Optimization Benchmark for Diffusion Models on Dynamical Systems (2510.19376v1)
Abstract: The training of diffusion models is often absent in the evaluation of new optimization techniques. In this work, we benchmark recent optimization algorithms for training a diffusion model for denoising flow trajectories. We observe that Muon and SOAP are highly efficient alternatives to AdamW (18% lower final loss). We also revisit several recent phenomena related to the training of models for text or image applications in the context of diffusion model training. This includes the impact of the learning-rate schedule on the training dynamics, and the performance gap between Adam and SGD.
Summary
- The paper presents an empirical benchmark comparing modern optimizers, with Muon and SOAP achieving approximately 18% lower validation loss than AdamW.
- It demonstrates how learning rate schedules and training trajectories critically impact both loss minimization and generative quality in diffusion model training.
- The study offers practical hyperparameter tuning insights, highlighting that Prodigy reduces tuning effort and that optimizer choice can drive performance in scientific generative modeling.
Optimization Benchmarking for Diffusion Models on Dynamical Systems
Introduction
This paper presents a comprehensive empirical benchmark of modern optimization algorithms for training diffusion models on dynamical systems, specifically focusing on denoising flow trajectories derived from fluid dynamics simulations. The paper addresses a notable gap in the optimization literature, where diffusion models—despite their widespread adoption in scientific and generative modeling—are rarely included in large-scale optimizer benchmarks. The benchmark is motivated by the need to understand whether recent advances in optimization, particularly those validated on LLM pretraining and image classification, transfer effectively to the training of diffusion models in scientific domains.
Experimental Setup
The benchmark task involves training a U-Net-based diffusion model to learn the score function of trajectories governed by the Navier-Stokes equations with Kolmogorov forcing. The dataset consists of 1024 simulated trajectories, each comprising 128 snapshots of 2D velocity fields, downsampled and filtered to a resolution. The model architecture follows Rozet & Louppe (2023), with three convolutional layers and a time embedding, totaling approximately 23M parameters.
Hyperparameter tuning is performed via grid search over learning rate and weight decay for each optimizer, with three seeds per configuration. Training is conducted for 1024 epochs using a linear-decay learning rate schedule, with warmup and gradient clipping applied by default. All experiments are executed in PyTorch 2.5.1 on NVIDIA A100 GPUs.
Main Benchmark Results
The paper evaluates several optimizers:
- AdamW (baseline)
- Muon: Spectral-norm steepest descent for 2D weight matrices
- Schedule-Free AdamW: Constant learning rate, no scheduling required
- SOAP: Combines Shampoo and Adam techniques
- Prodigy: Adaptive, parameter-free optimizer
AdamW serves as the baseline, while Muon and SOAP are recent methods shown to improve convergence in LLM pretraining. Schedule-Free AdamW and Prodigy are designed to reduce or eliminate the need for learning rate scheduling.
Figure 1: Final validation loss and loss curves for each optimizer, highlighting the superior performance of Muon and SOAP over AdamW.
Muon and SOAP achieve the lowest final validation loss, outperforming AdamW by approximately 18%. Although their per-step runtime is higher (1.45 for Muon, 1.72 for SOAP), their efficiency per optimization step is superior. Schedule-Free AdamW nearly matches AdamW in loss but exhibits inferior generative quality, suggesting that the training trajectory, not just the final loss, is critical for diffusion model performance.
Extending AdamW training to 2048 epochs does not close the gap with Muon and SOAP, indicating that the observed improvements are not merely a function of longer training.
Figure 2: Extended training for AdamW does not match the final loss achieved by Muon and SOAP, even with increased epochs.
Prodigy matches the second-best learning rate of AdamW without explicit learning rate tuning, demonstrating its practical utility for reducing hyperparameter search effort.
Figure 3: Prodigy achieves competitive final validation loss across weight decay values, with minimal tuning.
Learning Rate Schedule Analysis
The impact of learning rate schedules is systematically evaluated, comparing cosine, warmup-stable-decay (wsd), and inverse square-root (sqrt) schedules. The wsd schedule, which allows for anytime cooldown, matches or surpasses cosine in terms of loss, but generative quality is less stable. The sqrt schedule underperforms in loss but yields more stable generative outputs.
Figure 4: Comparison of final validation loss, schedule shapes, loss curves, and batch gradient norms for cosine, wsd, and sqrt schedules.
The optimal peak learning rate for wsd is approximately half that of cosine, consistent with findings in LLM pretraining. Notably, for wsd, the learning rate that minimizes loss does not always yield the best generative quality, reinforcing the importance of the entire training trajectory.
AdamW vs. SGD: Persistent Performance Gap
A significant gap in validation loss and generative quality is observed between AdamW and SGD, even after extensive hyperparameter tuning. This gap cannot be attributed to class imbalance, as the task does not involve class labels. The results suggest that architectural factors or other data properties may underlie the optimizer performance differences in diffusion model training.
Figure 5: Validation loss curves for AdamW and SGD, demonstrating a persistent gap in performance.
Hyperparameter Sensitivity and Practical Recommendations
The optimal learning rate for Muon and SOAP is roughly twice that of AdamW, a finding consistent with LLM training benchmarks. Sensitivity to weight decay is lower than to learning rate, and Schedule-Free AdamW is the least sensitive overall. Prodigy offers a practical advantage by reducing the need for learning rate tuning with only minor trade-offs in model quality.
Figure 6: Heatmap of final validation loss across learning rate and weight decay grids for each optimizer.
Generative Quality vs. Loss Value
For Schedule-Free AdamW and wsd schedules, similar loss values do not guarantee comparable generative quality. Adding a linear cooldown to Schedule-Free AdamW improves generative outputs, but this undermines its parameter-free scheduling advantage.
Figure 7: Vorticity of generated trajectories and validation loss heatmap for SGD, illustrating inferior generative quality despite extensive tuning.
Implications and Future Directions
The benchmark demonstrates that Muon and SOAP are effective alternatives to AdamW for diffusion model training, achieving lower final loss despite higher per-step runtime. The results highlight the nuanced relationship between optimization trajectory and generative model quality, suggesting that loss minimization alone is insufficient for evaluating diffusion model training. The persistent gap between AdamW and SGD, independent of class imbalance, points to unexplored factors in optimizer-model interactions for scientific generative modeling.
Practically, the findings inform optimizer selection and hyperparameter tuning strategies for diffusion models in scientific applications, such as weather and climate simulation. Theoretically, the results motivate further investigation into the mechanisms by which optimizer dynamics influence generative quality, and the development of new benchmarks that capture these subtleties.
Conclusion
This benchmark establishes that Muon and SOAP outperform AdamW in training diffusion models for dynamical systems, with Prodigy offering a robust parameter-free alternative. The paper reveals that optimizer choice and learning rate schedule significantly affect both loss and generative quality, and that the training trajectory is a critical determinant of model performance. The observed optimizer gaps and schedule effects warrant further theoretical analysis and broader benchmarking across scientific generative modeling tasks.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Explain it Like I'm 14
Overview
This paper studies how to best train a special kind of AI model called a diffusion model. Diffusion models learn to turn noisy, messy data into clean, realistic data by “denoising” it step by step. Instead of images or text, this paper focuses on fluid flow data (like how air or water moves). The main goal is to compare different training methods (called optimizers) and learning-rate schedules to see which ones work best for these diffusion models, and to understand how training choices affect both the model’s score (loss) and the quality of the generated results.
Key Objectives
The paper asks a few simple questions:
- Which training algorithms help diffusion models learn better and faster on fluid flow data?
- Do new optimizers that worked well for training LLMs also work well here?
- How does the learning-rate schedule (how big the model’s learning steps are over time) change training and the final results?
