How Does Critical Batch Size Scale in Pre-training?
Authors:
Hanlin Zhang,
Depen Morwani,
Nikhil Vyas,
Jingfeng Wu,
Difan Zou,
Udaya Ghai,
Dean Foster,
Sham Kakade
Abstract:
Training large-scale models under given resources requires careful design of parallelism strategies. In particular, the efficiency notion of critical batch size (CBS), concerning the compromise between time and compute, marks the threshold beyond which greater data parallelism leads to diminishing returns. To operationalize it, we propose a measure of CBS and pre-train a series of auto-regressive…
▽ More
Training large-scale models under given resources requires careful design of parallelism strategies. In particular, the efficiency notion of critical batch size (CBS), concerning the compromise between time and compute, marks the threshold beyond which greater data parallelism leads to diminishing returns. To operationalize it, we propose a measure of CBS and pre-train a series of auto-regressive language models, ranging from 85 million to 1.2 billion parameters, on the C4 dataset. Through extensive hyper-parameter sweeps and careful control of factors such as batch size, momentum, and learning rate along with its scheduling, we systematically investigate the impact of scale on CBS. Then we fit scaling laws with respect to model and data sizes to decouple their effects. Overall, our results demonstrate that CBS scales primarily with data size rather than model size, a finding we justify theoretically through the analysis of infinite-width limits of neural networks and infinite-dimensional least squares regression. Of independent interest, we highlight the importance of common hyper-parameter choices and strategies for studying large-scale pre-training beyond fixed training durations.
△ Less
Submitted 21 April, 2025; v1 submitted 28 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
A New Perspective on Shampoo's Preconditioner
Authors:
Depen Morwani,
Itai Shapira,
Nikhil Vyas,
Eran Malach,
Sham Kakade,
Lucas Janson
Abstract:
Shampoo, a second-order optimization algorithm which uses a Kronecker product preconditioner, has recently garnered increasing attention from the machine learning community. The preconditioner used by Shampoo can be viewed either as an approximation of the Gauss--Newton component of the Hessian or the covariance matrix of the gradients maintained by Adagrad. We provide an explicit and novel connec…
▽ More
Shampoo, a second-order optimization algorithm which uses a Kronecker product preconditioner, has recently garnered increasing attention from the machine learning community. The preconditioner used by Shampoo can be viewed either as an approximation of the Gauss--Newton component of the Hessian or the covariance matrix of the gradients maintained by Adagrad. We provide an explicit and novel connection between the $\textit{optimal}$ Kronecker product approximation of these matrices and the approximation made by Shampoo. Our connection highlights a subtle but common misconception about Shampoo's approximation. In particular, the $\textit{square}$ of the approximation used by the Shampoo optimizer is equivalent to a single step of the power iteration algorithm for computing the aforementioned optimal Kronecker product approximation. Across a variety of datasets and architectures we empirically demonstrate that this is close to the optimal Kronecker product approximation. Additionally, for the Hessian approximation viewpoint, we empirically study the impact of various practical tricks to make Shampoo more computationally efficient (such as using the batch gradient and the empirical Fisher) on the quality of Hessian approximation.
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
