In general, the overall performance of a neural network depends on several factors. The one usually taking the spotlight is the network architecture, however, this is only one among many important components. An often overlooked contributor to a performant algorithm is the optimizer, which is used to fit the model.
Just to illustrate the complexity of optimizing, a ResNet18 architecture has 11689512 parameters. Finding an optimal parameter configuration is locating a point in the 11689512 dimensional space. If we were to brute force this, we might decide to divide this space up to a grid, say we select 10 points along each dimension. Then we have to check 10¹¹⁶⁸⁹⁵¹² possible configurations, calculate the loss function for each of them and find the one with minimal loss. To put this number in perspective, there observable universe has about 10⁸³ atoms and it is estimated to be 4.32 x 10¹⁷ seconds (~13.7 billion years) old. If we check as many parameter configuration in each second as the number of atoms starting from the Big Bang, we would have been able to check 4.32 x 10¹⁴¹¹ points until now.
To say that this is not even close is an understatement. The size of the grid is still approximately 10⁸²⁸⁴ times larger than we could check if we would have every atom in the universe check a configuration since the Big Bang.
So, optimizers are pretty important. They are managing this incomprehensible complexity, allowing you to train the neural networks in days instead of billions of years. In the following, we are going to take a deep dive into the mathematics of optimizers and see how are they able to handle this seemingly impossible task.
Let’s start simple and suppose that we have a function of one variable which we would like to maximize. (In machine learning context, we generally aim to minimize the loss function, but minimizing is the same as maximizing the negative of the function.) Define
which looks like the following if we plot its graph.
An obvious method to optimize would be to divide up the line into a grid, check the value of every point and select the one where the function is maximized. As we have seen in the introduction, this is not scalable, so we are going to look for another solution. Let’s imagine that this is a mountain landscape and we are climbers, trying to reach the peak. Suppose that we are at the location marked with a red dot.
If we want to find the peak, which direction should we go? Of course, we should go where the slope is increasing. This concept is formalized by the derivative of a function. Mathematically, the derivative is defined by
Although this quantity seems mysterious for the first glance, it has a very simple geometric meaning. Let’s look at the function more closely around the point where we take the derivative.
For any x and y , the line passing through f(x) and f(y) is defined by the equation
In general, if we have any line defined by at + b for some a and b , the quantity a is called the slope of the line. This can be negative and positive as well, lines with positive slope go upward, while negative ones go downward. Higher values in absolute value mean steeper lines. If we let y closer and closer to x as it is in the definition of derivative, we see that the line becomes the tangent of the function graph at x .
The tangent is given by the function
and its direction can be described with the vector (1, f’(x)) .
If we imagine ourselves again into the position of a mountain climber starting from x0 = -2.0 , we should go in the direction where the tangent is rising. If the slope of the tangent is large, we would also like to take a large step, while if the slope is close to zero, we should take a smaller step to make sure we don’t go over the peak. To formalize this mathematically, we should go to the next point defined by
where λ is a parameter, setting how large is the step should be in the right direction. This is called the learning rate . In general, subsequent steps are be defined by
Positive derivative means that the tangent is increasing thus we want to go forward, while negative derivative is a decreasing tangent, so we want to turn back. We can visualize this process.
As we can see, this simple algorithm successfully found a peak. However, this is not the global maximum of the function, which can be seen by looking at the image. To get a little ahead of ourselves, this is a potential issue for a wide family of optimizing algorithms, but there are solutions for it.
In this simple case, we have only maximized a function of a single variable. This is useful to illustrate the concept, however, in real-life scenarios, millions of variables can be present. For neural networks, this is definitely the case. In the next part, we are going to see how this simple algorithm can be generalized for optimizing multidimensional functions!
For a function of a single variable, we could think about the derivative as the slope of the tangent line. However, for multiple variables, this is not the case. Let’s try to build intuition first by looking at a concrete example! Define the function
which will be our toy example in this section.
For functions of two variables, the graph is a surface. We immediately see that the concept of tangent line is not well defined, since we have many lines which are tangent to a given point in the surface. In fact, we have a whole plane of them. This is called the tangent plane .