- Why do “Adam-style” methods often beat “SGD” in many tasks, and does that happen here too?
Methods and Approach
Here is how the authors set up and ran their tests:
- The task: Train a diffusion model to remove noise from short clips of fluid flow. Think of it like cleaning a blurry video of swirling water or air, frame by frame.
- The data: They used computer simulations of a famous fluid system (the Navier–Stokes equations with Kolmogorov flow). The data are 2D snapshots over time of how the fluid moves.
- The model: A U-Net, a popular neural network for images, with about 23 million parameters.
- What they measured:
- Loss: a number that shows how wrong the model is—lower is better.
- Generative quality: how good the model’s produced fluid trajectories look (even if loss is similar, visuals can differ).
- Training setup: 1024 epochs (full passes over the training data), warmup at the start, and gradient clipping to keep training stable. They tuned key settings like learning rate and weight decay for each optimizer. They ran multiple random seeds to make results reliable.
To make this more relatable:
- An “optimizer” is the way the model learns from mistakes. Imagine several different paper plans—each plan changes how big your steps are and what you focus on after each test.
- The “learning rate” is how big a step the model takes when it corrects itself. A schedule adjusts that step size over time, like starting with bigger steps and then slowly taking smaller ones to fine-tune.
- “Loss” is your score on a practice test—small loss means fewer mistakes.
The optimizers they compared include:
- AdamW: a widely used baseline method.
- Muon: a newer method designed to improve learning in certain parts of neural networks.
- SOAP: a method that combines ideas from Shampoo and Adam to stabilize and speed up training.
- ScheduleFree: an Adam-like method that tries to work well without needing a learning-rate schedule.
- Prodigy: a method that automatically adapts the learning rate so you don’t have to search for the best one.
They also compared learning-rate schedules:
- Cosine: starts high and smoothly decreases.
- WSD (“warmup–stable–decay”): warms up, stays flat, then cools down at any time you choose.
- Inverse square-root with cooldown (“sqrt”): steps shrink like 1/sqrt(time), then cool down at the end.
Main Findings
Here are the main results, explained simply:
- Muon and SOAP beat AdamW on this diffusion task. With the same number of training steps, they achieved about 18% lower final loss than AdamW. Even though Muon and SOAP take more time per step, they still reached better results within a similar overall training time.
- Training AdamW longer did not catch up. Simply running AdamW for more epochs did not match the lower loss that Muon and SOAP achieved.
- ScheduleFree nearly matched AdamW’s loss but produced worse-looking fluid trajectories. Adding a cooldown (making the learning rate shrink near the end) helped somewhat. This suggests that not just the final loss, but the entire path of training matters for the model’s visual quality.
- Prodigy worked well without tuning the learning rate. It found a good learning rate on its own and reached loss values close to the best AdamW runs, with visually similar generated trajectories.
- Learning-rate schedules matter:
- WSD matched or beat cosine in terms of loss, and needed a peak learning rate about half as large as cosine’s best. However, the visuals were sometimes worse with WSD at its loss-optimal learning rate.
- The sqrt schedule had slightly worse loss but more stable visuals than WSD. This can be useful when you don’t know how long training will run and want steady generative quality.
- Adam-style methods beat SGD here too. SGD (a simpler optimizer) had clearly higher loss and worse visuals, even after careful tuning. Since this task has no “class labels,” the usual explanation (class imbalance) doesn’t apply, so other factors—like architecture details—may be responsible.
Practical notes the authors observed:
- The best learning rate for Muon and SOAP is roughly twice the best learning rate for AdamW.
- Loss is more sensitive to learning rate than to weight decay in this task.
- Prodigy can save time by reducing the need for learning-rate tuning while still giving good results.
Why These Results Matter
This paper shows that optimizers popular in training LLMs also help when training diffusion models on scientific data like fluid flows. It also highlights two important lessons:
- Don’t judge only by the final loss. How the learning rate changes over time—and the whole training journey—can affect how realistic the model’s outputs look.
