How Does Adaptive Optimization Impact Local Neural Network Geometry?
Kaiqi Jiang, Dhruv Malik, Yuanzhi Li
Abstract
Adaptive optimization methods are well known to achieve superior convergence relative to vanilla gradient methods. The traditional viewpoint in optimization, particularly in convex optimization, explains this improved performance by arguing that, unlike vanilla gradient schemes, adaptive algorithms mimic the behavior of a second-order method by adapting to the global geometry of the loss function. We argue that in the context of neural network optimization, this traditional viewpoint is insufficient. Instead, we advocate for a local trajectory analysis. For iterate trajectories produced by running a generic optimization algorithm OPT, we introduce , a statistic that is analogous to the condition number of the loss Hessian evaluated at the iterates. Through extensive experiments, we show that adaptive methods such as Adam bias the trajectories towards regions where is small, where one might expect faster convergence. By contrast, vanilla gradient methods like SGD bias the trajectories towards regions where is comparatively large. We complement these empirical observations with a theoretical result that provably demonstrates this phenomenon in the simplified setting of a two-layer linear network. We view our findings as evidence for the need of a new explanation of the success of adaptive methods, one that is different than the conventional wisdom.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 76b4b4b9-b3f3-490e-90b3-ef077492ab19Cited by top-tier papers16
- Why Transformers Need Adam: A Hessian PerspectiveYushun Zhang, Congliang Chen, Tian Ding, Ziniu Li et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 149 citations
- Transformers Learn Nonlinear Features In Context: Nonconvex Mean-field Dynamics on the Attention LandscapeJuno Kim, Taiji SuzukiICML 2024 · 42 citations
- Adam with model exponential moving average is effective for nonconvex optimizationKwangjun Ahn, Ashok CutkoskyNeurIPS 2024 · 36 citations
- On the Implicit Bias of AdamMatias D. Cattaneo, Jason M. Klusowski, Boris ShigidaICML 2024 · 26 citations
- Understanding Adam Optimizer via Online Learning of Updates: Adam is FTRL in DisguiseKwangjun Ahn, Zhiyu Zhang, Yunbum Kook, Yan DaiICML 2024 · 25 citations
Builds on6
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Sharpness-aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving GeneralizationPierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, Behnam NeyshaburICLR 2021 · 1,861 citations
- Understanding self-supervised learning dynamics without contrastive pairsYuandong Tian, Xinlei Chen, Surya GanguliICML 2021 · 338 citations
- Polylogarithmic width suffices for gradient descent to achieve arbitrarily small test error with shallow ReLU networksZiwei Ji, Matus TelgarskyICLR 2020 · 193 citations
- Adaptive Gradient Methods for Constrained Convex Optimization and Variational InequalitiesAlina Ene, Huy L. Nguyen, Adrian VladuAAAI 2021 · 35 citations
Related papers
- Convergence of Adam Under Relaxed AssumptionsHaochuan Li, Alexander Rakhlin, Ali JadbabaieNeurIPS 2023 · 132 citations
- The Expected Loss of Preconditioned Langevin Dynamics Reveals the Hessian RankAmitay Bar, Rotem Mulayoff, Tomer Michaeli, Ronen TalmonAAAI 2024 · 1 citation
- Escaping Saddle Points Faster with Stochastic MomentumJun-Kun Wang, Chi-Heng Lin, Jacob D. AbernethyICLR 2020 · 25 citations
- Understanding the Generalization of Adam in Learning Neural Networks with Proper RegularizationDifan Zou, Yuan Cao, Yuanzhi Li, Quanquan GuICLR 2023 · 6 citations
- ACMo: Angle-Calibrated Moment Methods for Stochastic OptimizationXunpeng Huang, Runxin Xu, Hao Zhou, Zhe Wang et al.AAAI 2021 · 2 citations
