Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Judging Adam: Studying the Performance of Optimization Methods on ML4SE Tasks

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 2303.03540 v1 pith:E2T4MUFH submitted 2023-03-06 cs.SE cs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.LG
keywords optimizersoptimizertasksperformancecode-relateddeeplearningadam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Solving a problem with a deep learning model requires researchers to optimize the loss function with a certain optimization method. The research community has developed more than a hundred different optimizers, yet there is scarce data on optimizer performance in various tasks. In particular, none of the benchmarks test the performance of optimizers on source code-related problems. However, existing benchmark data indicates that certain optimizers may be more efficient for particular domains. In this work, we test the performance of various optimizers on deep learning models for source code and find that the choice of an optimizer can have a significant impact on the model quality, with up to two-fold score differences between some of the relatively well-performing optimizers. We also find that RAdam optimizer (and its modification with the Lookahead envelope) is the best optimizer that almost always performs well on the tasks we consider. Our findings show a need for a more extensive study of the optimizers in code-related tasks, and indicate that the ML4SE community should consider using RAdam instead of Adam as the default optimizer for code-related deep learning tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools