Robust Learning Rate Selection for Stochastic Optimization via Splitting Diagnostic

1 INTRODUCTION . Many machine learning problems boil down to finding a minimizer ✓⇤ 2 Rd of a risk function taking the form F ( ✓ ) = E [ f ( ✓ , Z ) ] , ( 1 ) where f denotes a loss function , ✓ is the model parameter , and the random data point Z = ( X , y ) contains a feature vector X and its label y . In the case of a finite population , for example , this problem is reduced to the empirical minimization problem . The touchstone method for minimizing ( 1 ) is stochastic gradient descent ( SGD ) . Starting from an initial point ✓0 , SGD updates the iterates according to ✓t+1 = ✓t ⌘t · g ( ✓t , Zt+1 ) ( 2 ) for t 0 , where ⌘t is the learning rate , { Zt } 1t=1 are i.i.d . copies of Z and g ( ✓ , Z ) is the ( sub- ) gradient of f ( ✓ , Z ) with respect to ✓ . The noisy gradient g ( ✓ , Z ) is an unbiased estimate for the true gradient rF ( ✓ ) in the sense that E [ g ( ✓ , Z ) ] = rF ( ✓ ) for any ✓ . The convergence rate of SGD crucially depends on the learning rate—often recognized as “ the single most important hyper-parameter ” in training deep neural networks ( Bengio , 2012 ) —and , accordingly , there is a vast literature on how to decrease this fundamental tuning parameter for improved convergence performance . In the pioneering work of Robbins and Monro ( 1951 ) , the learning rate ⌘t is set to O ( 1/t ) for convex objectives . Later , it was recognized that a slowly decreasing learning rate in conjunction with iterate averaging leads to a faster rate of convergence for strongly convex and smooth objectives ( Ruppert , 1988 ; Polyak and Juditsky , 1992 ) . More recently , extensive effort has been devoted to incorporating preconditioning/Hessians into learning rate selection rules ( Duchi et al. , 2011 ; Dauphin et al. , 2015 ; Tan et al. , 2016 ) . Among numerous proposals , a simple yet widely employed approach is to repeatedly halve the learning rate after performing a pre-determined number of iterations ( see , for example , Bottou et al. , 2018 ) . In this paper , we introduce a new variant of SGD that we term SplitSGD with a novel learning rate selection rule . At a high level , our new method is motivated by the following fact : an optimal learning rate should be adaptive to the informativeness of the noisy gradient g ( ✓t , Zt+1 ) . Roughly speaking , the informativeness is higher if the true gradient rF ( ✓t ) is relatively large compared with the noise rF ( ✓t ) g ( ✓t , Zt+1 ) and vice versa . On the one hand , if the learning rate is too small with respect to the informativeness of the noisy gradient , SGD makes rather slow progress . On the other hand , the iterates would bounce around a region of an optimum of the objective if the learning rate is too large with respect to the informativeness . The latter case corresponds to a stationary phase in stochastic optimization ( Murata , 1998 ; Chee and Toulis , 2018 ) , which necessitates the reduction of the learning rate for better convergence . Specifically , let ⇡⌘ be the stationary distribution for ✓ when the learning rate is constant and set to ⌘ . From ( 2 ) one has that E✓⇠⇡⌘ [ g ( ✓ , Z ) ] = 0 , and consequently that E [ hg ( ✓ ( 1 ) , Z ( 1 ) ) , g ( ✓ ( 2 ) , Z ( 2 ) ) i ] = 0 for ✓ ( 1 ) , ✓ ( 2 ) i.i.d.⇠ ⇡⌘ , Z ( 1 ) , Z ( 2 ) i.i.d.⇠ Z ( 3 ) SplitSGD differs from other stochastic optimization procedures in its robust stationarity phase detection , which we refer to as the Splitting Diagnostic . In short , this diagnostic runs two SGD threads initialized at the same iterate using independent data points ( refers to Zt+1 in ( 2 ) ) , and then performs hypothesis testing to determine whether the learning rate leads to a stationary phase or not . The effectiveness of the Splitting Diagnostic is illustrated in Figure 1 , which reveals different patterns of dependence between the two SGD threads with difference learning rates . Loosely speaking , in the stationary phase ( in purple ) , the two SGD threads behave as if they are independent due to a large learning rate , and SplitSGD subsequently decreases the learning rate by some factor . In contrast , strong positive dependence is exhibited in the non stationary phase ( in orange ) and , thus , the learning rate remains the same after the diagnostic . In essence , the robustness of the Splitting Diagnostic is attributed to its adaptivity to the local geometry of the objec- confirmed by our experimental results in both convex and non-convex settings . In the latter , SplitSGD showed robustness with respect to the choice of the initial learning rate , and remarkable success in improving the test accuracy and avoiding overfitting compared to classic optimization procedures . 