REVIEW 2 cited by
Adam Exploits $\ell_\infty$-geometry of Loss Landscape via Coordinate-wise Adaptivity
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
abstract
Adam outperforms SGD when training language models. Yet this advantage is not well-understood theoretically -- previous convergence analysis for Adam and SGD mainly focuses on the number of steps $T$ and is already minimax-optimal in non-convex cases, which are both $\widetilde{O}(T^{-1/4})$. In this work, we argue that the exploitation of nice $\ell_\infty$-geometry is the key advantage of Adam over SGD. More specifically, we give a new convergence analysis for Adam under novel assumptions that loss is smooth under $\ell_\infty$-geometry rather than the more common $\ell_2$-geometry, which yields a much better empirical smoothness constant for GPT-2 and ResNet models. Our experiments confirm that Adam performs much worse when the favorable $\ell_\infty$-geometry is changed while SGD provably remains unaffected. We also extend the convergence analysis to blockwise Adam under novel blockwise smoothness assumptions.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Seesaw: Accelerating Training by Balancing Learning Rate and Batch Size Scheduling
When a cosine schedule would halve the learning rate, Seesaw cuts it by √2 and doubles the batch, matching loss curves with ~36% fewer serial steps.
-
Is your batch size the problem? Revisiting the Adam-SGD gap in language modeling
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.