A Performance Improvement Approach for Second-Order Optimization in Large Mini-batch Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical learning theory states that when the number of parameters of the model is too large compared to the data, the model will overfit and the generalization performance deteriorates. However, it has been empirically shown that deep neural networks (DNN) can achieve high generalization capability by training with extremely large amount of data and model parameters, which exceeds the predictions of classical learning theory. One drawback of this is that training of DNN requires enormous calculation time. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the training time through large scale parallelization. Straightforward data-parallelization of DNN degrades convergence and generalization. In the present work, we investigate the possibility of using second order methods to solve this generalization gap in large-batch training. This is motivated by our observation that each mini-batch becomes more statistically stable, and thus the effect of considering the curvature plays a more important role in large-batch training. We have also found that naively adapting the natural gradient method causes the generalization performance to deteriorate further due to the lack of regularization capability. We propose an improved second order method by smoothing the loss function, which allows second-order methods to generalize as well as mini-batch SGD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".