REVIEW 2 cited by
Recurrent neural networks: vanishing and exploding gradients are not the end of the story
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
read the original abstract
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) notoriously struggle to learn long-term memories, primarily due to vanishing and exploding gradients. The recent success of state-space models (SSMs), a subclass of RNNs, to overcome such difficulties challenges our theoretical understanding. In this paper, we delve into the optimization challenges of RNNs and discover that, as the memory of a network increases, changes in its parameters result in increasingly large output variations, making gradient-based learning highly sensitive, even without exploding gradients. Our analysis further reveals the importance of the element-wise recurrence design pattern combined with careful parametrizations in mitigating this effect. This feature is present in SSMs, as well as in other architectures, such as LSTMs. Overall, our insights provide a new explanation for some of the difficulties in gradient-based learning of RNNs and why some architectures perform better than others.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Autocorrelation Matters: Understanding the Role of Initialization Schemes for State Space Models
For diagonal state space models, the initialization timescale should scale with the sequence length and the largest eigenvalue of the input autocorrelation matrix, and eigenvalue placement controls memory and optimiza...
-
Revisiting Glorot Initialization for Long-Range Linear Recurrences
Glorot initialization is unstable for long-range linear RNNs because the spectral radius exceeds 1, with a proposed rescaling that helps in practice, but the theoretical claim that explosion starts at t = O(√n) is not...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.