. Our analysis suggests an easy fix that works consistently across datasets and models: freezing the embedding layer (less than 1% of the parameters) leads to SGD with or without momentum performing slightly better than AdamW while using less memory (e.g., on ViT-L, SGD uses 33% less GPU memory). Our insights result in state-of-the-art accuracies on five popular distribution shift benchmarks: WILDS-FMoW, WILDS-Camelyon, BREEDS-Living-17, Waterbirds, and DomainNet.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Is your batch size the problem? Revisiting the Adam-SGD gap in language modeling

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SGD with momentum can match Adam's performance in language modeling when trained with small batches and careful tuning, a result that contradicts several popular explanations for the optimizer gap.

Pith tools