MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170809304 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.06401

Decoupled Greedy Learning of CNNs for Synchronous and Asynchronous\n Distributed Learning

2021· preprint· en· W3170809304 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene Belilovsky, Louis Leconte, Lucas Caccia, Michael Eickenberg, Edouard Oyallon

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationComputer scienceGreedy algorithmAsynchronous learningArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceDistributed computingAlgorithmComputer networkMathematicsSynchronous learningCooperative learningMathematics educationTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commonly cited inefficiency of neural network training using back-propagation is the update locking problem: each layer must wait for the signal to propagate through the full network before updating. Several alternatives that can alleviate this issue have been proposed. In this context, we consider a simple alternative based on minimal feedback, which we call Decoupled Greedy Learning (DGL). It is based on a classic greedy relaxation of the joint training objective, recently shown to be effective in the context of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) on large-scale image classification. We consider an optimization of this objective that permits us to decouple the layer training, allowing for layers or modules in networks to be trained with a potentially linear parallelization. With the use of a replay buffer we show that this approach can be extended to asynchronous settings, where modules can operate and continue to update with possibly large communication delays. To address bandwidth and memory issues we propose an approach based on online vector quantization. This allows to drastically reduce the communication bandwidth between modules and required memory for replay buffers. We show theoretically and empirically that this approach converges and compare it to the sequential solvers. We demonstrate the effectiveness of DGL against alternative approaches on the CIFAR-10 dataset and on the large-scale ImageNet dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207