Tag Archives: optimization

Sunsetting the KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE recommendation type

On July 21, 2021, all existing recommendations of the type KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE will be removed and no new recommendations of this type will be generated anymore.

What's changing?
The KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE recommendations will no longer be returned by search for all versions of the Google Ads API and Google Ads scripts.

All requests sent to apply or dismiss KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE recommendations will fail with RequestError.RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND errors for all versions of the Google Ads API.

What do you need to do?
Before July 21, 2021, ensure that the changes described above will not lead to any issues in your code or application.

Then, as soon as you can, remove any references of the field Recommendation.keyword_match_type_recommendation and the type KeywordMatchTypeRecommendation in your code. They will be deprecated and removed in future versions.

If you have any questions or need additional help, contact us through the forum or at [email protected].

Sunsetting the KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE recommendation type

On July 21, 2021, all existing recommendations of the type KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE will be removed and no new recommendations of this type will be generated anymore.

What's changing?
The KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE recommendations will no longer be returned by search for all versions of the Google Ads API and Google Ads scripts.

All requests sent to apply or dismiss KEYWORD_MATCH_TYPE recommendations will fail with RequestError.RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND errors for all versions of the Google Ads API.

What do you need to do?
Before July 21, 2021, ensure that the changes described above will not lead to any issues in your code or application.

Then, as soon as you can, remove any references of the field Recommendation.keyword_match_type_recommendation and the type KeywordMatchTypeRecommendation in your code. They will be deprecated and removed in future versions.

If you have any questions or need additional help, contact us through the forum or at [email protected].

Improving Sparse Training with RigL

Modern deep neural network architectures are often highly redundant [1, 2, 3], making it possible to remove a significant fraction of connections without harming performance. The sparse neural networks that result have been shown to be more parameter and compute efficient compared to dense networks, and, in many cases, can significantly decrease wall clock inference times.

By far the most popular method for training sparse neural networks is pruning, (dense-to-sparse training) which usually requires first training a dense model, and then “sparsifying” it by cutting out the connections with negligible weights. However, this process has two limitations.

  1. The size of the largest trainable sparse model is limited by that of the largest trainable dense model. Even if sparse models are more parameter efficient, one cannot use pruning to train models that are larger and more accurate than the largest possible dense models.
  2. Pruning is inefficient, meaning that large amounts of computation must be performed for parameters that are zero valued or that will be zero during inference. Additionally, it remains unknown if the performance of the current best pruning algorithms are an upper bound on the quality of sparse models.
Training sparse networks from scratch, on the other hand, is efficient, however often achieves inferior performance compared to pruning.

In “Rigging the Lottery: Making All Tickets Winners”, presented at ICML 2020, we introduce RigL, an algorithm for training sparse neural networks that uses a fixed parameter count and computational cost throughout training, without sacrificing accuracy relative to existing dense-to-sparse training methods. The algorithm identifies which neurons should be active during training, which helps the optimization process to utilize the most relevant connections and results in better sparse solutions. An example of this is shown below, where, during the training of a multilayer perceptron (MLP) network on MNIST, our sparse network trained with RigL learns to focus on the center of the images, discarding the uninformative pixels from the edges. A Tensorflow implementation of our method along with three other baselines (SET, SNFS, SNIP) can be found at github.com/google-research/rigl.

Left: Average MNIST image. Right: Evolution of the connectivity of the input throughout the training of a 98% sparse, 2-layer MLP on MNIST. Training starts from a random sparse mask, where each input pixel has roughly six outgoing connections. Connections that originate from the edges do not exhibit meaningful gradients and are therefore replaced by more informative connections that originate from the center pixels.

RigL Overview
The RigL method starts with a network initialized with a random sparse topology. At regularly spaced intervals we remove a fraction of the connections with the smallest weight magnitudes. Such a strategy has been shown to have very little effect on the loss. RigL then activates new connections using instantaneous gradient information, i.e., without using past gradient information. After updating the connectivity, training continues with the updated network until the next scheduled update. Next, the system activates connections with large gradients, since these connections are expected to decrease the loss most quickly.

RigL begins with a random sparse initialization of the network. It then trains the network and trims out those connections with weak activations. Based on the gradients calculated for the new configuration, it grows new connections and trains again, repeating the cycle.

Evaluating Performance
By changing the connectivity of the neurons dynamically during training, RigL helps optimize to find better solutions. To demonstrate this, we restart training from a bad solution that exhibits poor accuracy and show that RigL's mask updates help the optimization achieve better loss compared to static training, in which connectivity of the sparse network remains the same.

Training loss of RigL and Static methods starting from the same static sparse solution, shown together with their final test accuracies.

The figure below summarizes the performance of various methods on training an 80% sparse ResNet-50 architecture. We compare RigL with two recent sparse training methods, SET and SNFS and three baseline training methods: Static, Small-Dense and Pruning. Two of these methods (SNFS and Pruning) require dense resources as they need to either train a large network or store the gradients of it. Overall, we observe that the performance of all methods improves with additional training time; thus, for each method we run extended training with up to 5x the training steps of the original 100 epochs.

