Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
120 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Weight decay induces low-rank attention layers (2410.23819v1)

Published 31 Oct 2024 in cs.LG

Abstract: The effect of regularizers such as weight decay when training deep neural networks is not well understood. We study the influence of weight decay as well as $L2$-regularization when training neural network models in which parameter matrices interact multiplicatively. This combination is of particular interest as this parametrization is common in attention layers, the workhorse of transformers. Here, key-query, as well as value-projection parameter matrices, are multiplied directly with each other: $W_KTW_Q$ and $PW_V$. We extend previous results and show on one hand that any local minimum of a $L2$-regularized loss of the form $L(AB\top) + \lambda (|A|2 + |B|2)$ coincides with a minimum of the nuclear norm-regularized loss $L(AB\top) + \lambda|AB\top|_*$, and on the other hand that the 2 losses become identical exponentially quickly during training. We thus complement existing works linking $L2$-regularization with low-rank regularization, and in particular, explain why such regularization on the matrix product affects early stages of training. Based on these theoretical insights, we verify empirically that the key-query and value-projection matrix products $W_KTW_Q, PW_V$ within attention layers, when optimized with weight decay, as usually done in vision tasks and LLMling, indeed induce a significant reduction in the rank of $W_KTW_Q$ and $PW_V$, even in fully online training. We find that, in accordance with existing work, inducing low rank in attention matrix products can damage LLM performance, and observe advantages when decoupling weight decay in attention layers from the rest of the parameters.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (47)
  1. Twan van Laarhoven. L2 regularization versus batch and weight normalization, 2017.
  2. Understanding deep learning (still) requires rethinking generalization. Commun. ACM, 64(3):107–115, feb 2021. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/3446776. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3446776.
  3. Three mechanisms of weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=B1lz-3Rct7.
  4. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7.
  5. On the overlooked pitfalls of weight decay and how to mitigate them: A gradient-norm perspective. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=vnGcubtzR1.
  6. Why do we need weight decay in modern deep learning?, 2023.
  7. David J C Mackay. Probable networks and plausible predictions — a review of practical bayesian methods for supervised neural networks. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 6(3):469–505, 1995.
  8. A simple weight decay can improve generalization. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 1991. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:10137788.
  9. spred: Solving l1 penalty with SGD. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 43407–43422. PMLR, 23–29 Jul 2023.
  10. Implicit regularization in deep matrix factorization. CoRR, abs/1905.13655, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13655.
  11. Towards resolving the implicit bias of gradient descent for matrix factorization: Greedy low-rank learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=AHOs7Sm5H7R.
  12. Implicit regularization in deep learning may not be explainable by norms, 2020.
  13. Implicit regularization in matrix factorization, 2017.
  14. Attention is all you need, 2017.
  15. Formal algorithms for transformers, 2022.
  16. Rank, trace-norm and max-norm. In Peter Auer and Ron Meir, editors, Learning Theory, pages 545–560, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-31892-7.
  17. Ryan J Tibshirani. Equivalences between sparse models and neural networks. Working Notes. URL https://www. stat. cmu. edu/ryantibs/papers/sparsitynn. pdf, 2021.
  18. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020.
  19. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models, 2023.
  20. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy.
  21. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. CoRR, abs/2106.09685, 2021a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685.
  22. Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision, 2020.
  23. Guaranteed matrix completion via non-convex factorization. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(11):6535–6579, November 2016. ISSN 1557-9654. doi: 10.1109/tit.2016.2598574. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2016.2598574.
  24. The power of convex relaxation: Near-optimal matrix completion, 2009.
  25. Low rank regularization: A review. Neural Networks, 136:218–232, 2021b. ISSN 0893-6080. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2020.09.021. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089360802030352X.
  26. A geometric analysis of neural collapse with unconstrained features, 2021.
  27. Saddle-to-saddle dynamics in deep linear networks: Small initialization training, symmetry, and sparsity, 2022.
  28. Arthur Jacot. Implicit bias of large depth networks: a notion of rank for nonlinear functions, 2023.
  29. Representation costs of linear neural networks: Analysis and design. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 26884–26896. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/file/e22cb9d6bbb4c290a94e4fff4d68a831-Paper.pdf.
  30. Characterizing the implicit bias of regularized sgd in rank minimization, 2023.
  31. Implicit bias of sgd in l2subscript𝑙2l_{2}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-regularized linear dnns: One-way jumps from high to low rank, 2023.
  32. Initialization and regularization of factorized neural layers, 2022.
  33. Low-rank bottleneck in multi-head attention models, 2020.
  34. The truth is in there: Improving reasoning in language models with layer-selective rank reduction, 2023.
  35. Exact solutions of a deep linear network. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=X6bp8ri8dV.
  36. Exact solutions to the nonlinear dynamics of learning in deep linear neural networks, 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6120.
  37. The pile: an 800GB dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020.
  38. Training a vision transformer from scratch in less than 24 hours with 1 gpu, 2022.
  39. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009.
  40. Hungry hungry hippos: Towards language modeling with state space models, 2023.
  41. Hyena hierarchy: Towards larger convolutional language models, 2023.
  42. Uncovering mesa-optimization algorithms in transformers, 2023.
  43. The transient nature of emergent in-context learning in transformers, 2023.
  44. Paul Lévy. Sur certains processus stochastiques homogènes. Compositio Mathematica, 7:283–339, 1940. URL http://www.numdam.org/item/CM_1940__7__283_0/.
  45. Free states of the canonical anticommutation relations. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 16(1):1–33, 1970.
  46. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
  47. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. Nature, 405(6789):947–951, 2000.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that weight decay and L2-regularization encourage low-rank solutions via factorized parametrization in attention layers.
  • The methodology links L2-regularized losses with nuclear norm regularization, showing an exponential reduction in their discrepancy during optimization.
  • Empirical results reveal that strong weight decay reduces the rank of projection matrices, which can compromise performance in language models.

