Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12224 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866916846350893056 |
|---|---|
| author | Pascanu, Razvan Lyle, Clare Modoranu, Ionut-Vlad Borras, Naima Elosegui Alistarh, Dan Velickovic, Petar Chandar, Sarath De, Soham Martens, James |
| author_facet | Pascanu, Razvan Lyle, Clare Modoranu, Ionut-Vlad Borras, Naima Elosegui Alistarh, Dan Velickovic, Petar Chandar, Sarath De, Soham Martens, James |
| contents | Due to the nonlinear nature of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), one can not guarantee convergence to a unique global minimum of the loss when using optimizers relying only on local information, such as SGD. Indeed, this was a primary source of skepticism regarding the feasibility of DNNs in the early days of the field. The past decades of progress in deep learning have revealed this skepticism to be misplaced, and a large body of empirical evidence shows that sufficiently large DNNs following standard training protocols exhibit well-behaved optimization dynamics that converge to performant solutions. This success has biased the community to use convex optimization as a mental model for learning, leading to a focus on training efficiency, either in terms of required iteration, FLOPs or wall-clock time, when improving optimizers. We argue that, while this perspective has proven extremely fruitful, another perspective specific to DNNs has received considerably less attention: the optimizer not only influences the rate of convergence, but also the qualitative properties of the learned solutions. Restated, the optimizer can and will encode inductive biases and change the effective expressivity of a given class of models. Furthermore, we believe the optimizer can be an effective way of encoding desiderata in the learning process. We contend that the community should aim at understanding the biases of already existing methods, as well as aim to build new optimizers with the explicit intent of inducing certain properties of the solution, rather than solely judging them based on their convergence rates. We hope our arguments will inspire research to improve our understanding of how the learning process can impact the type of solution we converge to, and lead to a greater recognition of optimizers design as a critical lever that complements the roles of architecture and data in shaping model outcomes. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_12224 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Optimizers Qualitatively Alter Solutions And We Should Leverage This Pascanu, Razvan Lyle, Clare Modoranu, Ionut-Vlad Borras, Naima Elosegui Alistarh, Dan Velickovic, Petar Chandar, Sarath De, Soham Martens, James Machine Learning Due to the nonlinear nature of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), one can not guarantee convergence to a unique global minimum of the loss when using optimizers relying only on local information, such as SGD. Indeed, this was a primary source of skepticism regarding the feasibility of DNNs in the early days of the field. The past decades of progress in deep learning have revealed this skepticism to be misplaced, and a large body of empirical evidence shows that sufficiently large DNNs following standard training protocols exhibit well-behaved optimization dynamics that converge to performant solutions. This success has biased the community to use convex optimization as a mental model for learning, leading to a focus on training efficiency, either in terms of required iteration, FLOPs or wall-clock time, when improving optimizers. We argue that, while this perspective has proven extremely fruitful, another perspective specific to DNNs has received considerably less attention: the optimizer not only influences the rate of convergence, but also the qualitative properties of the learned solutions. Restated, the optimizer can and will encode inductive biases and change the effective expressivity of a given class of models. Furthermore, we believe the optimizer can be an effective way of encoding desiderata in the learning process. We contend that the community should aim at understanding the biases of already existing methods, as well as aim to build new optimizers with the explicit intent of inducing certain properties of the solution, rather than solely judging them based on their convergence rates. We hope our arguments will inspire research to improve our understanding of how the learning process can impact the type of solution we converge to, and lead to a greater recognition of optimizers design as a critical lever that complements the roles of architecture and data in shaping model outcomes. |
| title | Optimizers Qualitatively Alter Solutions And We Should Leverage This |
| topic | Machine Learning |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12224 |