However, this tangent plane contains two very special directions. Suppose that we are looking at the tangent plane at (0, 0) . For every multivariable function, fixing all but one variables is basically a function of single variable. In our case, we would have
These functions can be visualized by slicing the surface with a vertical plane perpendicular to one of the axes. Where the plane and the surface meet is the graph of f(x, 0) or f(0, y) , depending on which plane you use.
For these functions we can define the derivatives as we have did in the previous section. These are called partial derivatives and they play an essential role in generalizing our peak finding algorithm from before. To formalize it mathematically, they are defined by
Each partial derivative represents a direction in our tangent plane.
The value of partial derivatives are the slopes of the special tangent lines. The direction of steepest ascent is given by the gradient , which is defined by
Note that the gradient is a direction in the parameter space. The gradients can be visualized in the two dimensional plane easily, which looks like the following in our case.
To summarize, the peak finding algorithm is now
which is called gradient ascent . If we want to find the minimum of a function, we would take a step in the direction of the negative gradient, which is the direction of steepest descent:
This version is called gradient descent and you have probably seen this one more frequently, since in machine learning, we actually want to minimize the loss.
In this setting, it is not trivial why the gradient gives us the direction of the steepest ascent. To give a precise explanation, we need to do some mathematics. Besides slicing the surface with vertical planes perpendicular to the x or y axis, we can slice it with a vertical plane given by any direction (a, b) . With the partial derivatives, we had
We can think about these as derivatives of f(x, y) along the directions (1, 0) and (0, 1) . Although these directions are of special significance, we can do this for any direction. Say we have the direction
then the directional derivative with respect to this direction is defined by
Note that the last identity is nothing else than the dot product (also called scalar or inner product) of the direction vector and the gradient, the same dot product which you have probably encountered in your high school geometry classes. So,
The question is the following: which direction maximizes the directional derivative? This would be the direction of the steepest ascent, so if we want to optimize, we want to know this particular direction. To see that this is noting else than the gradient itself as we have mentioned, recall that the dot product can be written as
where |.| denotes the length of a vector and α is the angle between the two vectors. (This is true in arbitrary number of dimensions, not just in two dimensions.) It is easy to see that this expression is maximized when cos α = 1 , that is, α is zero. This means that the two vectors are parallel, thus the direction of e must be the same as the gradient.
Now we are ready to move from theory to practice and see how can we train neural networks. Suppose that our task is to classify images n dimensional feature vectors into c classes. To mathematically formalize our situation, our neural network is represented by the function f , mapping the n -dimensional feature space to the c -dimensional space:
The neural network itself is a parametrized function. For notational convenience, we can denote its parameters with a single m -dimensional vector
To explicitly express dependence on parameters, it is customary to write
Training a neural network is equivalent of finding the minimum of the loss function
mapping the space of neural network parameters to real numbers. The loss function takes the form
is the i -th data point with observation
and L is the termwise loss function. For instance, if J is the cross-entropy loss, then
This might seem innocent enough, but it can be really difficult to compute. In real life, the number of data points N can be in the millions, not to say the number of parameters m . So, we have a sum with millions of terms, for which we need to calculate millions of derivatives to minimize. How can we solve this problem in practice?
To use gradient descent, we have to calculate
which is computationally very intensive if N is large, and N is hopefully very large (because we want lots of data). Can we simplify this? One way to do this is to omit some members of the sum. Although this may sound like an ad-hoc solution, it has solid theoretical foundations. To see this, notice that J can be actually written as an expected value :
is the (empirical) probability distribution given by our training data. We can treat the sequence
as independent, identically distributed random variables. According to the Law of Large Numbers,
is the true underlying distribution. (Which is unknown.) To elaborate more, this means that as we increase our training data, our loss function converges to the true loss. As a consequence, if we subsample our data and only calculate the gradient
for some i instead of all, we still obtain a reasonable estimate if we compute enough. This is called stochastic gradient descent or SGD in short.
In my opinion, there were three fundamental developments which have enabled researchers and data scientists to effectively train deep neural networks: utilizing GPU-s as a general purpose computing tool, backpropagation, and finally stochastic gradient descent. Safe to say that without SGD, wide adoption of deep learning would not have been possible.
