Optimizer Memory Makes Shuffle Order a First-Order Source of Fine-Tuning Noise
Shuffle order can be a larger source of fine-tuning noise than a memoryless analysis predicts: fixed-clock optimizer memory makes local equal-multiset contrasts first order in the learning rate rather than second order, and the resulting order channel can be large enough for a single seed to flip a close A/B comparison. We isolate this mechanism and derive a fit-free way to size the noise it produces. For a memoryless optimizer, reordering an equal multiset has no first-order endpoint term; the leading local contrast is the $O(η^2)$ gradient bracket. Fixed-clock optimizers such as AdamW are different. Their moment buffers, preconditioner state, and de-biasing counters advance with the step index rather than with the learning-rate-scaled time $τ=ηk$, so the same gradient can receive a position-dependent endpoint weight. For any fixed finite measurement window, a lifted-state expansion gives an $O(η)$ equal-multiset contrast whenever the first-order replay coefficient is nonzero, while regular and clock-matched controls remain $O(η^2)$; a bare fixed-$β$ momentum buffer is already enough. A bitwise-deterministic replay from one warmed optimizer state isolates the mechanism, giving order-variance slopes 1.83 for AdamW, 2.00 for fixed-$β$ momentum, and 4.00 for SGD; matching the memory clock to $τ$ restores the regular exponent. For AdamW with a frozen preconditioner, the same impulse-weight kernel gives a closed-form asymptotic order-variance floor after the local potentials are measured, with no fitted coefficients. The result is local to the measurement window (independent reshuffling can average the channel across windows), but it yields order-noise error bars, positional attribution weights, and a seed-budget criterion for fine-tuning comparisons.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Shape of Memory: a Geometric Analysis of Machine Unlearning in Second-Order Optimizers
We argue that current definitions of machine unlearning are underspecified for second-order optimizers. We compare first-order and second-order learners for their ability to handle the data deletion task with varying deg…
4-bit Shampoo for Memory-Efficient Network Training
Second-order optimizers, maintaining a matrix termed a preconditioner, are superior to first-order optimizers in both theory and practice. The states forming the preconditioner and its inverse root restrict the maximum s…
image-classificationImage ClassificationLanguage ModelingLanguage Modelling+1Second-Order Fine-Tuning without Pain for LLMs:A Hessian Informed Zeroth-Order Optimizer
Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) with classic first-order optimizers entails prohibitive GPU memory due to the backpropagation process. Recent works have turned to zeroth-order optimizers for fine-tuning, which s…
GPUNavigating LLM Valley: From AdamW to Memory-Efficient and Matrix-Based Optimizers
Training large language models requires optimization algorithms that are not only statistically effective, but also computationally and memory efficient at extreme scale. Although Adam remains the dominant optimizer for …
Learning from Streaming Video with Orthogonal Gradients
We address the challenge of representation learning from a continuous stream of video as input, in a self-supervised manner. This differs from the standard approaches to video learning where videos are chopped and shuffl…
Future predictionRepresentation LearningVideo Prediction