AdaS: Adaptive Scheduling of Stochastic Gradients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of step-size used in Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) optimization is empirically selected in most training procedures. Moreover, the use of scheduled learning techniques such as Step-Decaying, Cyclical-Learning, and Warmup to tune the step-size requires extensive practical experience--offering limited insight into how the parameters update--and is not consistent across applications. This work attempts to answer a question of interest to both researchers and practitioners, namely \textit{"how much knowledge is gained in iterative training of deep neural networks?"} Answering this question introduces two useful metrics derived from the singular values of the low-rank factorization of convolution layers in deep neural networks. We introduce the notions of \textit{"knowledge gain"} and \textit{"mapping condition"} and propose a new algorithm called Adaptive Scheduling (AdaS) that utilizes these derived metrics to adapt the SGD learning rate proportionally to the rate of change in knowledge gain over successive iterations. Experimentation reveals that, using the derived metrics, AdaS exhibits: (a) faster convergence and superior generalization over existing adaptive learning methods; and (b) lack of dependence on a validation set to determine when to stop training. Code is available at \url{https://github.com/mahdihosseini/AdaS}.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it