- The choice of optimizer really matters. Muon and SOAP provided better results for this diffusion task, and Adam-style methods still outperform SGD, even when common explanations don’t fit.
In the bigger picture, these findings can help researchers who use diffusion models for weather and climate applications. Better training methods can lead to more accurate and more reliable generative models for complex physical systems. The paper also points to open questions: why does the training path influence visual quality so much, and what exactly causes Adam-style methods to beat SGD in tasks like this? Exploring those questions could improve how we train generative models across many fields.
Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions
Below is a concise list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored, with concrete directions for future work:
- External validity across tasks
- Results are shown on a single diffusion training workload (Kolmogorov flow trajectories with Re=1000); it is unknown whether findings transfer to other dynamical systems, forcing regimes, resolutions, or real-world geophysical datasets.
- Only one architecture (a specific U-Net, ~22.9M parameters) is studied; sensitivity to architecture family (attention, residual depth, normalization choices), model size, and parameter count is unexplored.
- The benchmark focuses on score learning for DDPM; it is unclear whether conclusions hold for other diffusion objectives (e.g., -prediction, -prediction), SDE/ODE variants, or conditional diffusion setups relevant for data assimilation.
- Evaluation and metrics
- Generative quality is assessed primarily via visual inspection and a few samples (two trajectories, 64 sampling steps); no quantitative, physics-aware metrics (e.g., energy spectra, enstrophy, vorticity statistics, temporal autocorrelation, structure functions), nor statistical tests across many samples, are reported.
- The link between validation loss and downstream utility (e.g., score-based data assimilation performance) is not evaluated; it is unknown whether lower loss translates to better assimilation or forecasting skill.
- No ablation on the number of sampling steps or sampler choice; how optimizer/schedule choices affect sample quality and diversity under different samplers or step budgets remains open.
- Learning-rate schedules and training trajectory
- The paper conjectures that the full training trajectory (not just final loss) governs generative quality, but provides no diagnostic or causal analysis; what trajectory features (e.g., gradient-norm regimes, curvature proxies, training-phase transitions) predict sample quality is unknown.
- For wsd and schedule-free variants, similar final losses sometimes yield degraded generative quality; the mechanism (e.g., insufficient late-phase annealing, stability–plasticity trade-offs) is not identified.
- Only cosine, wsd, and inverse square-root-with-cooldown are tested; other anytime schedules (e.g., 1-cycle, cosine with restarts, piecewise-constant drops, exponential decay, polynomial decay) and step-wise versus epoch-wise scheduling are not explored.
- The cooldown fraction for anytime schedules is fixed (20%); the sensitivity of generative quality to cooldown length and shape is unknown.
- Optimizer coverage and fairness
- The benchmark compares a limited set of methods (baseline adaptive optimizer, two recent adaptive/preconditioned methods, schedule-free variant, Prodigy); widely used alternatives (e.g., Shampoo, Adafactor, LAMB, Lion, Sophia, K-FAC/PRONG, SM3) are not assessed on this workload.
- Wall-clock comparisons use off-the-shelf implementations for certain methods; no kernel-level optimization is attempted. The ranking under compute-optimized implementations and across hardware (A100 vs other GPUs/TPUs) remains uncertain.
- Memory usage, activation checkpointing interactions, and optimizer state footprint—crucial for scaling preconditioned methods—are not measured.
- Muon/SOAP implementation choices
- For non-2D parameters, gradients are reshaped to matrices before the Muon step; whether alternative tensor factorizations, blockings, or convolution-aware treatments improve performance or stability is untested.
- A heuristic is used to align update magnitudes between parameter groups (Muon-trained vs adaptive-trained); the sensitivity of results to this heuristic and to per-group learning-rate/weight-decay tuning is not analyzed.
- SOAP preconditioning frequency and dimension caps are fixed; the compute–quality trade-off of these knobs (and their interactions with batch size and schedule) is not characterized.