Insights into Weight Decay and Low-Rank Induction in Attention Layers

The paper "Weight decay induces low-rank attention layers" provides a comprehensive analysis of the effects of weight decay (WD) and L2L2-regularization on neural networks, particularly focusing on models with parameter matrix products, such as transformers. The paper's theoretical contributions delve into the optimization landscape of L2L2-regularized losses and elucidate how these regularizations influence the rank of attention layers within transformer architectures.

Theoretical Contributions

The paper introduces a robust theoretical framework to understand how weight decay and L2L2-regularization can affect rank minimization in matrices by employing a factorized parametrization. Central to the investigation is the consideration of neural network models where parameters are represented as products of matrices, denoted by W=ABW = AB^\top. This is especially pertinent in the context of transformers, where weight matrices interact multiplicatively within attention layers.

A key theoretical result demonstrates that any local minimum of the L2L2-regularized loss L(AB)+λ(A2+B2)L(AB^\top) + \lambda (\|A\|^2 + \|B\|^2) aligns with a local minimum of its nuclear norm-regularized counterpart, L(AB)+λABL(AB^\top) + \lambda\|AB^\top\|_*. This theoretical insight is significant because it establishes a relationship between L2L2-regularization and low-rank regularization, which was not fully explicated in prior literature. Furthermore, the authors reveal that during the optimization process, the discrepancy between the two regularizations diminishes exponentially.

Implications of this are profound; the nuclear norm is well-known for its rank minimization properties. Therefore, this paper suggests that the application of L2L2-regularization inherently applies pressure towards low-rank solutions, even in early training stages. The analysis is complemented by empirical evidence which shows the inductive biases introduced by factorized parameterizations, revealing their potential detrimental impact on certain tasks.

Empirical Findings and Validation

Empirical validation solidifies the theoretical claims through experiments demonstrating low-rank induction on key-query and value-projection products within attention layers under weight decay. This work effectively corroborates the hypothesis that training configurations traditionally deploying high-strength weight decay can indeed instigate significant rank reductions in component matrices such as WKWQW_K^\top W_Q and PWVPW_V. Furthermore, the paper underscores scenarios where this observational phenomenon leads to compromised performance in LLMs, despite being consistent with weight decay strategies reported for influential models like GPT-3, LLaMa, and ViT.

Practical and Theoretical Implications

These findings are instructive for designing better neural network optimizers and architectures. The implications pin down an unrecognized trade-off between inducing low-rank behavior and maintaining performance, prevalent in large-scale pre-trained models. The paper challenges existing practices by suggesting potential advantages from decoupling weight decay applications in attention layers from other model parameters. This avenue opens up methodologies for more nuanced application of regularization techniques, possibly leading to improved model adaptability across varied tasks.

Future Directions

This research paves the way for further exploration into layer-specific optimization strategies and the dynamic between L2L2-regularization and model expressivity. Future studies could investigate the optimal balance of rank-inducing regularization, particularly in transformers’ attention components, uncovering ways to harness, rather than exacerbate, this effect. Another future endeavor could address examining the combined use of regularization and advanced initialization strategies to mitigate adverse impacts on model robustness.

In summary, this paper provides a thorough theoretical and empirical exploration of weight decay-induced rank reduction in attention layers. By bridging previous theoretical gaps concerning regularization and low-rank induction, it furnishes a platform for future research aimed at refining deep learning model training practices, especially in transformer-based architectures.