On the Optimization and Generalization of Two-layer Transformers with Sign Gradient Descent

Authors: Bingrui Li, Wei Huang, Andi Han, Zhanpeng Zhou, Taiji Suzuki, Jun Zhu, Jianfei Chen
Primary area: learning theory
Keywords: Sign Gradient Descent; Transformer; Training Dynamics; Theory

Abstract:
The Adam optimizer is widely used for transformer optimization in practice, which makes understanding the underlying optimization mechanisms an important problem.
However, due to the Adam's complexity, theoretical analysis of how it optimizes transformers remains a challenging task. 
Fortunately, Sign Gradient Descent (SignGD) serves as an effective surrogate for Adam.
Despite its simplicity, theoretical understanding of how SignGD optimizes transformers still lags behind.
In this work, we study how SignGD optimizes a two-layer transformer -- consisting of a softmax attention layer with trainable query-key parameterization followed by a linear layer -- on 
a linearly separable noisy dataset.
We identify four stages in the training dynamics, each exhibiting intriguing behaviors.
Based on the training dynamics, we prove the fast convergence but poor generalization of the learned transformer on the noisy dataset.
We also show that Adam behaves similarly to SignGD in terms of both optimization and generalization in this setting.
Additionally, we find that the poor generalization of SignGD is not solely due to data noise,
suggesting that both SignGD and Adam requires high-quality data for real-world tasks.
Finally, experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets empirically support our theoretical results.

Decision: accept (spotlight)
Reviewer scores: 8, 6, 8

Reviews and discussion:
<thread>
creation date:
1730452718655

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_yn62

<content>
summary:
This manuscript provides a deep theoretical analysis of the training dynamics of a simplified two-layer transformer using signSGD on a synthetic dataset. It explicitly identifies four complex but distinct stages in the training dynamics. Furthermore, it empirically uncovers that Adam exhibits similar behavior under the same conditions as signSGD. The analysis demonstrates that while signSGD typically converges quickly, it generalizes poorly and requires high-quality data compared to SGD.

strengths:
To the best of my knowledge, this manuscript is the first to theoretically analyze the detailed training dynamics of the transformer and softmax attention layer with trainable query-key parameterization using signSGD. It breaks down the process into four stages, capturing the complex and subtle behaviors, which deepens our theoretical understanding of the optimization process for Transformers.

weaknesses:
- Some assumptions in the analysis are overly strong and unrealistic. For example, the manuscript assumes that the data dimension satisfies  $ d = \Omega(\text{poly}(n)) $, and that the variance of noise satisfies $\sigma_p = \Omega(d^{\frac{1}{4}} n^3)$, where $ n $ is the number of data samples, which is typically much larger in practice.

- Although the manuscript attempts to analyze the complex softmax attention with trainable query-key parameterization, it simplifies the attention block to a single-head variant rather than using the original multi-head version. Additionally, the formulation of $ v $ is somewhat unusual, defined as $v = \bar{w} _{v,1} - \bar{w} _{v,-1}$ which undermines the theoretical insights in relation to real-world scenarios. 

- While the empirical results validate the theoretical analyses for training a two-layer transformer using signSGD, it would be valuable to investigate whether the empirical training dynamics of a multi-layer transformer, or even the original transformer, align with the theoretical findings from the simplified two-layer model.  I would like to see whether the results  can extend to deeper transformers, or implement more experiments to test if the key behaviors you identified persist in more complex models.

**Minor Issues**  
- At Line 168, the variable $ i $ in the equation is not explicitly defined, though it can be inferred that $ i$ represents the index of data samples.

- In Figure 2, the manuscript suggests distinct differences between the training dynamics of signSGD and Adam, yet does not provide sufficient explanations. For instance, in (a) and (b), it is noted that the negative term $\langle w_{Q,s}, y_i \epsilon_{i} \rangle$ for signSGD ultimately becomes positive, while for Adam, it remains consistently negative. In (c), signSGD converges at a linear rate, whereas Adam converges at a sublinear rate. I think it needs to provide more detailed explanations for these differences, and to discuss their implications for understanding Adam's behavior in practice.

questions:
Please see the weaknesses.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730694235636

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_hql4

<content>
summary:
The paper investigates the optimization and generalization properties of Sign Gradient Descent (SignGD) for transformers, focusing on binary classification tasks involving noisy, linearly separable data. The authors claim that SignGD is an effective surrogate for the Adam optimizer. They identify four stages in the training dynamics of SignGD and observe that it achieves fast convergence in training loss but generalizes poorly, especially on noisy data.

strengths:
The paper provides a multi-stage framework to analyze the transformer training using SignGD, making this complex behaviour into small interpretable stages.

By establishing that SignGD is a proxy for Adam, the paper is capable of offering new perspectives on the reasons why Adam present some generalization problems.

The combination of theoretical proofs and experimental validation strengthens the proposed analysis and its overall message.

weaknesses:
The main weakness of the method is its limited applicability to real-world scenarios. The reliance on assumptions such as linearly separable data and the use of only two-layer transformers restricts its effectiveness when dealing with more complex datasets and modern, state-of-the-art transformer architectures.

questions:
Can the framework be extended to deeper transformers or multi-head attention mechanisms? I ask that because no method is currently using two layers transformer, so its extension to SOTA networks could provide broader applicability. 

From the current work what strategies could the authors envision can be used to improve generalization of SignGD and consequently Adam in data noisy settings? Identifying such strategies would be valuable for increasing robustness in real-world applications, where noise is often unavoidable.
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1730759256222

thread_type:
official_review

<thread_object>
creator: reviewer_w8ba

<content>
summary:
This paper studies the learning dynamics of two-layer transformers optimized with SignGD. It introduces a theoretical framework that categorizes the learning process into four distinct stages, providing an analytical tool to study these dynamics. The study demonstrates that while SignGD achieves fast convergence of the transformer model, it leads to poor generalization on noisy datasets.

strengths:
1. The paper offers a comprehensive four-stage analysis of transformer training dynamics, which is a promising contribution to understanding the behavior of transformers. 

2. The demonstration of fast convergence but poor generalization with SignGD on noisy data is important. These findings are beneficial for practical applications as they guide the selection of optimizers and the preparation of datasets in real-world tasks.

3. The theoretical approach is novel.

weaknesses:
1) The paper claims that both SignGD and Adam require high-quality data to perform well. However, an apparent contradiction arises in Figure 2(d), where the model with less noisy data (SNR=1.0) performs worse than that with noisier data (SNR=0.5). This discrepancy challenges the theoretical claims and needs to be addressed or explained to validate the model’s consistency across different noise levels.

2)  The description of the training dynamics in Section 3.1 lacks clarity, making it difficult to follow through the stages. It would be beneficial to explicitly map the training steps of the analysis to each stage in the diagrams (e.g., steps 1-2 corresponding to Stage 1). Additionally, providing data plots before and after switching steps of different stages, such as providing the mean noise values before and after the transition steps for 1st stage and 2nd stage in Fig 1(a), would greatly enhance understanding.

3) In many real-world applications of Adam in transformer, such as those used in vision and language tasks, often exhibit robustness to noise in practical applications, which is contrary to the findings presented. Understanding whether this discrepancy is due to lower real-world noise levels or other factors that contradict the assumptions made in the study is essential for aligning theoretical insights with empirical observations.

questions:
1. In Figure 2(d), the test loss for the less noisy case (SNR=1.0) is higher than for the noisier case (SNR=0.5) when using SignGD, which contradicts theoretical expectations about the benefits of higher-quality data. Could you provide an analysis of the noise characteristics or data distribution across different SNR levels that might explain this behavior? Additional experiments or analyses could also be valuable in investigating this phenomenon further. For instance, it’s possible that entirely clean data may reduce generalization performance compared to slightly noisy data, though too much noise also significantly hinders generalization.

2. Clarity and Detail in Training Dynamics Analysis (Section 3.1): Could you offer a clearer mapping between training steps and each stage of the training dynamics? More detailed explanations of the transitions between each of the four stages would be helpful. Additionally, including data plots that capture the state of relevant variables before and after critical transition points would improve clarity (rather than focusing solely on within-stage details, like in Figure 1(a)).

3. Real-world applications of Transformers, such as language modeling, demonstrate robustness to noise. How do the noise levels assumed in your theoretical model compare to those typically encountered in practical Transformer applications? Could you discuss any factors or experiments that might explain the gap between your theoretical findings and the observed robustness of Transformers to noise in real-world scenarios?
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>
<thread>
creation date:
1732201218558

thread_type:
official_comment

<thread_object>
creator: authors

<content>
title:
Global Response

comment:
Dear AC and reviewers,  

We thank all the reviewers for the thoughtful reviews. We are excited that all the reviewers acknowledged the novelty and contribution of our theoretical analysis. We have individually responded to each reviewer and updated a revision of our paper. All changes are highlighted in **red** in the revised manuscript. Here, we provide a summary of our revisions to the manuscript.  

- In **Appendix B.5** and **Appendix B.6**, we add **more experiments on more complex transformer models**, including transformers with multiple layers, multi-head attention, MLP components, and/or residual connections. The experiments verify that the key behaviors identified by our theory persist in multi-layer, MLP-augmented, multi-head attention transformers if residual connections are added. These experimental validations indicate that our theory possesses a certain degree of generality and could offer valuable insights into the optimization dynamics of real-world tasks.  
- In **Appendix B.7**, we add **more experiments on Adam** to explore the differences between SignGD and Adam. In our settings, Adam differs from SignGD mainly in two aspects: (1) the convergence rate of the training loss and (2) the dynamics of negative query noise at the final stage. We provide more detailed explanations for the reasons behind these differences, specifically the role of $\beta_2$.  
- In **Appendix F.4**, we discuss the **extension of our theory to multi-head attention**. Our theory can be easily extended to multi-head attention, with all characterized dynamics remaining unchanged. Empirical validation is provided in **Appendix B.5**.  
- In **Appendix G**, we add **more figures to clarify our four-stage behaviors**. We add **Figure 17**, a refined version of Figure 1, to provide a clearer mapping between training steps and each stage and to show more cross-stage dynamics. We also add **Figure 18**, which illustrates the dynamics across the full time horizon to complement Figure 17. Finally, we include **Figure 19**, an illustrative diagram detailing the timeline and behavior of all quantities across all stages. We hope these figures and explanations bring more clarity to our theory's characterization of the training dynamics.  
- We update **Figure 2** to make the experimental settings on MNIST more reasonable. In the updated figure, we clearly observe that the test loss for SignGD and Adam increases more rapidly compared to GD, and GD consistently demonstrates better generalization across various levels of data noise. All optimizers achieve good generalization at SNR=1.  

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which helped improve the quality and presentation of our work. We are happy to provide further clarifications or address additional concerns to strengthen the understanding of our contributions. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our submission.  

Best regards,  
Authors of submission 10289
</content>
</thread_object>

</thread>


Metareview:
metareview:
This work presents a theoretical analysis of the training dynamics of a simplified two-layer transformer using sign gradient descent on a synthetic dataset. They identify four stages in the training dynamics observe that it achieves fast convergence in training loss but generalizes poorly. The paper received a mix of reviews, but some reviewers raised their score after rebuttal. I recommended an acceptance.