As with almost every new approach, SGD also introduces a whole new can of worms. The obvious question is, how large should our subsample size be? Too small size might result in a noisy gradient estimation, while too large has diminishing returns. Selecting the subsample also needs to happen with care. For example if all the subsamples belong to one class, the estimate will probably be off by a mile. However, these issues can be solved in practice by experimentation and proper randomization of the data.
Gradient descent (with the SGD variant as well) suffers from several issues which can make them ineffective under some circumstances. For instance, as we have seen, learning rate controls the step size we will take in the direction of the gradient. Generally, we can make two mistakes regarding this parameter. First, we can make the step too large so the loss fails to converge and might even diverge. Second, if the step is too small, we might never arrive to a local minimum, because we go too slow. To demonstrate this issue, let’s take a look at a simple example and study the f(x) = x + sin x function.
Suppose that we start the gradient descent from x0 = 2.5 , with learning rates α = 1, α = 0.1 and α = 0.01.
It might not be obvious what is happening here, so let’s plot the x -s for each learning rate.
For α = 1, the sequence is practically oscillating between two points, failing to converge to the local minimum, while for α = 0.01, the convergence seems to be very slow. In our concrete case, α = 0.1 seems just right. How do you determine this in a general setting? There main idea here is that the learning rate does not necessarily have to be constant. Heuristically, if the magnitude of the gradient itself is large, we should reduce the learning rate to avoid jumping too far. On the other hand, if the magnitude is small, it probably means that we are getting close to a local optimum, so to avoid overshooting, the learning rate definitely shouldn’t be increased. Algorithms changing the learning rate dynamically are called adaptive .
One of the most popular examples of such an adaptive algorithm is AdaGrad. It cumulatively stores gradient magnitude and scales the learning rate with respect to that. AdaGrad defines an accumulation variable r0 = 0 and updates it with the rule
denotes the componentwise product of two vectors. This is then used to scale the learning rate:
where δ is a small number for numerical stability and the square root is taken componentwise. First, when the gradient is large, the accumulation variable grows rather fast thus decreasing the learning rate. When the parameter is near a local minimum, gradients get smaller so the learning rate decrease practically stops.
Of course, AdaGrad is one possible solution to this problem. More and more advanced optimization algorithms are available every year, solving a wide range of issues related to gradient descent. However, even with the most advanced methods, experimenting with the learning rate and tuning it is very beneficial.
Regarding issues with gradient descent, another is for instance to make sure that we find a global optimum or a local optimum close to it in value. As you can see in the previous example, gradient descent often gets stuck in a bad local optimum. To get a good picture about the solution for this and the other issues, I recommend reading through Chapter 8 of the Deep Learning textbook by Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio and Aaron Courville.
In our examples during the previous sections, we have only visualized very simple toy examples like f(x) = 25 sin x — x² . There is a reason for this: plotting a function is not straightforward for more than two variables. Since our inherent limitations, we are only able to see and think in at most three dimensions. However, to get a grip on the difficulty of how can the loss function of a neural network look like, we can employ several tricks. One excellent paper about this is Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Nets by Hao Li et al., who were able to visualize the loss function by essentially choosing two random directions and plotting the two-variable function
(To avoid distortions by scale invariance, they also introduced some normalizing factors for the random directions.) Their investigations revealed how skip connections in ResNet architectures shape the loss landscape, making it easier to optimize.
Regardless of the significant improvement made by skip connections, my point with this was to demonstrate that highly multidimensional optimization is hard. By looking at the first part of the figure, we see that there are many local minima, sharp peaks, plateaus, and so on. Good architecture design can make the job of optimizers easier, but with thoughtful optimization practices we can tackle more complicated loss landscapes. These go hand in hand.
In the previous sections, we have learned the intuition behind gradients and defined them in a mathematically precise way. We seen that for any differentiable function, no matter the number of variables, the gradient always points towards the steepest ascent, which is the foundation of the gradient descent algorithm. Although it is conceptually very simple, it has significant computational difficulties when applied to functions with millions of variables. This problem is alleviated by stochastic gradient descent, however there are many more issues: getting stuck in a local optimum, selecting the learning rate, etc. Because of these, optimization is hard and requires attention from both researchers and practitioners. In fact, there is a very active community out there making it constantly better, with amazing results! After understanding the mathematical foundations of optimization for deep learning, now you are on the right path to improve the state of the art! Some great papers to get you started: