On Empirical Comparisons of Optimizers for Deep Learning

Citations Over Time

Abstract

Selecting an optimizer is a central step in the contemporary deep learning pipeline. In this paper, we demonstrate the sensitivity of optimizer comparisons to the hyperparameter tuning protocol. Our findings suggest that the hyperparameter search space may be the single most important factor explaining the rankings obtained by recent empirical comparisons in the literature. In fact, we show that these results can be contradicted when hyperparameter search spaces are changed. As tuning effort grows without bound, more general optimizers should never underperform the ones they can approximate (i.e., Adam should never perform worse than momentum), but recent attempts to compare optimizers either assume these inclusion relationships are not practically relevant or restrict the hyperparameters in ways that break the inclusions. In our experiments, we find that inclusion relationships between optimizers matter in practice and always predict optimizer comparisons. In particular, we find that the popular adaptive gradient methods never underperform momentum or gradient descent. We also report practical tips around tuning often ignored hyperparameters of adaptive gradient methods and raise concerns about fairly benchmarking optimizers for neural network training.

Related Papers

• → Physician-Friendly Machine Learning: A Case Study with Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction(2019)71 cited
• → Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Medicine: A Little Background Goes a Long Way Toward Understanding(2021)29 cited
• → Application of Machine Learning in Animal Disease Analysis and Prediction(2020)26 cited
• → Sentiment Analysis by Using Supervised Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches(2020)3 cited
• → Breakdown of Machine Learning Algorithms(2022)1 cited