• 沒有找到結果。

# Project: Robustness of Newton Methods and Running Time Analysis

N/A
N/A
Protected

Share "Project: Robustness of Newton Methods and Running Time Analysis"

Copied!
24
0
0

(1)

### and Running Time Analysis

Last updated: June 10, 2021

(2)

1 Robustness of Newton methods Part 1: On CNN_4layers Part 2: On VGG11

2 Running time of two implementations of Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector products

(3)

### Outline

1 Robustness of Newton methods Part 1: On CNN_4layers Part 2: On VGG11

2 Running time of two implementations of Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector products

(4)

### Goal I

From past projects we have known that stochastic gradient is sensitive to the learning rate

We would like to check the situation of Newton methods

We want to know whether or not Newton is more robust than commonly used optimizers.

(5)

### Outline

1 Robustness of Newton methods Part 1: On CNN_4layers Part 2: On VGG11

2 Running time of two implementations of Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector products

(6)

### Settings I

In part 1, let’s run experiments on CNN_4layers However, to avoid lengthy training time, let’s consider a 5000-instance subset at this directory Let’s use MNIST-5000 and CIFAR10-5000 training data.

We still use the full test data

(7)

### Parameters Considered (Newton Method) I

The Newton implementation is available in simpleNN

Both Python and MATLAB implementations are available but you are suggested to use Python as Python can be run directly without modifying the config file or driver file.

(8)

### Parameters Considered (Newton Method) II

For the maximal number of CG iterations, to save time, let’s only consider

CGmax = 80

For calculating the whole gradient, in the Newton method we split all data to several batches. The batch size doesn’t affect the accuracy. Instead, it affects the efficiency. To strike a balance between time and memory space, we suggest you to consider

(9)

### Parameters Considered (Newton Method) III

bsize= 3000

We check the percentage of data for subsampled Hessian:

Percentage of data for subsampled Hessian:

5%, 20%

With/without

Levenberg-Marquardt method

(10)

### Parameters Considered (Stochastic Gradient Methods) I

We would like to run

We check the following initial learning rates 10−5, 10−4, 10−3, and 10−2

And we only consider the following batch size:

bsize = 512

(11)

### Parameters Considered for All Optimizers

For regularization parameters C , let’s consider C = 0.1

for all optimizers (including Newton, SG with momentum, and Adam).

Remember to set correct input dimension on each data set, e.g., set --dim 28 28 1 for MNIST-5000 data.

(12)

### Checking the Convergence I

Because we didn’t provide the validation set, we cannot run a standard training, validation, and prediction procedure to compare optimization method.

Let’s simply check the relation between epochs and test accuracy (or you can say validation accuracy if you treat test set as the validation set)

You may also check, for example, the best accuracy in the entire procedure or the final accuracy

Running time may not be important as you now run jobs on different machines with various loads.

(13)

### Checking the Convergence II

You now have

4 settings for Newton and

4 settings for SG with momentum and

You may design figures to show the comparison results. For example,

# epochs or training time vs. test accuracy

(14)

### Checking the Convergence III

Visualization is always a concern. For example, you may not want to draw eight curves in the same figure

(15)

### Outline

1 Robustness of Newton methods Part 1: On CNN_4layers Part 2: On VGG11

2 Running time of two implementations of Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector products

(16)

### Accuraccy Comparison on VGG11 I

We would like to study Newton method on deeper networks.

In this part, let’s run experiments on VGG11.

However, it takes long if run on CPU. Even

CIFAR10-5000 data, Newton may take over three days on some workstation machines (linux5 to linux14), while take one or two days on linux1 to linux4.

(17)

### Accuraccy Comparison on VGG11 II

The jobs will be reniced by workstations if we run too long. So if you want to use workstations, you may need to run jobs in multiple machines and start the project earlier.

Here you can see which workstation machine has lower CPU usage. Notice that linux15 may run very slowly due to the old CPU architecture. linux1 to linux4 are the fastest while linux5 to linux14 are fine. Here is hardware information for workstation machines.

(18)

### Accuraccy Comparison on VGG11 III

Because each job takes a long time and it may be interupted for various reasons, you can consider running the same task on multiple machines simultaneously.

We have committed the VGG network, please git pull the latest code.

You only need to run CIFAR10-5000 because MNIST image sizes is too small to be run on VGG11.

(19)

### Parameters Considered on VGG11 I

All settings are the same as part 1.

Notice that for regularization parameter C , we need to specify C = 0.1 for all optimizer. If you directly use the default regularization parameter, then Newton on VGG11 will encounter numerical error (so the process will not terminate).

(20)

### Outline

1 Robustness of Newton methods Part 1: On CNN_4layers Part 2: On VGG11

2 Running time of two implementations of Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector products

(21)

### Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector Products I

One is solely by back propagation. The complexity is the lowest, but the memory consumption is huge The other is

forward + backward We want to analyze the running time of

matrix-matrix products by using the MATLAB code.

An option -Jacobian decides which one is used.

For other parameters let’s use the default ones (e.g.,

(22)

### Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector Products II

For this part, we need to run at least one data set (MNIST or CIFAR10). Notice that we should use full data. Otherwise each iteration takes too little time and the results may not be accurate

We only consider CNN_4layers.

No need to run many iterations. We suggest you can run 5 iterations.

By profiling we may check if for the matrix-matrix products, the result is consistent with our

complexity analysis

(23)

### Gauss-Newton Matrix-vector Products III

How about the situation of the total time? Any operations with lower complexity but take more time? Why did that happen? From the experiences of project 4, you may see some slow MATLAB operations.

(24)

### Presentations and Reports I

We’ve announced students who are selected to present on NTU COOL.

Please do a 10-minute presentation (9-minute the contents and 1-minute Q&A)

 Calculating the expected total edge number for one left path started at one problem with m’ edges.  Evaluating the total edge number for all right sub-problems #

In Section 3, the shift and scale argument from [2] is applied to show how each quantitative Landis theorem follows from the corresponding order-of-vanishing estimate.. A number

To proceed, we construct a t-motive M S for this purpose, so that it has the GP property and its “periods”Ψ S (θ) from rigid analytic trivialization generate also the field K S ,

Hence, we have shown the S-duality at the Poisson level for a D3-brane in R-R and NS-NS backgrounds.... Hence, we have shown the S-duality at the Poisson level for a D3-brane in R-R

According to a team at Baycrest’s Rotman Research Institute in Canada, there is a clear link between bilingualism and a delayed onset of the symptoms of Alzheimer ’s and other

Given a sample space  and an event  in the  sample space  , let

Let and be constants, let be a function, and let be defined on the nonnegative integers by the recu rrence. where we interpret to mean either

– The futures price at time 0 is (p. 275), the expected value of S at time ∆t in a risk-neutral economy is..