PipeOptim: Ensuring Effective 1F1B Schedule with Optimizer-Dependent Weight Prediction
Asynchronous pipeline model parallelism with a "1F1B" (one forward, one backward) schedule generates little bubble overhead and always provides quite a high throughput. However, the "1F1B" schedule inevitably leads to weight inconsistency and weight staleness issues due to the cross-training of different mini-batches across GPUs. To simultaneously address these two problems, in this paper, we propose an optimizer-dependent weight prediction strategy (a.k.a PipeOptim) for asynchronous pipeline training. The key insight of our proposal is that we employ a weight prediction strategy in the forward pass to ensure that each mini-batch uses consistent and staleness-free weights to compute the forward pass. To be concrete, we first construct the weight prediction scheme based on the update rule of the used optimizer when training the deep neural network models. Then throughout the "1F1B" pipelined training, each mini-batch is mandated to execute weight prediction ahead of the forward pass, subsequently employing the predicted weights to perform the forward pass. As a result, PipeOptim 1) inherits the advantage of the "1F1B" schedule and generates pretty high throughput, and 2) can ensure effective parameter learning regardless of the type of the used optimizer. To verify the effectiveness of our proposal, we conducted extensive experimental evaluations using eight different deep-learning models spanning three machine-learning tasks including image classification, sentiment analysis, and machine translation. The experiment results demonstrate that PipeOptim outperforms the popular pipelined approaches including GPipe, PipeDream, PipeDream-2BW, and SpecTrain. The code of PipeOptim can be accessible at https://github.com/guanleics/PipeOptim.
Code (1)
Tasks
image-classificationImage ClassificationMachine TranslationPredictionSentiment AnalysisMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Blog: Survey of Optimizers
Neural-network optimization in 2025-2026 is no longer well described as a succession of new Adam variants. The design space has expanded from coordinates to matrices and layers, from fixed training horizons to policies o…
Learning Rate Grafting: Transferability of Optimizer Tuning
In the empirical science of training large neural networks, the learning rate schedule is a notoriously challenging-to-tune hyperparameter, which can depend on all other properties (architecture, optimizer, batch size, d…
Step-size Adaptation Using Exponentiated Gradient Updates
Optimizers like Adam and AdaGrad have been very successful in training large-scale neural networks. Yet, the performance of these methods is heavily dependent on a carefully tuned learning rate schedule. We show that in …
Neural Optimizer Equation, Decay Function, and Learning Rate Schedule Joint Evolution
A major contributor to the quality of a deep learning model is the selection of the optimizer. We propose a new dual-joint search space in the realm of neural optimizer search (NOS), along with an integrity check, to aut…
Deep Learningimage-classificationImage ClassificationLRTuner: A Learning Rate Tuner for Deep Neural Networks
One very important hyperparameter for training deep neural networks is the learning rate schedule of the optimizer. The choice of learning rate schedule determines the computational cost of getting close to a minima, how…