As noted in a number of studies [4, 5, 6, 7], training a network with fixed sparsity from scratch (Static) leads to inferior performance compared to solutions found by pruning. Training a small, dense network (Small-Dense) with the same number of parameters gets better results than Static, but fails to match the performance of dynamic sparse models. Similarly, SET improves the performance over Small-Dense, but saturates at around 75% accuracy, revealing the limits of growing new connections randomly. Methods that use gradient information to grow new connections (RigL and SNFS) obtain higher accuracy in general, but RigL achieves the highest accuracy, while also consistently requiring fewer FLOPs (and memory footprint) than the other methods.

Performance of sparse training methods on training an 80% sparse ResNet-50 architecture with uniform sparsity distribution. Points at each curve correspond to the individual training runs with increasing training length. The number of FLOPs required to train a standard dense ResNet-50 along with its performance is indicated with a dashed red line. RigL matches the standard ResNet-50 performance, even though it is 5x smaller in size.

Observing the trend between extended training and performance, we compare the results using longer training runs. Within the interval considered (i.e., 1x-100x) RigL's performance constantly improves with additional training. RigL achieves state of art performance of 68.07% Top-1 accuracy at training with a 99% sparse ResNet-50 architecture. Similarly extended training of a 90% sparse MobileNet-v1 architecture with RigL achieves 70.55% Top-1 accuracy. Obtaining the same results with fewer training iterations is an exciting future research direction.

Effect of training time on RigL accuracy at training 99% sparse ResNet-50 (left) and 90% sparse MobileNets-v1 (right) architectures.

Other experiments include image classification on CIFAR-10 datasets and character-based language modelling using RNNs with the WikiText-103 dataset and can be found in the full paper.

Future Work
RigL is useful in three different scenarios:

  1. Improving the accuracy of sparse models intended for deployment.
  2. Improving the accuracy of large sparse models that can only be trained for a limited number of iterations.
  3. Combining with sparse primitives to enable training of extremely large sparse models which otherwise would not be possible.
The third scenario is unexplored due to the lack of hardware and software support for sparsity. Nonetheless, work continues [8, 9, 10] to improve the performance of sparse networks on current hardware and new types of hardware accelerators are expected to have better support for parameter sparsity [11, 12]. We hope RigL provides the tools to take advantage of, and motivation for, such advances.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Eleni Triantafillou, Hugo Larochelle, Bart van Merrienboer, Fabian Pedregosa, Joan Puigcerver, Danny Tarlow, Nicolas Le Roux, Karen Simonyan for giving feedback on the preprint of the paper; Namhoon Lee for helping us verify and debug our SNIP implementation; Chris Jones for helping us discover and solve the distributed training bug; and Tom Small for creating the visualization of the algorithm.

Source: Google AI Blog

Speeding Up Neural Network Training with Data Echoing

Over the past decade, dramatic increases in neural network training speed have made it possible to apply deep learning techniques to many important problems. In the twilight of Moore's law, as improvements in general purpose processors plateau, the machine learning community has increasingly turned to specialized hardware to produce additional speedups. For example, GPUs and TPUs optimize for highly parallelizable matrix operations, which are core components of neural network training algorithms. These accelerators, at a high level, can speed up training in two ways. First, they can process more training examples in parallel, and second, they can process each training example faster. We know there are limits to the speedups from processing more training examples in parallel, but will building ever faster accelerators continue to speed up training?

Unfortunately, not all operations in the training pipeline run on accelerators, so one cannot simply rely on faster accelerators to continue driving training speedups. For example, earlier stages in the training pipeline like disk I/O and data preprocessing involve operations that do not benefit from GPUs and TPUs. As accelerator improvements outpace improvements in CPUs and disks, these earlier stages will increasingly become a bottleneck, wasting accelerator capacity and limiting training speed.
An example training pipeline representative of many large-scale computer vision programs. The stages that come before applying the mini-batch stochastic gradient descent (SGD) update generally do not benefit from specialized hardware accelerators.
Consider a scenario where the code upstream to the accelerator takes twice as long as the code that runs on the accelerator – a scenario that is already realistic for some workloads today. Even if the code is pipelined to execute the upstream and downstream stages in parallel, the upstream stage will dominate training time and the accelerator will be idle 50% of the time. In this case, building a faster accelerator will not improve training speed at all. It may be possible to speed up the input pipeline by dedicating engineering effort and additional compute resources, but such efforts are time consuming and distract from the main goal of improving predictive performance. For very small datasets,one can precompute the augmented dataset offline and load the entire preprocessed dataset in memory, but this doesn’t work for most ML training scenarios.

In “Faster Neural Network Training with Data Echoing”, we propose a simple technique that reuses (or “echoes”) intermediate outputs from earlier pipeline stages to reclaim idle accelerator capacity. Rather than waiting for more data to become available, we simply utilize data that is already available to keep the accelerators busy.
Left: Without data echoing, downstream computational capacity is idle 50% of the time. Right: Data echoing with echoing factor 2 reclaims downstream computational capacity.
Repeating Data to Train Faster
Imagine a situation where reading and preprocessing a batch of training data takes twice as long as performing a single optimization step on that batch. In this case, after the first optimization step on the preprocessed batch, we can reuse the batch and perform a second step before the next batch is ready. In the best case scenario, where repeated data is as useful as fresh data, we would see a twofold speedup in training. In reality, data echoing provides a slightly smaller speedup because repeated data is not as useful as fresh data – but it can still provide a significant speedup compared to leaving the accelerator idle.

