Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userRevisiting BFloat16 Training
78
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
State-of-the-art generic low-precision training algorithms use a mix of 16-bit and 32-bit precision, creating the folklore that 16-bit hardware compute units alone are not enough to maximize model accuracy. As a result, deep learning accelerators are forced to support both 16-bit and 32-bit floating-point units (FPUs), which is more costly than only using 16-bit FPUs for hardware design. We ask: can we train deep learning models only with 16-bit floating-point units, while still matching the model accuracy attained by 32-bit training? Towards this end, we study 16-bit-FPU training on the widely adopted BFloat16 unit. While these units conventionally use nearest rounding to cast output to 16-bit precision, we show that nearest rounding for model weight updates often cancels small updates, which degrades the convergence and model accuracy. Motivated by this, we study two simple techniques well-established in numerical analysis, stochastic rounding and Kahan summation, to remedy the model accuracy degradation in 16-bit-FPU training. We demonstrate that these two techniques can enable up to 7% absolute validation accuracy gain in 16-bit-FPU training. This leads to 0.1% lower to 0.2% higher validation accuracy compared to 32-bit training across seven deep learning applications.
rate research
Read More
This paper presents the first comprehensive empirical study demonstrating the efficacy of the Brain Floating Point (BFLOAT16) half-precision format for Deep Learning training across image classification, speech recognition, language modeling, generative networks and industrial recommendation systems. BFLOAT16 is attractive for Deep Learning training for two reasons: the range of values it can represent is the same as that of IEEE 754 floating-point format (FP32) and conversion to/from FP32 is simple. Maintaining the same range as FP32 is important to ensure that no hyper-parameter tuning is required for convergence; e.g., IEEE 754 compliant half-precision floating point (FP16) requires hyper-parameter tuning. In this paper, we discuss the flow of tensors and various key operations in mixed precision training, and delve into details of operations, such as the rounding modes for converting FP32 tensors to BFLOAT16. We have implemented a method to emulate BFLOAT16 operations in Tensorflow, Caffe2, IntelCaffe, and Neon for our experiments. Our results show that deep learning training using BFLOAT16 tensors achieves the same state-of-the-art (SOTA) results across domains as FP32 tensors in the same number of iterations and with no changes to hyper-parameters.
Adversarial training, a method for learning robust deep networks, is typically assumed to be more expensive than traditional training due to the necessity of constructing adversarial examples via a first-order method like projected gradient decent (PGD). In this paper, we make the surprising discovery that it is possible to train empirically robust models using a much weaker and cheaper adversary, an approach that was previously believed to be ineffective, rendering the method no more costly than standard training in practice. Specifically, we show that adversarial training with the fast gradient sign method (FGSM), when combined with random initialization, is as effective as PGD-based training but has significantly lower cost. Furthermore we show that FGSM adversarial training can be further accelerated by using standard techniques for efficient training of deep networks, allowing us to learn a robust CIFAR10 classifier with 45% robust accuracy to PGD attacks with $epsilon=8/255$ in 6 minutes, and a robust ImageNet classifier with 43% robust accuracy at $epsilon=2/255$ in 12 hours, in comparison to past work based on free adversarial training which took 10 and 50 hours to reach the same respective thresholds. Finally, we identify a failure mode referred to as catastrophic overfitting which may have caused previous attempts to use FGSM adversarial training to fail. All code for reproducing the experiments in this paper as well as pretrained model weights are at https://github.com/locuslab/fast_adversarial.
Self-training is one of the earliest and simplest semi-supervised methods. The key idea is to augment the original labeled dataset with unlabeled data paired with the models prediction (i.e. the pseudo-parallel data). While self-training has been extensively studied on classification problems, in complex sequence generation tasks (e.g. machine translation) it is still unclear how self-training works due to the compositionality of the target space. In this work, we first empirically show that self-training is able to decently improve the supervised baseline on neural sequence generation tasks. Through careful examination of the performance gains, we find that the perturbation on the hidden states (i.e. dropout) is critical for self-training to benefit from the pseudo-parallel data, which acts as a regularizer and forces the model to yield close predictions for similar unlabeled inputs. Such effect helps the model correct some incorrect predictions on unlabeled data. To further encourage this mechanism, we propose to inject noise to the input space, resulting in a noisy version of self-training. Empirical study on standard machine translation and text summarization benchmarks shows that noisy self-training is able to effectively utilize unlabeled data and improve the performance of the supervised baseline by a large margin.
Deep learning practitioners often operate on a computational and monetary budget. Thus, it is critical to design optimization algorithms that perform well under any budget. The linear learning rate schedule is considered the best budget-aware schedule, as it outperforms most other schedules in the low budget regime. On the other hand, learning rate schedules -- such as the texttt{30-60-90} step schedule -- are known to achieve high performance when the model can be trained for many epochs. Yet, it is often not known a priori whether ones budget will be large or small; thus, the optimal choice of learning rate schedule is made on a case-by-case basis. In this paper, we frame the learning rate schedule selection problem as a combination of $i)$ selecting a profile (i.e., the continuous function that models the learning rate schedule), and $ii)$ choosing a sampling rate (i.e., how frequently the learning rate is updated/sampled from this profile). We propose a novel profile and sampling rate combination called the Reflected Exponential (REX) schedule, which we evaluate across seven different experimental settings with both SGD and Adam optimizers. REX outperforms the linear schedule in the low budget regime, while matching or exceeding the performance of several state-of-the-art learning rate schedules (linear, step, exponential, cosine, step decay on plateau, and OneCycle) in both high and low budget regimes. Furthermore, REX requires no added computation, storage, or hyperparameters.
Experience replay is central to off-policy algorithms in deep reinforcement learning (RL), but there remain significant gaps in our understanding. We therefore present a systematic and extensive analysis of experience replay in Q-learning methods, focusing on two fundamental properties: the replay capacity and the ratio of learning updates to experience collected (replay ratio). Our additive and ablative studies upend conventional wisdom around experience replay -- greater capacity is found to substantially increase the performance of certain algorithms, while leaving others unaffected. Counterintuitively we show that theoretically ungrounded, uncorrected n-step returns are uniquely beneficial while other techniques confer limited benefit for sifting through larger memory. Separately, by directly controlling the replay ratio we contextualize previous observations in the literature and empirically measure its importance across a variety of deep RL algorithms. Finally, we conclude by testing a set of hypotheses on the nature of these performance benefits.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