- Adam–SGD gap
- A clear gap in loss and sample quality is observed, but the causes (architectural elements, normalization layers, residual/skip connections, time embeddings, depth, batch statistics) are not isolated via controlled ablations.
- Batch size is fixed (32); recent work suggests batch size heavily modulates the Adam–SGD gap. Whether the gap closes at small/large batches or with gradient accumulation is unknown.
- Momentum variants for SGD (e.g., tuning momentum and dampening, Nesterov vs heavy-ball), gradient clipping thresholds, and learning-rate warmup strategies are not extensively explored; the robustness of the gap to these factors is untested.
- Hyperparameter tuning scope
- Only learning rate and weight decay are tuned in most comparisons; optimizer-specific hyperparameters (betas, momentum, EMA decay, preconditioning cadence) and gradient clipping thresholds are largely fixed, potentially biasing outcomes.
- Extended training for the baseline is tested without re-tuning weight decay; whether re-optimizing regularization under longer schedules changes conclusions is not assessed.
- Batch size, data regime, and training length
- The impact of batch size, number of epochs/steps, and dataset size on optimizer rankings and schedule choice is not studied; scaling laws (quality vs compute) for this workload are unknown.
- The paper primarily uses 1024 epochs; the behavior under substantially longer training with matched compute budgets (and adaptive early stopping) is not systematically evaluated.
- Diffusion-process and loss-design choices
- The diffusion noise schedule and loss weighting follow prior work without ablation; interactions between optimizer/schedule and the diffusion noise schedule, timestep weighting, or reweighting strategies remain unexplored.
- Alternative normalization of the score loss, per-timestep curriculum, or adaptive noise weighting that might improve the loss–sample-quality alignment are not considered.
- Reproducibility and uncertainty quantification
- Most results aggregate over three seeds; for close outcomes, confidence intervals and significance tests are sparse, leaving uncertainty about small but practical differences.
- Only two generated trajectories per configuration are shown; variability in generative quality across seeds and samples is not quantified.
- Downstream and practical considerations
- No downstream data assimilation experiments are reported; whether the observed optimizer/schedule improvements produce better posterior inference or analysis increments is unknown.
- Compute–quality trade-offs (loss and sample metrics per Joule or per dollar) and practical deployment guidance under fixed compute/memory budgets are not quantified.
- Open mechanisms and theory
- Why schedule-free training achieves competitive losses but worse generative quality—and how to design self-annealing, parameter-free methods that preserve late-phase refinement—remains an open algorithmic question.
- The architectural or optimization-theoretic factors behind the Adam-over-SGD advantage for this diffusion task (absent class imbalance) are unidentified; a mechanistic explanation is missing.
Practical Applications
Immediate Applications
The items below translate the paper’s findings into concrete, deployable steps across sectors. Each includes sector relevance and key dependencies or assumptions to consider before adoption.
- Optimizer selection for diffusion-based data assimilation (weather/climate, energy, software)
- Action: Switch from AdamW to Muon or SOAP/Shampoo when training diffusion models on dynamical systems; expect ∼18% lower final loss over the same steps versus AdamW.
- Workflow: Update PyTorch training loops to include Muon (with Nesterov momentum, reshape strategy for >2D tensors) or SOAP preconditioning settings; start with learning rates roughly 2× the best AdamW LR; keep warmup and gradient clipping.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Higher per-step runtime (∼1.45× Muon; ∼1.72× SOAP compared to AdamW); performance depends on hardware and implementation quality; benchmark was ∼23M parameters—results may change at larger scales.
- Parameter-free learning rate to cut tuning time (software, MLOps, academia)
- Action: Use Prodigy for preliminary runs or production scenarios needing minimal LR tuning; it automatically ramps LR to near-optimal values.