There are typically several ways to implement data echoing in a given neural network training pipeline. The technique we propose involves duplicating data into a shuffle buffer somewhere in the training pipeline, but we are free to insert this buffer anywhere after whichever stage produces a bottleneck in the given pipeline. When we insert the buffer before batching, we call our technique example echoing, whereas, when we insert it after batching, we call our technique batch echoing. Example echoing shuffles data at the example level, while batch echoing shuffles the sequence of duplicate batches. We can also insert the buffer before data augmentation, such that each copy of repeated data is slightly different (and therefore closer to a fresh example). Of the different versions of data echoing that place the shuffle buffer between different stages, the version that provides the greatest speedup depends on the specific training pipeline.

Data Echoing Across Workloads
So how useful is reusing data? We tried data echoing on five neural network training pipelines spanning 3 different tasks – image classification, language modeling, and object detection – and measured the number of fresh examples needed to reach a particular performance target. We chose targets to match the best result reliably achieved by the baseline during hyperparameter tuning. We found that data echoing allowed us to reach the target performance with fewer fresh examples, demonstrating that reusing data is useful for reducing disk I/O across a variety of tasks. In some cases, repeated data is nearly as useful as fresh data: in the figure below, example echoing before augmentation reduces the number of fresh examples required almost by the repetition factor.
Data echoing, when each data item is repeated twice, either reduces or does not change the number of fresh examples needed to reach the target out-of-sample performance. Dashed lines indicate the values we would expect if repeated examples were as useful as fresh examples.
Reduction in Training Time
Data echoing can speed up training whenever computation upstream from accelerators dominates training time. We measured the training speedup achieved in a training pipeline bottlenecked by input latency due to streaming training data from cloud storage, which is realistic for many of today’s large-scale production workloads or anyone streaming training data over a network from a remote storage system. We trained a ResNet-50 model on the ImageNet dataset and found that data echoing provides a significant training speedup, in this case, more than 3 times faster when using data echoing.
Data echoing can reduce training time for ResNet-50 on ImageNet. In this experiment, reading a batch of training data from cloud storage took 6 times longer than the code that used each batch of data to perform a training step. The Echoing factor in the legend refers to the number of times each data item was repeated. Dashed lines indicate the expected values if repeated examples were as useful as fresh examples and there was no overhead from echoing.
Data Echoing Preserves Predictive Performance
Although one might be concerned that reusing data would harm the model’s final performance, we found that data echoing did not degrade the quality of the final model for any of the workloads we tested.
Comparing the individual trials that achieved the best out-of-sample performance during training for both with and without data echoing shows that reusing data does not harm final model quality. Here validation cross entropy is equivalent to log perplexity.
As improvements in specialized accelerators like GPUs and TPUs continue to outpace general purpose processors, we expect data echoing and similar strategies to become increasingly important parts of the neural network training toolkit.

The Data Echoing project was conducted by Dami Choi, Alexandre Passos, Christopher J. Shallue, and George E. Dahl while Dami Choi was a Google AI Resident. We would also like to thank Roy Frostig, Luke Metz, Yiding Jiang, and Ting Chen for helpful discussions.

Source: Google AI Blog

Bi-Tempered Logistic Loss for Training Neural Nets with Noisy Data

The quality of models produced by machine learning (ML) algorithms directly depends on the quality of the training data, but real world datasets typically contain some amount of noise that introduces challenges for ML models. Noise in the dataset can take several forms from corrupted examples (e.g., lens flare in an image of a cat) to mislabelled examples from when the data was collected (e.g., an image of cat mislabelled as a flerken).

