More Like this

1. Accelerated Linear Convergence of Stochastic Momentum Methods in Wasserstein Distances

   Can, Bugra ; Gurbuzbalaban, Mert ; Zhu, Lingjiong ( July 2019 , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research)

   Momentum methods such as Polyak's heavy ball (HB) method, Nesterov's accelerated gradient (AG) as well as accelerated projected gradient (APG) method have been commonly used in machine learning practice, but their performance is quite sensitive to noise in the gradients. We study these methods under a first-order stochastic oracle model where noisy estimates of the gradients are available. For strongly convex problems, we show that the distribution of the iterates of AG converges with the accelerated linear rate to a ball of radius " centered at a unique invariant distribution in the 1-Wasserstein metric where  is the condition number as long as the noise variance is smaller than an explicit upper bound we can provide. Our analysis also certifies linear convergence rates as a function of the stepsize, momentum parameter and the noise variance; recovering the accelerated rates in the noiseless case and quantifying the level of noise that can be tolerated to achieve a given performance. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first linear convergence results for stochastic momentum methods under the stochastic oracle model. We also develop finer results for the special case of quadratic objectives, extend our results to the APG method andmore »weakly convex functions showing accelerated rates when the noise magnitude is sufficiently small.« less
2. Performance of noisy Nesterov's accelerated method for strongly convex optimization problems

   https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.2019.8814680  

   Mohammadi, Hesameddin ; Razaviyayn, Meisam ; Jovanovic, Mihailo R. ( July 2019 , 2019 American Control Conference (ACC))

   We study the performance of noisy gradient descent and Nesterov's accelerated methods for strongly convex objective functions with Lipschitz continuous gradients. The steady-state second-order moment of the error in the iterates is analyzed when the gradient is perturbed by an additive white noise with zero mean and identity covariance. For any given condition number κ, we derive explicit upper bounds on noise amplification that only depend on κ and the problem size. We use quadratic objective functions to derive lower bounds and to demonstrate that the upper bounds are tight up to a constant factor. The established upper bound for Nesterov's accelerated method is larger than the upper bound for gradient descent by a factor of √κ. This gap identifies a fundamental tradeoff that comes with acceleration in the presence of stochastic uncertainties in the gradient evaluation.
3. Convergence Rate Analysis of a Stochastic Trust Region Method via Submartingales

   Blanchet, J. ( June 2019 , INFORMS journal on optimization)

   We propose a novel framework for analyzing convergence rates of stochastic optimization algorithms with adaptive step sizes. This framework is based on analyzing properties of an underlying generic stochastic process; in particular, we derive a bound on the expected stopping time of this process. We utilize this framework to analyze the expected global convergence rates of a stochastic variant of a traditional trust-region method. Although traditional trust-region methods rely on exact computations of the gradient, Hessian, and values of the objective function, this method assumes that these values are available only up to some dynamically adjusted accuracy. Moreover, this accuracy is assumed to hold only with some sufficiently large—but fixed—probability without any additional restrictions on the variance of the errors. This setting applies, for example, to standard stochastic optimization and machine learning formulations. Improving upon prior analysis, we show that the stochastic process defined by the trust-region method satisfies the assumptions of our proposed general framework. The stopping time in this setting is defined by an iterate satisfying a first-order accuracy condition. We demonstrate the first global complexity bound for a stochastic trust-region method under the assumption of sufficiently accurate stochastic gradients. Finally, we apply the same framework to derivemore »second-order complexity bounds under additional assumptions. Previous« less
4. Convergence Rate Analysis of a Stochastic Trust Region Method via Submartin- gales

   Blanchet, J. ( June 2019 , INFORMS journal on optimization)

   We propose a novel framework for analyzing convergence rates of stochastic optimization algorithms with adaptive step sizes. This framework is based on analyzing properties of an underlying generic stochastic process; in particular, we derive a bound on the expected stopping time of this process. We utilize this framework to analyze the expected global convergence rates of a stochastic variant of a traditional trust-region method. Although traditional trust-region methods rely on exact computations of the gradient, Hessian, and values of the objective function, this method assumes that these values are available only up to some dynamically adjusted accuracy. Moreover, this accuracy is assumed to hold only with some sufficiently large—but fixed—probability without any additional restrictions on the variance of the errors. This setting applies, for example, to standard stochastic optimization and machine learning formulations. Improving upon prior analysis, we show that the stochastic process defined by the trust-region method satisfies the assumptions of our proposed general framework. The stopping time in this setting is defined by an iterate satisfying a first-order accuracy condition. We demonstrate the first global complexity bound for a stochastic trust-region method under the assumption of sufficiently accurate stochastic gradients. Finally, we apply the same framework to derivemore »second-order complexity bounds under additional assumptions.« less
5. Issues in the Reproducibility of Deep Learning Results

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB47826.2019.9037840  

   Jean-Paul, S. ; Elseify, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2019 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)

   The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should producemore »identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues.« less