More Like this

1. Understanding Clipping for Federated Learning: Convergence and Client-Level Differential Privacy

   Xinwei Zhang ; Xiangyi Chen ; Mingyi Hong ; Zhiwei Steven Wu ; Jinfeng Yi ( July 2022 , International Conference on Machine Learning)

   Providing privacy protection has been one of the primary motivations of Federated Learning (FL). Recently, there has been a line of work on incorporating the formal privacy notion of differential privacy with FL. To guarantee the client-level differential privacy in FL algorithms, the clients’ transmitted model updates have to be clipped before adding privacy noise. Such clipping operation is substantially different from its counterpart of gradient clipping in the centralized differentially private SGD and has not been well-understood. In this paper, we first empirically demonstrate that the clipped FedAvg can perform surprisingly well even with substantial data heterogeneity when training neural networks, which is partly because the clients’ updates become similar for several popular deep architectures. Based on this key observation, we provide the convergence analysis of a differential private (DP) FedAvg algorithm and highlight the relationship between clipping bias and the distribution of the clients’ updates. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that rigorously investigates theoretical and empirical issues regarding the clipping operation in FL algorithms.
2. Fractional Underdamped Langevin Dynamics: Retargeting SGD with Momentum under Heavy-Tailed Gradient Noise

   Umut Simsekli, Lingjiong Zhu ( January 2020 , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research)

   Stochastic gradient descent with momentum (SGDm) is one of the most popular optimization algorithms in deep learning. While there is a rich theory of SGDm for convex problems, the theory is considerably less developed in the context of deep learning where the problem is non-convex and the gradient noise might exhibit a heavy-tailed behavior, as empirically observed in recent studies. In this study, we consider a \emph{continuous-time} variant of SGDm, known as the underdamped Langevin dynamics (ULD), and investigate its asymptotic properties under heavy-tailed perturbations. Supported by recent studies from statistical physics, we argue both theoretically and empirically that the heavy-tails of such perturbations can result in a bias even when the step-size is small, in the sense that \emph{the optima of stationary distribution} of the dynamics might not match \emph{the optima of the cost function to be optimized}. As a remedy, we develop a novel framework, which we coin as \emph{fractional} ULD (FULD), and prove that FULD targets the so-called Gibbs distribution, whose optima exactly match the optima of the original cost. We observe that the Euler discretization of FULD has noteworthy algorithmic similarities with \emph{natural gradient} methods and \emph{gradient clipping}, bringing a new perspective on understanding their rolemore »in deep learning. We support our theory with experiments conducted on a synthetic model and neural networks.« less
3. 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
4. Taming the Noisy Gradient: Train Deep Neural Networks with Small Batch Sizes

   https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/604  

   Zhang, Yikai ; Qu, Hui ; Chen, Chao ; Metaxas, Dimitris ( August 2019 , The Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI))

   Deep learning architectures are usually proposed with millions of parameters, resulting in a memory issue when training deep neural networks with stochastic gradient descent type methods using large batch sizes. However, training with small batch sizes tends to produce low quality solution due to the large variance of stochastic gradients. In this paper, we tackle this problem by proposing a new framework for training deep neural network with small batches/noisy gradient. During optimization, our method iteratively applies a proximal type regularizer to make loss function strongly convex. Such regularizer stablizes the gradient, leading to better training performance. We prove that our algorithm achieves comparable convergence rate as vanilla SGD even with small batch size. Our framework is simple to implement and can be potentially combined with many existing optimization algorithms. Empirical results show that our method outperforms SGD and Adam when batch size is small. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/huiqu18/TRAlgorithm.
5. RMSPROP CONVERGES WITH PROPER HYPERPARAMETER

   Naichen Shi, Dawei Li ( April 2021 , international conference on learning representation)

   Despite the existence of divergence examples, RMSprop remains one of the most popular algorithms in machine learning. Towards closing the gap between theory and practice, we prove that RMSprop converges with proper choice of hyperparameters under certain conditions. More specifically, we prove that when the hyper-parameter  beta_2 is close enough to 1, RMSprop and its random shuffling version converge to a bounded region in general, and to critical points in the interpolation regime. It is worth mentioning that our results do not depend on “bounded gradient" assumption, which is often the key assumption utilized by existing theoretical work for Adam-type adaptive gradient method. Removing this assumption allows us to establish a phase transition from divergence to non-divergence for RMSprop. Finally, based on our theory, we conjecture that in practice there is a critical threshold \beta_2 , such that RMSprop generates reasonably good results only if 1 >  \beta_2\ge \beta^*_2 . We provide empirical evidence for such a phase transition in our numerical experiments.