The ability of an ML model to deal with noisy training data depends in great part on the loss function used in the training process. For classification tasks, the standard loss function used for training is the logistic loss. However, this particular loss function falls short when handling noisy training examples due to two unfortunate properties:
  1. Outliers far away can dominate the overall loss: The logistic loss function is sensitive to outliers. This is because the loss function value grows without bound as the mislabelled examples (outliers) are far away from the decision boundary. Thus, a single bad example that is located far away from the decision boundary can penalize the training process to the extent that the final trained model learns to compensate for it by stretching the decision boundary and potentially sacrificing the remaining good examples. This “large-margin” noise issue is illustrated in the left panel of the figure below.
  2. Mislabeled examples nearby can stretch the decision boundary: The output of the neural network is a vector of activation values, which reflects the margin between the example and the decision boundary for each class. The softmax transfer function is used to convert the activation values into probabilities that an example will belong to each class. As the tail of this transfer function for the logistic loss decays exponentially fast, the training process will tend to stretch the boundary closer to a mislabeled example in order to compensate for its small margin. Consequently, the generalization performance of the network will immediately deteriorate, even with a low level of label noise (right panel below).
We visualize the decision surface of a 2-layered neural network as it is trained for binary classification. Blue and orange dots represent the examples from the two classes. The network is trained with logistic loss under two types of noisy conditions: (left) large-margin noise and (right) small-margin-noise.
We tackle these two problems in a recent paper by introducing a “bi-tempered” generalization of the logistic loss endowed with two tunable parameters that handle those situations well, which we call “temperatures”—t1, which characterizes boundedness, and t2 for tail-heaviness (i.e. the rate of decline in the tail of the transfer function). These properties are illustrated below. Setting both t1 and t2 to 1.0 recovers the logistic loss function. Setting t1 lower than 1.0 increases the boundedness and setting t2 greater than 1.0 makes for a heavier-tailed transfer function. We also introduce this interactive visualization which allows you to visualize the neural network training process with the bi-tempered logistic loss.
Left: Boundedness of the loss function. When t1 is between 0 and 1, exclusive, only a finite amount of loss is incurred for each example, even if they are mislabeled. Shown is t1 = 0.8. Right: Tail-heaviness of the transfer function. The heavy-tailed transfer function applies when t2 = > 1.0 and assigns higher probability for the same amount of activation, thus preventing the boundary from drawing closer to the noisy example. Shown is t2 = 2.0.
To demonstrate the effect of each temperature, we train a two-layer feed-forward neural network for a binary classification problem on a synthetic dataset that contains a circle of points from the first class, and a concentric ring of points from the second class. You can try this yourself on your browser with our interactive visualization. We use the standard logistic loss function, which can be recovered by setting both temperatures equal to 1.0, as well as our bi-tempered logistic loss for training the network. We then demonstrate the effects of each loss function for a clean dataset, a dataset with small-margin noise, large-margin noise, and a dataset with random noise.
Logistic vs. bi-tempered logistic loss: (a) noise-free labels, (b) small-margin label noise, (c) large-margin label noise, and (d) random label noise. The temperature values (t1, t2) for the tempered loss are shown above each figure. We find that for each situation, the decision boundary recovered by training with the bi-tempered logistic loss function is better than before.
Noise Free Case:
We show the results of training the model on the noise-free dataset in column (a), using the logistic loss (top) and the bi-tempered logistic loss (bottom). The white line shows the decision boundary for each model. The values of (t1, t2), the temperatures in the bi-tempered loss function, are shown below each column of the figure. Notice that for this choice of temperatures, the loss is bounded and the transfer function is tail-heavy. As can be seen, both losses produce good decision boundaries that successfully separates the two classes.

Small-Margin Noise:
To illustrate the effect of tail-heaviness of the probabilities, we artificially corrupt a random subset of the examples that are near the decision boundary, that is, we flip the labels of these points to the opposite class. The results of training the networks on data with small-margin noise using the logistic loss as well as the bi-tempered loss is shown in column (b).

As can be seen, the logistic loss, due to the lightness of the softmax tail, stretches the boundary closer to the noisy points to compensate for their low probabilities. On the other hand, the bi-tempered loss using only the tail-heavy probability transfer function by adjusting t2 can successfully avoid the noisy examples. This can be explained by the heavier tail of the tempered exponential function, which assigns reasonably high probability values (and thus, keeps the loss value small) while maintaining the decision boundary away from the noisy examples.

Large-Margin Noise:
Next, we evaluate the performance of the two loss functions for handling large-margin noisy examples. In (c), we randomly corrupt a subset of the examples that are located far away from the decision boundary, the outer side of the ring as well as points near the center).

For this case, we only use the boundedness property of the bi-tempered loss, while keeping the softmax probabilities the same as the logistic loss. The unboundedness of the logistic loss causes the decision boundary to expand towards the noisy points to reduce their loss values. On the other hand, the bounded bi-tempered loss, bounded by adjusting t1, incurs a finite amount of loss for each noisy example. As a result, the bi-tempered loss can avoid these noisy examples and maintain a good decision boundary.

Random Noise:
Finally, we investigate the effect of random noise in the training data on the two loss functions. Note that random noise comprises both small-margin and large-margin noisy examples. Thus, we use both boundedness and tail-heaviness properties of the bi-tempered loss function by setting the temperatures to (t1, t2) = (0.2, 4.0).

As can be seen from the results in the last column, (d), the logistic loss is highly affected by the noisy examples and clearly fails to converge to a good decision boundary. On the other hand, the bi-tempered can recover a decision boundary that is almost identical to the noise-free case.

In this work we constructed a bounded, tempered loss function that can handle large-margin outliers and introduced heavy-tailedness in our new tempered softmax function, which can handle small-margin mislabeled examples. Using our bi-tempered logistic loss, we achieve excellent empirical performance on training neural networks on a number of large standard datasets (please see our paper for full details). Note that the state-of-the-art neural networks have been optimized along with a large variety of variables such as: architecture, transfer function, choice of optimizer, and label smoothing to name just a few. Our method introduces two additional tunable variables, namely (t1, t2). We believe that with a systematic “joint optimization” of all commonly tried variables, significant further improvements can be achieved in conjunction with our loss function. This is of course a more long-term goal. We also plan to explore the idea of annealing the temperature parameters over the training process.

This blogpost reflects work with our co-authors Manfred Warmuth, Visiting Researcher and Tomer Koren, Senior Research Scientist, Google Research. Preprint of our paper is available here, which contains theoretical analysis of the loss function and empirical results on standard datasets at scale.

Source: Google AI Blog

Measuring the Limits of Data Parallel Training for Neural Networks

Over the past decade, neural networks have achieved state-of-the-art results in a wide variety of prediction tasks, including image classification, machine translation, and speech recognition. These successes have been driven, at least in part, by hardware and software improvements that have significantly accelerated neural network training. Faster training has directly resulted in dramatic improvements to model quality, both by allowing more training data to be processed and by allowing researchers to try new ideas and configurations more rapidly. Today, hardware developments like Cloud TPU Pods are rapidly increasing the amount of computation available for neural network training, which raises the possibility of harnessing additional computation to make neural networks train even faster and facilitate even greater improvements to model quality. But how exactly should we harness this unprecedented amount of computation, and should we always expect more computation to facilitate faster training?

