How to Fine-Tune Vision Models with SGD

November 17, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Conference on Learning Representations

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Ananya Kumar, Ruoqi Shen, Sebastien Bubeck, Suriya Gunasekar arXiv ID 2211.09359 Category cs.CV: Computer Vision Cross-listed cs.LG Citations 36 Venue International Conference on Learning Representations Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
SGD and AdamW are the two most used optimizers for fine-tuning large neural networks in computer vision. When the two methods perform the same, SGD is preferable because it uses less memory (12 bytes/parameter with momentum and 8 bytes/parameter without) than AdamW (16 bytes/parameter). However, on a suite of downstream tasks, especially those with distribution shifts, we find that fine-tuning with AdamW performs substantially better than SGD on modern Vision Transformer and ConvNeXt models. We find that large gaps in performance between SGD and AdamW occur when the fine-tuning gradients in the first "embedding" layer are much larger than in the rest of the model. Our analysis suggests an easy fix that works consistently across datasets and models: freezing the embedding layer (less than 1% of the parameters) leads to SGD with or without momentum performing slightly better than AdamW while using less memory (e.g., on ViT-L, SGD uses 33% less GPU memory). Our insights result in state-of-the-art accuracies on five popular distribution shift benchmarks: WILDS-FMoW, WILDS-Camelyon, BREEDS-Living-17, Waterbirds, and DomainNet.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Computer Vision

πŸŒ… πŸŒ… Old Age

Fast R-CNN

Ross Girshick

cs.CV πŸ› ICCV πŸ“š 27.7K cites 11 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted