minibatch size
- Asia > China (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- (4 more...)
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Stuttgart Region > Stuttgart (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
ff1418e8cc993fe8abcfe3ce2003e5c5-Supplemental.pdf
The table ( right) shows 100 epoch results using best lr and wd values found at 50 epochs. ViT's patchify stem differs from the proposed convolutional stem in the type of convolution used and We investigate these factors next. The focus of this paper is studying the large, positive impact of changing ViT's default We use AdamW for all experiments. Figure 7 shows the results. The table ( right) shows 100 epoch results using optimal lr and wd values chosen from the 50 epoch runs.
- North America > United States > Illinois > Cook County > Chicago (0.04)
- Europe > Russia (0.04)
- Asia > Russia (0.04)
STEM: A Stochastic Two-Sided Momentum Algorithm Achieving Near-Optimal Sample and Communication Complexities for Federated Learning
Federated Learning (FL) refers to the paradigm where multiple worker nodes (WNs) build a joint model by using local data. Despite extensive research, for a generic non-convex FL problem, it is not clear, how to choose the WNs' and the server's update directions, the minibatch sizes, and the local update frequency, so that the WNs use the minimum number of samples and communication rounds to achieve the desired solution. This work addresses the above question and considers a class of stochastic algorithms where the WNs perform a few local updates before communication. We show that when both the WN's and the server's directions are chosen based on certain stochastic momentum estimator, the algorithm requires $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^{-3/2})$ samples and $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\epsilon^{-1})$ communication rounds to compute an $\epsilon$-stationary solution. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first FL algorithm that achieves such {\it near-optimal} sample and communication complexities simultaneously. Further, we show that there is a trade-off curve between local update frequencies and local minibatch sizes, on which the above sample and communication complexities can be maintained.
On the Power of Differentiable Learning versus PAC and SQ Learning
We study the power of learning via mini-batch stochastic gradient descent (SGD) on the loss of a differentiable model or neural network, and ask what learning problems can be learnt using this paradigm. We show that SGD can always simulate learning with statistical queries (SQ), but its ability to go beyond that depends on the precision $\rho$ of the gradients and the minibatch size $b$. With fine enough precision relative to minibatch size, namely when $b \rho$ is small enough, SGD can go beyond SQ learning and simulate any sample-based learning algorithm and thus its learning power is equivalent to that of PAC learning; this extends prior work that achieved this result for $b=1$. Moreover, with polynomially many bits of precision (i.e. when $\rho$ is exponentially small), SGD can simulate PAC learning regardless of the batch size. On the other hand, when $b \rho^2$ is large enough, the power of SGD is equivalent to that of SQ learning.
An Even More Optimal Stochastic Optimization Algorithm: Minibatching and Interpolation Learning
We present and analyze an algorithm for optimizing smooth and convex or strongly convex objectives using minibatch stochastic gradient estimates. The algorithm is optimal with respect to its dependence on both the minibatch size and minimum expected loss simultaneously. This improves over the optimal method of Lan, which is insensitive to the minimum expected loss; over the optimistic acceleration of Cotter et al., which has suboptimal dependence on the minibatch size; and over the algorithm of Liu and Belkin, which is limited to least squares problems and is also similarly suboptimal.