The most common way to utilize massive compute power is to distribute computations between different processors and perform those computations simultaneously. When training neural networks, the primary ways to achieve this are model parallelism, which involves distributing the neural network across different processors, and data parallelism, which involves distributing training examples across different processors and computing updates to the neural network in parallel. While model parallelism makes it possible to train neural networks that are larger than a single processor can support, it usually requires tailoring the model architecture to the available hardware. In contrast, data parallelism is model agnostic and applicable to any neural network architecture – it is the simplest and most widely used technique for parallelizing neural network training. For the most common neural network training algorithms (synchronous stochastic gradient descent and its variants), the scale of data parallelism corresponds to the batch size, the number of training examples used to compute each update to the neural network. But what are the limits of this type of parallelization, and when should we expect to see large speedups?

In "Measuring the Effects of Data Parallelism in Neural Network Training", we investigate the relationship between batch size and training time by running experiments on six different types of neural networks across seven different datasets using three different optimization algorithms ("optimizers"). In total, we trained over 100K individual models across ~450 workloads, and observed a seemingly universal relationship between batch size and training time across all workloads we tested. We also study how this relationship varies with the dataset, neural network architecture, and optimizer, and found extremely large variation between workloads. Additionally, we are excited to share our raw data for further analysis by the research community. The data includes over 71M model evaluations to make up the training curves of all 100K+ individual models we trained, and can be used to reproduce all 24 plots in our paper.

Universal Relationship Between Batch Size and Training Time
In an idealized data parallel system that spends negligible time synchronizing between processors, training time can be measured in the number of training steps (updates to the neural network's parameters). Under this assumption, we observed three distinct scaling regimes in the relationship between batch size and training time: a "perfect scaling" regime where doubling the batch size halves the number of training steps required to reach a target out-of-sample error, followed by a regime of "diminishing returns", and finally a "maximal data parallelism" regime where further increasing the batch size does not reduce training time, even assuming idealized hardware.

For all workloads we tested, we observed a universal relationship between batch size and training speed with three distinct regimes: perfect scaling (following the dashed line), diminishing returns (diverging from the dashed line), and maximal data parallelism (where the trend plateaus). The transition points between the regimes vary dramatically between different workloads.
Although the basic relationship between batch size and training time appears to be universal, we found that the transition points between the different scaling regimes vary dramatically across neural network architectures and datasets. This means that while simple data parallelism can provide large speedups for some workloads at the limits of today's hardware (e.g. Cloud TPU Pods), and perhaps beyond, some workloads require moving beyond simple data parallelism in order to benefit from the largest scale hardware that exists today, let alone hardware that has yet to be built. For example, in the plot above, ResNet-8 on CIFAR-10 cannot benefit from batch sizes larger than 1,024, whereas ResNet-50 on ImageNet continues to benefit from increasing the batch size up to at least 65,536.

Optimizing Workloads
If one could predict which workloads benefit most from data parallel training, then one could tailor their workloads to make maximal use of the available hardware. However, our results suggest that this will often not be straightforward, because the maximum useful batch size depends, at least somewhat, on every aspect of the workload: the neural network architecture, the dataset, and the optimizer. For example, some neural network architectures can benefit from much larger batch sizes than others, even when trained on the same dataset with the same optimizer. Although this effect sometimes depends on the width and depth of the network, it is inconsistent between different types of network and some networks do not even have obvious notions of "width" and "depth". And while we found that some datasets can benefit from much larger batch sizes than others, these differences are not always explained by the size of the dataset—sometimes smaller datasets benefit more from larger batch sizes than larger datasets.

Left: A transformer neural network scales to much larger batch sizes than an LSTM neural network on the LM1B dataset. Right: The Common Crawl dataset does not benefit from larger batch sizes than the LM1B dataset, even though it is 1,000 times the size.
Perhaps our most promising finding is that even small changes to the optimization algorithm, such as allowing momentum in stochastic gradient descent, can dramatically improve how well training scales with increasing batch size. This raises the possibility of designing new optimizers, or testing the scaling properties of optimizers that we did not consider, to find optimizers that can make maximal use of increased data parallelism.

Future Work
Utilizing additional data parallelism by increasing the batch size is a simple way to produce valuable speedups across a range of workloads, but, for all the workloads we tried, the benefits diminished within the limits of state-of-the-art hardware. However, our results suggest that some optimization algorithms may be able to consistently extend the perfect scaling regime across many models and data sets. Future work could perform the same measurements with other optimizers, beyond the few closely-related ones we tried, to see if any existing optimizer extends perfect scaling across many problems.

The authors of this study were Chris Shallue, Jaehoon Lee, Joe Antognini, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Roy Frostig and George Dahl (Chris and Jaehoon contributed equally). Many researchers have done work in this area that we have built on, so please see our paper for a full discussion of related work.

Source: Google AI Blog

Google AI Princeton: Current and Future Research

Google has long partnered with academia to advance research, collaborating with universities all over the world on joint research projects which result in novel developments in Computer Science, Engineering, and related fields. Today we announce the latest of these academic partnerships in the form of a new lab, across the street from Princeton University’s historic Nassau Hall, opening early next year. By fostering closer collaborations with faculty and students at Princeton, the lab aims to broaden research in multiple facets of machine learning, focusing its initial research efforts on optimization methods for large-scale machine learning, control theory and reinforcement learning. Below we give a brief overview of the research progress thus far.

Large-Scale Optimization
Imagine you have gone for a mountain hike and have run out of water. You need to get to a lake. How can you do so most efficiently? This is a matter of optimizing your route, and the mathematical analogue of this is the gradient descent method. You therefore move in the direction of steepest descent until you find the nearest lake at the bottom of your path. In the language of optimization, the location of the lake is referred to as a (local) minimum. The trajectory of gradient descent resembles the path, shown below, a thirsty yet avid hiker would take in order to get down to a lake as fast as she can.
Gradient descent (GD), and its randomized version, stochastic gradient descent (SGD), are the methods of choice for optimizing the weights of neural networks. Stacking all of the parameters together, we form a set of cells organized into vectors Let us take a simplistic view and assume that our neural net merely has 5 different parameters. Taking a gradient descent step amounts to subtracting the gradient vector (red) from the current set of parameters (blue) and putting the result back into the parameter vector.
Going back to our avid hiker, suppose she finds an unmarked path that is long and narrow, with limited visibility as she gazes down. If she follows the descent method her path would zig-zag down the hill, as shown in the illustration below on the left. However, she can now make faster progress by exploiting the skewed geometry of the terrain. That is, she can make a bigger leap forward than to the sides. In the context of gradient descent, pacing up is called acceleration. A popular class of acceleration methods is named adaptive regularization, or adaptive preconditioning, first introduced by the AdaGrad algorithm devised in collaboration with Prof. John Duchi from Stanford while he was at Google.
The idea is to change the geometry of the landscape of the optimization objective to make it easier for gradient descent to work. In order to do so, preconditioning methods stretch and rotate the space. The terrain after preconditioning looks like the serene, perfectly spherical lake above on the right, and the descent trajectory is a straight line! Procedurally, instead of subtracting the gradient vectors from the parameters vector per-se, adaptive preconditioning first multiplies the gradient by a 5×5 multicell structure, called a matrix preconditioner, as shown below.
This preconditioning operation yields a stretched and rotated gradient which is then subtracted as before, allowing much faster progress toward a basin. However, there is a downside to preconditioning, namely, its computational cost. Instead of subtracting a 5-dimensional gradient vector from a 5-dimensional parameter vector, the preconditioning transformation itself requires 5×5=25 operations. Suppose we would like to precondition gradients in order to learn a deep network with 10 million parameters. A single preconditioning step would require 100 trillion operations. In order to save computation, a diagonal version in which preconditioning amounts to stretching sans rotation was also introduced in the original AdaGrad paper. The diagonal version was later adopted and modified, yielding another very successful algorithm called Adam.

This simplified diagonal preconditioning imposes only a marginal additional cost to gradient descent. However, oversimplification has its own downside: we are no longer able to rotate our space. Going back to our hiker, if the deep-and-narrow canyon runs from southeast to northwest, she can no longer take large westward leaps. Had we provided her with a “rigged” compass in which the north pole is in the northwest, she could have followed her descent procedure as before. In high dimensions, the analog of compass rigging is full-matrix preconditioning. We thus asked ourselves whether we could devise a preconditioning method that is computationally efficient while allowing for the equivalent of coordinate rotations.

At Google AI Princeton, we developed a new method for full-matrix adaptive preconditioning at roughly the same computational cost as the commonly-used diagonal restriction. Details can be found in the paper, but the key idea behind the method is depicted below. Instead of using a full matrix, we replace the preconditioning matrix by a product of three matrices: a tall & thin matrix, a (small) square matrix, and a short & fat matrix. The vast amount of computation is performed using the smaller matrix. If we have d parameters, instead of a single large d × d matrix, the matrices maintained by GGT (shorthand for the operation Gradient GradientT), the proposed method, are of sizes d × k, k × k, k × d respectively.

For reasonable choices of k, which can be thought of as the “window size” of the algorithm, the computational bottleneck has been mitigated from a single large matrix, to that of a much smaller kkmatrix. In our implementation we typically choose k to be, say, 50, and maintaining the smaller square matrix is significantly less expensive while yielding good empirical performance. When compared to other adaptive methods on standard deep learning tasks, GGT is competitive with AdaGrad and Adam.

Spectral Filtering for Control and Reinforcement Learning
Another broad mission of Google’s research group in Princeton is to develop principled building blocks for decision-making systems. In particular, the group strives to leverage provable guarantees from the field of online learning, which studies the robust (worst-case) guarantees of decision-making algorithms under uncertainty. An online algorithm is said to attain a no-regret guarantee if it learns to make decisions as well as the best "offline" decision in hindsight. Ideas from this field have already enabled many innovations within theoretical computer science, and provide a mathematically elegant framework to study a widely-used technique called boosting. We envision using ideas from online learning to broaden the toolkit of modern reinforcement learning.

