Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature for Modern Neural Network Architectures

The core components of many modern neural network architectures, such as transformers, convolutional, or graph neural networks, can be expressed as linear layers with $\textit{weight-sharing}$. Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature (K-FAC), a second-order optimisation method, has shown promise to speed up neural network training and thereby reduce computational costs. However, there is currently no framework to apply it to generic architectures, specifically ones with linear weight-sharing layers. In this work, we identify two different settings of linear weight-sharing layers which motivate two flavours of K-FAC -- $\textit{expand}$ and $\textit{reduce}$. We show that they are exact for deep linear networks with weight-sharing in their respective setting. Notably, K-FAC-reduce is generally faster than K-FAC-expand, which we leverage to speed up automatic hyperparameter selection via optimising the marginal likelihood for a Wide ResNet. Finally, we observe little difference between these two K-FAC variations when using them to train both a graph neural network and a vision transformer. However, both variations are able to reach a fixed validation metric target in $50$-$75\%$ of the number of steps of a first-order reference run, which translates into a comparable improvement in wall-clock time. This highlights the potential of applying K-FAC to modern neural network architectures.

Accelerating Generalized Linear Models by Trading off Computation for Uncertainty

Bayesian Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) define a flexible probabilistic framework to model categorical, ordinal and continuous data, and are widely used in practice. However, exact inference in GLMs is prohibitively expensive for large datasets, thus requiring approximations in practice. The resulting approximation error adversely impacts the reliability of the model and is not accounted for in the uncertainty of the prediction. In this work, we introduce a family of iterative methods that explicitly model this error. They are uniquely suited to parallel modern computing hardware, efficiently recycle computations, and compress information to reduce both the time and memory requirements for GLMs. As we demonstrate on a realistically large classification problem, our method significantly accelerates training by explicitly trading off reduced computation for increased uncertainty.

Benchmarking Neural Network Training Algorithms

Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass.

Cockpit: A Practical Debugging Tool for Training Deep Neural Networks

When engineers train deep learning models, they are very much "flying blind". Commonly used approaches for real-time training diagnostics, such as monitoring the train/test loss, are limited. Assessing a network's training process solely through these performance indicators is akin to debugging software without access to internal states through a debugger. To address this, we present Cockpit, a collection of instruments that enable a closer look into the inner workings of a learning machine, and a more informative and meaningful status report for practitioners. It facilitates the identification of learning phases and failure modes, like ill-chosen hyperparameters. These instruments leverage novel higher-order information about the gradient distribution and curvature, which has only recently become efficiently accessible. We believe that such a debugging tool, which we open-source for PyTorch, represents an important step to improve troubleshooting the training process, reveal new insights, and help develop novel methods and heuristics.

Descending through a Crowded Valley - Benchmarking Deep Learning Optimizers

Choosing the optimizer is among the most crucial decisions of deep learning engineers, and it is not an easy one. The growing literature now lists literally hundreds of optimization methods. In the absence of clear theoretical guidance and conclusive empirical evidence, the decision is often done according to personal anecdotes. In this work, we aim to replace these anecdotes, if not with evidence, then at least with heuristics. To do so, we perform an extensive, standardized benchmark of more than a dozen particularly popular deep learning optimizers while giving a concise overview of the wide range of possible choices. Analyzing almost 35 000 individual runs, we contribute the following three points: Optimizer performance varies greatly across tasks. We observe that evaluating multiple optimizers with default parameters works approximately as well as tuning the hyperparameters of a single, fixed optimizer. While we can not identify an individual optimization method clearly dominating across all tested tasks, we identify a significantly reduced subset of specific algorithms and parameter choices that generally provided competitive results in our experiments. This subset includes popular favorites and some less well-known contenders. We have open-sourced all our experimental results, making it available to use as well-tuned baselines when evaluating novel optimization methods and therefore reducing the necessary computational efforts.

Descending through a Crowded Valley -- Benchmarking Deep Learning Optimizers

Choosing the optimizer is among the most crucial decisions of deep learning engineers, and it is not an easy one. The growing literature now lists literally hundreds of optimization methods. In the absence of clear theoretical guidance and conclusive empirical evidence, the decision is often done according to personal anecdotes. In this work, we aim to replace these anecdotes, if not with evidence, then at least with heuristics. To do so, we perform an extensive, standardized benchmark of more than a dozen particularly popular deep learning optimizers while giving a concise overview of the wide range of possible choices. Analyzing almost 35 000 individual runs, we contribute the following three points: Optimizer performance varies greatly across tasks. We observe that evaluating multiple optimizers with default parameters works approximately as well as tuning the hyperparameters of a single, fixed optimizer. While we can not identify an individual optimization method clearly dominating across all tested tasks, we identify a significantly reduced subset of specific algorithms and parameter choices that generally provided competitive results in our experiments. This subset includes popular favorites and some less well-known contenders. We have open-sourced all our experimental results, making it available to use as well-tuned baselines when evaluating novel optimization methods and therefore reducing the necessary computational efforts.

DeepOBS: A Deep Learning Optimizer Benchmark Suite

Because the choice and tuning of the optimizer affects the speed, and ultimately the performance of deep learning, there is significant past and recent research in this area. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, there is no generally agreed-upon protocol for the quantitative and reproducible evaluation of optimization strategies for deep learning. We suggest routines and benchmarks for stochastic optimization, with special focus on the unique aspects of deep learning, such as stochasticity, tunability and generalization. As the primary contribution, we present DeepOBS, a Python package of deep learning optimization benchmarks. The package addresses key challenges in the quantitative assessment of stochastic optimizers, and automates most steps of benchmarking. The library includes a wide and extensible set of ready-to-use realistic optimization problems, such as training Residual Networks for image classification on ImageNet or character-level language prediction models, as well as popular classics like MNIST and CIFAR-10. The package also provides realistic baseline results for the most popular optimizers on these test problems, ensuring a fair comparison to the competition when benchmarking new optimizers, and without having to run costly experiments. It comes with output back-ends that directly produce LaTeX code for inclusion in academic publications. It supports TensorFlow and is available open source.