Grass: Compute Efficient Low-Memory LLM Training with Structured Sparse Gradients

Large language model (LLM) training and finetuning are often bottlenecked by limited GPU memory. While existing projection-based optimization methods address this by projecting gradients into a lower-dimensional subspace to reduce optimizer state memory, they typically rely on dense projection matrices, which can introduce computational and memory overheads. In this work, we propose Grass (GRAdient Stuctured Sparsification), a novel approach that leverages sparse projections to transform gradients into structured sparse updates. This design not only significantly reduces memory usage for optimizer states but also minimizes gradient memory footprint, computation, and communication costs, leading to substantial throughput improvements. Extensive experiments on pretraining and finetuning tasks demonstrate that Grass achieves competitive performance to full-rank training and existing projection-based methods. Notably, Grass enables half-precision pretraining of a 13B parameter LLaMA model on a single 40GB A100 GPU--a feat infeasible for previous methods--and yields up to a $2\times$ throughput improvement on an 8-GPU system. Code can be found at https://github.com/aashiqmuhamed/GRASS .

An In-depth Look at Gemini's Language Abilities

The recently released Google Gemini class of models are the first to comprehensively report results that rival the OpenAI GPT series across a wide variety of tasks. In this paper, we do an in-depth exploration of Gemini's language abilities, making two contributions. First, we provide a third-party, objective comparison of the abilities of the OpenAI GPT and Google Gemini models with reproducible code and fully transparent results. Second, we take a closer look at the results, identifying areas where one of the two model classes excels. We perform this analysis over 10 datasets testing a variety of language abilities, including reasoning, answering knowledge-based questions, solving math problems, translating between languages, generating code, and acting as instruction-following agents. From this analysis, we find that Gemini Pro achieves accuracy that is close but slightly inferior to the corresponding GPT 3.5 Turbo on all tasks that we benchmarked. We further provide explanations for some of this under-performance, including failures in mathematical reasoning with many digits, sensitivity to multiple-choice answer ordering, aggressive content filtering, and others. We also identify areas where Gemini demonstrates comparably high performance, including generation into non-English languages, and handling longer and more complex reasoning chains. Code and data for reproduction can be found at https://github.com/neulab/gemini-benchmark