With that goal in mind, and in collaboration with researchers and students at Princeton, we developed the algorithmic technique of spectral filtering for estimation and control of linear dynamical systems (see several recent publications). In this setting, noisy observations (e.g., location sensor measurements) are being streamed from an unknown source. The source of the signal is a system whose state evolves over time following a set of linear equations (e.g. Newton's laws). To forecast future signals (prediction), or to perform actions which bring the system to a desired state (control), the usual approach starts with learning the model explicitly (a task termed system identification), which is often slow and inaccurate.

Spectral filtering circumvents the need to model the dynamics explicitly, by reformulating prediction and control as convex programs, enabling provable no-regret guarantees. A major component of the technique is that of a new signal processing transformation. The idea is to summarize the long history of past input signals through convolution with a tailored bank of filters, and then use this representation to predict the dynamical system’s future outputs. Each filter compresses the input signal into a single real number, by taking a weighted combination of the previous inputs.
A set of filters depicted in a plot of filter amplitude versus time. With our technique of spectral filtering, multiple filters are used to predict the state of a linear dynamical system at any given time. Each filter is a set of weights used to summarize past observations, such that combining them in a weighted fashion, over time allows us to accurately predict the system.
The mathematical derivation of these weights (filters) has an interesting connection to the spectral theory of Hankel matrices.

Looking Forward
We are excited about the progress we have made thus far in partnership with Princeton’s faculty and students, and we look forward to the official opening of the lab in the coming weeks. It has long been Google’s view that both industry and academia benefit significantly from an open research culture, and we look forward to our continued close collaboration.

The research and results discussed in this post would not have been possible without contributions from the following researchers: Naman Agarwal, Brian Bullins, Xinyi Chen, Udaya Ghai, Tomer Koren, Karan Singh, Cyril Zhang, Yi Zhang, and visiting professor Sham Kakade. Since joining Google earlier this year, the research team has been working remotely from both the Google NYC office as well as the Princeton University campus, and they look forward to moving into the new Google space across from the Princeton campus in the weeks to come.

Source: Google AI Blog

Machine Learning in Google BigQuery

Google BiqQuery allows interactive analysis of large datasets, making it easy for businesses to share meaningful insights and develop solutions based on customer analytics. However, many of the businesses that are using BigQuery aren’t using machine learning to help better understand the data they are generating. This is because data analysts, proficient in SQL, may not have the traditional data science background needed to apply machine learning techniques.

Today we’re announcing BigQuery ML, a capability inside BigQuery that allows data scientists and analysts to build and deploy machine learning models on massive structured or semi-structured datasets. BigQuery ML is a set of simple SQL language extensions which enables users to utilize popular ML capabilities, performing predictive analytics like forecasting sales and creating customer segmentations right at the source, where they already store their data. BigQuery ML additionally sets smart defaults automatically and takes care of data transformation, leading to a seamless and easy to use experience with great results.
When designing the BigQuery ML backend, the team was faced with a dilemma. Transferring large amounts of data from BigQuery servers to special-purpose servers running machine learning algorithms would be time-consuming and would incur an overhead in terms of security and privacy considerations. However, because the core components of gradient descent — an optimization method that is the workhorse of machine learning algorithms — can be implemented using common SQL operations*, we were able to repurpose the existing BigQuery SQL processing engine for BigQuery ML.

Since the BigQuery engine is designed to efficiently scan large datasets rather than randomly draw small samples from them, BigQuery ML is based on the standard (batch) variant of gradient descent rather than the stochastic version. And while stochastic gradient descent is far more common in today’s large-scale machine learning systems, the batch variant has numerous practical advantages.

For example, in-database machine learning systems based on stochastic gradient descent process examples one by one, and can perform poorly when the data is suboptimally ordered. But BigQuery data is often distributed on disk so as to optimize the performance of regular SQL queries, and continually redistributing the data to support stochastic machine learning algorithms would be computationally expensive. In contrast, batch gradient descent is insensitive to the ordering and partitioning of data on disk, thereby completely circumventing this problem. Also, batch methods can be combined with line search techniques from the classical optimization literature, leading to a learning algorithm that is more stable and requires less fine tuning. Using line search with stochastic methods is far trickier. Our implementation also includes support for regularization and preconditioning. For more details, please see our paper.

We hope that you’ll find BigQuery ML useful for many predictive analytics tasks. To try it, visit the BigQuery console and follow the user guide. Creating a model is as simple as:
CREATE MODEL dataset.model_name
OPTIONS(model_type=’linear_reg’, input_label_cols=[‘input_label’])
AS SELECT * FROM input_table;
In the future, we plan to further integrate our gradient descent implementation with BigQuery infrastructure to realize more performance gains. We’re also going to explore other machine learning algorithms that can be easily and efficiently implemented for large-scale problems by leveraging the power of BigQuery.

BigQuery ML is the result of a large collaboration across many teams at Google. Key contributors and sponsors include Hossein Ahmadi, Corinna Cortes, Grzegorz Czajkowski, Mingge Deng, Amir Hormati, Abhishek Kashyap, Jing Jing Long, Dan McClary, Chris Meyers, Girishkumar Sabhnani, Vivek Sharma, Jordan Tigani, Chad Verbowski, Jiaxun Wu and Lisa Yin.

* For example, a gradient vector can be computed using the SUM and GROUP BY operators, and the weights of a model can be updated using an INNER JOIN.