- Workflow: Adopt warmup+constant LR for Prodigy; tune only weight decay; incorporate into AutoML/multi-run orchestration to reduce compute spend on hyperparameter sweeps.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Generative quality similar to tuned AdamW in this benchmark; verify with domain-specific sample metrics rather than loss-only.
- Learning-rate scheduling for better generative quality (weather/climate, robotics, software)
- Action: Prefer cosine or linear-decay with cooldown over pure wsd (warmup-stable-decay) for more reliable generative quality; if training length cannot be predetermined, use inverse square-root with a late linear cooldown.
- Workflow: Calibrate peak LR (wsd peak LR ≈ ½ cosine’s optimal peak LR); enforce cooldown windows; monitor generative quality during training rather than relying on final loss.
- Dependencies/assumptions: The paper shows that similar loss values can hide worse generative quality, especially with ScheduleFree and wsd; require sample-quality checks throughout training.
- Compute-aware optimizer choice (software, HPC operations, policy)
- Action: Match optimizer choice to constraints: use AdamW when wall-clock time dominates, or Muon/SOAP when lower final loss is paramount within fixed step budgets.
- Workflow: Publish internal decision charts (e.g., “compute-bound” vs “loss-target-bound”); configure schedulers per project; include runtime-per-step metrics in training dashboards.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Runtime multipliers vary across hardware and kernels; conduct a short bake-off on target infrastructure.
- Generative-quality monitoring in training (software, academia)
- Action: Add sample-quality KPIs (e.g., trajectory coherence, domain-specific physics checks) alongside loss curves; anneal LR appropriately when quality stalls.
- Workflow: Integrate scheduled cooldown checkpoints; run fixed-seed sampling at end of epochs; use EMA smoothing for diagnostics; trigger cooldowns based on quality thresholds.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Requires domain-tailored quality metrics; aligns with paper’s conjecture that training trajectory affects generative outcomes.
- Benchmarks that include diffusion tasks (academia, industry standards)
- Action: Extend optimizer benchmark suites (e.g., AlgoPerf-like) to cover diffusion training on dynamical systems; reuse the paper’s open-source code and logs.
- Workflow: Standardize datasets, seeds, schedules, and evaluation metrics; share traces for reproducibility; include compute cost and generative quality in reports.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Adoption depends on community buy-in and consistent physics datasets.
- Weather and climate assimilation improvements (weather/climate)
- Action: Retrain score-based data assimilation models with Muon/SOAP to potentially improve state estimation of atmospheric/ocean dynamics at the same or lower compute budgets (in step terms).
- Workflow: Implement optimizer swaps in U-Net diffusion training pipelines used in regional/global assimilation projects; retune peak LR and modestly adjust weight decay.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Small-scale benchmark generalization to larger, operational models is not guaranteed; validate in sandbox environments first.
- Renewable energy nowcasting (energy)
- Action: Apply improved optimizer/schedule choices to diffusion-based assimilation for wind and solar forecasting.
- Workflow: Integrate inverse sqrt anytime schedule when training horizons vary; adopt Prodigy for quick iteration on site-specific models.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Domain transfer from fluid trajectories to renewable resource fields requires revalidation; quality metrics must reflect grid operations needs.
- Ocean and hydrology modeling (environment, maritime)
- Action: Use Muon/SOAP in training diffusion models of turbulent flow and coastal dynamics to improve denoising of measurements.
- Workflow: Embed domain physics constraints in generative-quality checks; select schedules with cooldown when generating trajectories for risk assessments.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Model fidelity requires appropriate forcing and boundary settings; validate across resolutions.
- Policy and sustainability measures (policy, public sector)
- Action: Encourage agencies to adopt optimizer/scheduler practices that reduce unnecessary hyperparameter sweeps and compute; require reporting of both loss and generative-quality metrics.
- Workflow: Include optimizer choice in compute procurement guidelines; foster open logs/code sharing as in the paper; align with carbon reduction targets.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Institutional incentives and auditability standards; reliance on reproducible pipelines.