1.1 RELATED WORK . There is a long history of detecting stationarity or non-stationarity in stochastic optimization to improve convergence rates ( Yin , 1989 ; Pflug , 1990 ; Delyon and Juditsky , 1993 ; Murata , 1998 ; Pesme et al. , 2020 ) . Perhaps the most relevant work in this vein to the present paper is Chee and Toulis ( 2018 ) , which builds on top of Pflug ( 1990 ) for general convex functions . Specifically , this work uses the running sum of the inner products of successive stochastic gradients for stationarity detection . However , this approach does not take into account the strong correlation between consecutive gradients and , moreover , is not sensitive to the local curvature of the current iterates due to unwanted influence from prior gradients . In contrast , the splitting strategy , which is akin to HiGrad ( Su and Zhu , 2018 ) , allows our SplitSGD to concentrate on the current gradients and leverage the regained independence of gradients to test stationarity . Lately , Yaida ( 2019 ) and Lang et al . ( 2019 ) derive a stationarity detection rule that is based on gradients of a mini-batch to tune the learning rate in SGD with momentum . From a different angle , another related line of work is concerned with the relationship between the informativeness of gradients and the mini-batch size ( Keskar et al. , 2016 ; Yin et al. , 2017 ; Li et al. , 2017 ; Smith et al. , 2017 ) . Among others , it has been recognized that the optimal mini-batch size should be adaptive to the local geometry of the objective function and the noise level of the gradients , delivering a growing line of work that leverage the mini-batch gradient variance for learning rate selection ( Byrd et al. , 2012 ; Balles et al. , 2016 ; Balles and Hennig , 2017 ; De et al. , 2017 ; Zhang and Mitliagkas , 2017 ; McCandlish et al. , 2018 ) . 2 THE SPLITSGD ALGORITHM . In this section , we first develop the Splitting Diagnostic for stationarity detection , followed by the introduction of the SplitSGD algorithm in detail . 2.1 DIAGNOSTIC VIA SPLITTING . Intuitively , the stationarity phase occurs when two independent threads with the same starting point are no longer moving along the same direction . This intuition is the motivation for our Splitting Diagnostic , which is presented in Algorithm 1 and described in what follows . We call ✓0 the initial value , even though later it will often have a different subscript based on the number of iterations already computed before starting the diagnostic . From the starting point , we run two SGD threads , each consisting of w windows of length l. For each thread k = 1 , 2 , we define g ( k ) t = g ( ✓ ( k ) t , Z ( k ) t+1 ) and the iterates are ✓ ( k ) t+1 = ✓ ( k ) t ⌘ · g ( k ) t , ( 4 ) where t 2 { 0 , ... , wl 1 } . On every thread we compute the average noisy gradient in each window , indexed by i = 1 , ... , w , which is ḡ ( k ) i : = 1 l lX j=1 g ( k ) ( i 1 ) ·l+j = ✓ ( k ) ( i 1 ) ·l+1 ✓ ( k ) i·l+1 l · ⌘ . ( 5 ) The length l of each window has the same function as the mini-batch parameter in mini-batch SGD ( Li et al. , 2014 ) , in the sense that a larger value of l aims to capture more of the true signal by averaging out the errors . At the end of the diagnostic , we have stored two vectors , each containing the average noisy gradients in the windows in each thread . Definition 2.1 . For i = 1 , ... , w , we define the gradient coherence with respect to the starting point of the Splitting Diagnostic ✓0 , the learning rate ⌘ , and the length of each window l , as Qi ( ✓0 , ⌘ , l ) = hḡ ( 1 ) i , ḡ ( 2 ) i i . ( 6 ) We will drop the dependence from the parameters and refer to it simply as Qi . The gradient coherence expresses the relative position of the average noisy gradients , and its sign indicates whether the SGD updates have reached stationarity . In fact , if in the two threads the noisy gradients are pointing on average in the same direction , it means that the signal is stronger than the noise , and the dynamic is still in its transient phase . On the contrary , as ( 3 ) suggests , when the gradient coherence is on average very close to zero , and it also assumes negative values thanks to its stochasticity , this indicates that the noise component in the gradient is now dominant , and stationarity has been reached . Of course these values , no matter how large l is , are subject to some randomness . Our diagnostic then considers the signs of Q1 , ... , Qw and returns a result based on the proportion of negative Qi . One output is a boolean value TD , defined as follows : TD = ( S if Pw i=1 ( 1 sign ( Qi ) ) /2 q · w N if Pw i=1 ( 1 sign ( Qi ) ) /2 < q · w. ( 7 ) where TD = S indicates that stationarity has been detected , and TD = N means non-stationarity . The parameter q 2 [ 0 , 1 ] controls the tightness of this guarantee , being the smallest proportion of negative Qi required to declare stationarity . In addition to TD , we also return the average last iterate of the two threads as a starting point for following iterations . We call it ✓D : = ( ✓ ( 1 ) w·l + ✓ ( 2 ) w·l ) /2 .

Summary: The paper focuses on estimating when stochastic gradient dynamics have reached a stationary phase by considering the inner product of pairwise stochastic trajectories referred to as threads. The chosen approach avoids strongly correlated estimates which leads to better mixing and more reliable identification of a stationary phase than previous work for certain problems. The proposed algorithm is specifically adapted for Deep Learning problems and performs well on the presented synthetic and real world problems.