Source: Google AI Blog

Realtime tSNE Visualizations with TensorFlow.js

In recent years, the t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (tSNE) algorithm has become one of the most used and insightful techniques for exploratory data analysis of high-dimensional data. Used to interpret deep neural network outputs in tools such as the TensorFlow Embedding Projector and TensorBoard, a powerful feature of tSNE is that it reveals clusters of high-dimensional data points at different scales while requiring only minimal tuning of its parameters. Despite these advantages, the computational complexity of the tSNE algorithm limits its application to relatively small datasets. While several evolutions of tSNE have been developed to address this issue (mainly focusing on the scalability of the similarity computations between data points), they have so far not been enough to provide a truly interactive experience when visualizing the evolution of the tSNE embedding for large datasets.

In “Linear tSNE Optimization for the Web”, we present a novel approach to tSNE that heavily relies on modern graphics hardware. Given the linear complexity of the new approach, our method generates embeddings faster than comparable techniques and can even be executed on the client side in a web browser by leveraging GPU capabilities through WebGL. The combination of these two factors allows for real-time interactive visualization of large, high-dimensional datasets. Furthermore, we are releasing this work as an open source library in the TensorFlow.js family in the hopes that the broader research community finds it useful.
Real-time evolution of the tSNE embedding for the complete MNIST dataset with our technique. The dataset contains images of 60,000 handwritten digits. You can find a live demo here.
The aim of tSNE is to cluster small “neighborhoods” of similar data points while also reducing the overall dimensionality of the data so it is more easily visualized. In other words, the tSNE objective function measures how well these neighborhoods of similar data are preserved in the 2 or 3-dimensional space, and arranges them into clusters accordingly.

In previous work, the minimization of the tSNE objective was performed as a N-body simulation problem, in which points are randomly placed in the embedding space and two different types of forces are applied on each point. Attractive forces bring the points closer to the points that are most similar in the high-dimensional space, while repulsive forces push them away from all the neighbors in the embedding.

While the attractive forces are acting on a small subset of points (i.e., similar neighbors), repulsive forces are in effect from all pairs of points. Due to this, tSNE requires significant computation and many iterations of the objective function, which limits the possible dataset size to just a few hundred data points. To improve over a brute force solution, the Barnes-Hut algorithm was used to approximate the repulsive forces and the gradient of the objective function. This allows scaling of the computation to tens of thousand data points, but it requires more than 15 minutes to compute the MNIST embedding in a C++ implementation.

In our paper, we propose a solution to this scaling problem by approximating the gradient of the objective function using textures that are generated in WebGL. Our technique draws a “repulsive field” at every minimization iteration using a three channel texture, with the 3 components treated as colors and drawn in the RGB channels. The repulsive field is obtained for every point to represent both the horizontal and vertical repulsive force created by the point, and a third component used for normalization. Intuitively, the normalization term ensures that the magnitude of the shifts matches the similarity measure in the high-dimensional space. In addition, the resolution of the texture is adaptively changed to keep the number of pixels drawn constant.
Rendering of the three functions used to approximate the repulsive effect created by a single point. In the above figure the repulsive forces show a point in a blue area is pushed to the left/bottom, while a point in the red area is pushed to the right/top while a point in the white region will not move.
The contribution of every point is then added on the GPU, resulting in a texture similar to those presented in the GIF below, that approximate the repulsive fields. This innovative repulsive field approach turns out to be much more GPU friendly than more commonly used calculation of point-to-point interactions. This is because repulsion for multiple points can be computed at once and in a very fast way in the GPU. In addition, we implemented the computation of the attraction between points in the GPU.
This animation shows the evolution of the tSNE embedding (upper left) and of the scalar fields used to approximate its gradient with normalization term (upper right), horizontal shift (bottom left) and vertical shift (bottom right).
We additionally revised the update of the embedding from an ad-hoc implementation to a series of standard tensor operations that are computed in TensorFlow.js, a JavaScript library to perform tensor computations in the web browser. Our approach, which is released as an open source library in the TensorFlow.js family, allows us to compute the evolution of the tSNE embedding entirely on the GPU while having better computational complexity.

With this implementation, what used to take 15 minutes to calculate (on the MNIST dataset) can now be visualized in real-time and in the web browser. Furthermore this allows real-time visualizations of much larger datasets, a feature that is particularly useful when deep neural output is analyzed. One main limitation of our work is that this technique currently only works for 2D embeddings. However, 2D visualizations are often preferred over 3D ones as they require more interaction to effectively understand cluster results.

Future Work
We believe that having a fast and interactive tSNE implementation that runs in the browser will empower developers of data analytics systems. We are particularly interested in exploring how our implementation can be used for the interpretation of deep neural networks. Additionally, our implementation shows how lateral thinking in using GPU computations (approximating the gradient using RGB texture) can be used to significantly speed up algorithmic computations. In the future we will be exploring how this kind of gradient approximation can be applied not only to speed-up other dimensionality reduction algorithms, but also to implement other N-body simulations in the web browser using TensorFlow.js.

We would like to thank Alexander Mordvintsev, Yannick Assogba, Matt Sharifi, Anna Vilanova, Elmar Eisemann, Nikhil Thorat, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Alessio Bazzica, Boudewijn Lelieveldt, Thomas Höllt, Baldur van Lew, Julian Thijssen and Marvin Ritter.

Source: Google AI Blog