Long-Term Applications
The items below are promising directions that will likely require further research, scaling, and engineering before broad deployment.
- Scaling preconditioned optimizers to large diffusion models (software, HPC, weather/climate)
- Opportunity: Develop optimized GPU/TPU kernels for Muon/SOAP to reduce per-step overhead at 100M–1B+ parameter scales; test on global assimilation systems (e.g., latent diffusion frameworks).
- Tools/products: High-performance preconditioning libraries; fused kernels for Newton–Schulz iterations; PyTorch/XLA integrations.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Engineering effort, vendor support, and extensive validation under operational workloads.
- Quality-aware training schedules and triggers (academia, software)
- Opportunity: Design schedulers that optimize for generative quality paths, not just terminal loss, with automatic cooldown triggers based on sample metrics.
- Tools/products: “Quality-first” LR scheduler plugins; multi-objective training dashboards.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Reliable, domain-specific generative-quality metrics and causal links between trajectory and outcomes.
- New optimizers bridging the Adam–SGD gap in dynamical settings (academia)
- Opportunity: Investigate architectural and data characteristics (beyond class imbalance) that cause SGD underperformance; create hybrid methods combining sign-descent insights with spectral preconditioning.
- Tools/products: Research prototypes and theoretical analysis; optimizers tuned for spatiotemporal U-Nets.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Requires new theory and extensive cross-domain experiments.
- Auto-optimizer selection and schedule meta-learning (software, MLOps)
- Opportunity: Build systems that automatically select optimizers and schedules per task/profile (compute-bound vs accuracy-bound), using meta-learning and past runs.
- Tools/products: MLOps services that recommend Muon/SOAP/AdamW/Prodigy and schedule families (cosine/wsd/sqrt) with initial hyperparameters.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Robust metadata collection, transferability across tasks, and governance of automated decisions.
- Standardized diffusion training benchmarks and reporting (academia, standards bodies)
- Opportunity: Institutionalize benchmarks that include diffusion on dynamical systems, with compute, loss, and generative-quality reporting; integrate into MLPerf-like bodies.
- Tools/products: Benchmark suites, certification criteria, and auditing tools.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Community consensus and maintenance funding.
- Real-time digital twins with generative assimilation (energy, transportation, aerospace)
- Opportunity: Use improved diffusion training to power near-real-time digital twins for grids, airflows around vehicles, and port operations.
- Tools/products: Integrated assimilation pipelines; streaming data interfaces; fast sampling strategies.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Scalable training and inference; reliable sensor integration; domain safety validation.
- Education and workforce development (education, academia)
- Opportunity: Develop curricula and labs on optimizer/schedule trade-offs for physical models and diffusion; teach quality-aware training practices.
- Tools/products: Courseware, notebooks, and reproducible lab kits.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Access to compute and domain datasets; collaboration with climate/CFD programs.
- Public services and early warning systems (policy, public sector)
- Opportunity: Leverage improved training of assimilation models to enhance flood/air-quality/heatwave forecasts with better generative fidelity.
- Tools/products: Decision-support dashboards and probabilistic forecast tools.
- Dependencies/assumptions: Deployment-scale validation, equity and access considerations, and cross-agency data sharing.
Glossary
- AlgoPerf: A large-scale benchmark suite for evaluating neural network training algorithms across diverse workloads. "the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark"
- anytime schedule: A learning-rate policy that can be run without fixing the total training length in advance, allowing a cooldown to be initiated at any time. "Alternative anytime schedule."
- cosine schedule: A learning-rate schedule that follows a cosine-shaped decay over time. "they use a cosine schedule for the diffusion process."
- data assimilation: The process of estimating the true state or trajectories of a dynamical system by combining models with noisy observations. "Data assimilation is a central problem in many scientific domains that involve noisy measurements of complex dynamical systems"
- DDPM: Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models; a class of generative models trained to reverse a diffusion (noising) process. "Using the standard DDPM approach \citep{Ho2020}, the score function is learned by denoising data points sampled from the true distribution."
- denoising: The act of removing noise from data; in diffusion models, learning to predict and remove injected noise. "for denoising flow trajectories."
- exponential moving average: A smoothing technique that weights recent observations more heavily with exponential decay. "To obtain smoother curves we plot exponential moving averages with coefficient 0.95."
- gradient clipping: A stabilization technique that limits the magnitude of gradients to prevent exploding updates. "we add warmup and gradient clipping by default"
- heavy-ball momentum: A classical momentum method that accelerates gradient descent by accumulating a velocity term. "heavy-ball momentum with coefficient $0.9$ (and dampening set to $0.9$)"
- inverse square-root schedule: A learning-rate schedule that decays proportionally to 1/√t, often combined with a final cooldown. "the inverse square-root schedule with linear cooldown"
- jax-cfd: A JAX-based library for computational fluid dynamics simulations. "(using jax-cfd)"
- Kolmogorov flow: A canonical forced flow pattern used in studies of turbulence and fluid dynamics. "Navier-Stokes equations with Kolmogorov flow \citep{Kochkov2021}."
- learning-rate annealing: The gradual reduction of the learning rate during training to aid convergence. "the missing learning-rate annealing"
- learning-rate schedule: A predefined plan for how the learning rate changes over training steps or epochs. "the impact of the learning-rate schedule on the training dynamics"
- linear cooldown: A final phase where the learning rate decreases linearly to a lower value or zero. "a linear cooldown can be performed at any time"
- linear-decay schedule: A learning-rate schedule that decreases linearly over training. "with a linear-decay learning-rate schedule."
- LLM pretraining: LLM pretraining; large-scale training on text corpora before fine-tuning. "particularly LLM pretraining."
- Navier–Stokes equations: Fundamental partial differential equations describing the motion of viscous fluid substances. "governed by the Navier-Stokes equations"
- Nesterov momentum: A momentum variant that computes gradients at a lookahead point to improve acceleration and stability. "Nesterov momentum of $0.9$"
- Newton–Schulz algorithm: An iterative matrix method used to approximate matrix functions such as inverse square roots and orthogonal factors. "apply the Newton-Schulz algorithm"
- periodic boundary conditions: Boundary conditions where edges of the domain wrap around, making opposite boundaries equivalent. "with periodic boundary conditions"
- preconditioning: Transforming the optimization problem (e.g., via curvature approximations) to speed up and stabilize convergence. "dense matrix preconditioning techniques"
- Reynolds number: A dimensionless quantity indicating the flow regime by comparing inertial to viscous forces. "a large Reynolds number "
- score-based data assimilation: Assimilation that leverages a learned score (gradient of log-density) of trajectories to estimate the posterior distribution. "score-based data assimilation"
- score function: The gradient of the log-density of the data distribution, used in score-based generative modeling. "which learns the score function of a dynamical system trajectory"
- singular value decomposition (SVD): A matrix factorization G = UΣVᵀ that expresses a matrix via orthonormal bases and singular values. "is the singular value decomposition"
- spectral norm: The largest singular value of a matrix, measuring its maximum amplification factor. "steepest descent in the spectral norm"
- time embedding: A vector representation of time or diffusion step injected into the model to encode temporal context. "a time embedding dimension of $64$."
- U-Net: An encoder–decoder convolutional architecture with skip connections, originally for image segmentation. "a U-Net model"
- warmup: An initial training phase that ramps up the learning rate from a small value to stabilize early optimization. "we add warmup and gradient clipping by default"
- warmup-stable-decay (wsd) schedule: A schedule with an initial warmup, a constant (stable) phase, and a final decay, designed to be “anytime.” "The wsd schedule matches or surpasses the performance of cosine for LLM pretraining"
- weight decay: A regularization technique that penalizes large weights, often implemented as decoupled L2 decay in optimizers. "we tune learning rate and weight decay separately"
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.
