Simplifying Transformer Blocks
arxiv.org
arxiv.org
I am by no means an expert and I can’t verify the authors’ claims about reduced speed and untrainability, but this reflects an impression I’ve been having on the papers I read and review. The field of ML research is moving so fast that people don’t even take time anymore to explain the design decisions behind their architectures. It’s basically “we got nice results, and here is the architecture of the model” (proceeds to show a figure with a hundred coloured blocks connected together in some seemingly random complex way).
It used to be that such a thing would get backlash from reviewers, and they would require you to actually justify the design. I don’t see that anymore. The problem with this for me is that we fail to build a nice, crisp understanding of the effects of each design decision in the final outcomes, which hurts the actual “science” of it. It also opens up the field for bogus and unreproducible claims.
But at least other people are picking up on the thread and doing that in follow-up papers, which is good.
I hate to say it, because that's not how science should work, but with the flood of papers, looking at who wrote a paper is probably one of the more reliable indicators of quality. The reason is that people with a reputation are putting their reputation at stake when publishing something. Publishing BS would reflect badly on them, so they tend to go through more quality control. An unknown researcher at an unknown lab has nothing to lose by flooding arxiv with BS papers, which on the surface are indistinguishable from high quality work.
Aww, the poor babies. This the the nature of working with complex systems (life sciences, physics, social sciences, etc): teasing out signal from very noisy data that is quite expensive (in time at least) to obtain.
On the engineering side things can (but don't always) move faster with a different kind of rigour. And that applies to observational reports in the sciences as well.
All of which is to say that there's nothing wrong with the flood of papers that have a bunch of colored boxes and some running code. But consider those to be the equivalent of most of the reports in the 18th century Royal Society: "I have just returned from being a passenger on the HMS Foobar; while on the Malabar coast I saw an odd insect that looked like this drawing"
And conversely spend referees' precious time on actual science.
What I tell my students is "you don't need math to make good models but you need math to know why your models are wrong." This seems to be becoming more important than ever. Hell, how many people know about the Whitney embedding theorem? That itself helps answer half my undergrad questions and I think it's relatively unknown.
But you need both. The thinkers and tinkerers. Referring to my longer rant, industry has captured the research field. I'm really happy they're involved but we're responding in insane ways. Let academia be the thinkers and let them make small models and don't expect a $100M budget for every paper. It's the railroading that annoys me and I think it's anti science. But no one wants to even acknowledge it's existence. I'll go ahead and say there's not much use to GPT papers unless you work for OpenAI (not to be confused with LLM papers). Let people explore new architectures and don't make them compete with sota models that have billions of dollars and man hours put into them. Hype is killing our field and it's hard to see because we're a high functioning addict.
I have the opposite view. Science should be incremental and authors should be incentivized to share their (interesting) findings early and often. This makes the community as whole move faster because you get more visibility, funding, man-hours dedicated to things that are on the leading edge of research. Consider a scenario where a researcher is required to explain exactly why some phenomenon happens. Maybe it took 1 year to find the original phenomenon and then it takes 10 years to explain it to a reasonable level. Everyone only gets the benefit of this research 11 years after. Now consider the opposite scenario. After 1 year the author publishes and gets the attention of fellow colleagues. Some of them will collaborate together adding more man-hours / year, reducing the total time. Some of them might have already discovered something similar and thus avoid all repeated work. Some of them might be better positioned to solve the explanation piece based on their field of expertise, personal interests, availability. All of this makes the innovation happen faster.
What you often see (or should see in high quality papers) is an hypothesis of why something happens. This in itself is valuable. Many hypotheses are unproven until today. If you assume that these hypotheses are true you'll often find better results or find them faster; and if you don't you have discovered something interesting to report on.
This was actually a major issue one of my PhD advisors had, since it led to poor foundations for the field with little incentive to ensure their validity.
Alas, whether their idea will withstand the current incentives structure in academia, remains to be seen.
Often, they don't fully understand why certain methods work, they simply experiment and observe the outcomes. This sentiment is echoed by one of the authors of the Transformer paper in another publication[1], where he states:
"We offer no explanation as to why these architectures seem to work; we attribute their success, as with all else, to divine benevolence."
We still lack a theoretical framework to understand and predict such things. ML research is empirical, observational research. It's like publishing a physics paper, "we saw a current in a wire when we moved it past a magnet" before we really understood electromagnetism. Theoretical understanding will hopefully come later.
It makes a lot of sense to me that we are just throwing a lot at the wall right now to see what sticks. Once we have a nice collection of sticky results I have optimism that the theories explaining that stickiness will appear.
Some models like RWKV (which isn’t a transformer model) explain the design decisions in their paper, but generally that’s not the case.
Nobody knows why, nobody seems to be looking into it.
We’re all just trying to figure out how to improve the outcome atm.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2021/1...
He has proofs and theorems about frontiers of maximal feature learning before things devolve into equivalent to kernel methods, and more: a whole bunch of breakthrough math making deep links with random matrix theory.
It's not random or bogus but it's also not exactly natural science in the sense that it answers "why" or "how".
Has it ever? I've read a lot of "old" papers and idk if there's ever been a strong theoretical framework. I'd say it is strongest today but not in main papers and those papers are getting rejected because of lack of experiments (wtf is going on with reviewing and why are our solutions "authors have to show reviewers used LLMs"[-1] not "reviewers have to provide meaningful review"? What a joke!). Here's a more recent Universal Approximation paper[0]. Cyberko paper[1] is good, but I think we're moving in the right direction, at least with respect to these two works. Other UA papers I've seen are pretty handwavy.
But simple also doesn't mean "not useful" or "not worthy of publish" and I think this is something people are forgetting lately. Probably because we're asked to review too much and annoyed, but don't take it out on authors. Some examples are GELU[2] (read the end, there's drama in this paper), Clean-FID (CVPR 22)[3], ViT (ICLR 21) and DeiT (ICML 21)[4,5], and even ResNet (CVPR 16)[6] and tons of ReLU papers we can list. But let's also not confuse big compute with "good work" (they correlate but aren't the same. You can definitely do more with more compute).
> he problem with this for me is that we fail to build a nice, crisp understanding of the effects of each design decision in the final outcomes, which hurts the actual “science” of it. It also opens up the field for bogus and unreproducible claims.
This is mostly an unsolvable problem in science and I think we actually have bigger problems. This can be solved without conferences due to our community being fairly good about open sourcing code and checkpoints (at least compared to any other research area), as well as just the papers themselves. Reproducibility is only able to be done when people can actually replicate works (lol sorry GPT papers...). What helps this is moving away from publish or perish or allowing people to publish works that are replication attempts (replication is the foundation of science. Why does everything have to be "novel", whatever that means).
The bigger problem I see is actually related to the above. Publishing is just insane. It is easy, especially in fast moving times, to claim any work is incremental or not novel. That it's "just x but y". My feelings are "so what?" ViT is "just a transformer on images but image patches are tokens," yet it's insanely useful. It's obvious post hoc but not a priori. If it was, it would already be in use (ViT actually being a good example given the timeline). Everything is simpler and much more obvious after you've already seen it, which is why the whole notion of novelty is ridiculous. We humans just rewrite history in our minds and we also only concentrate on what's popular (lots of incentives, especially with reviewing insanity). Poor Ross Wightman gets shadowed for replications and improving ResNets though (and poor ConvNext). But we're seeing big labs do this and get through because they can do lots of experiments and build a lot of empirical evidence towards work, despite no additional theory.
The problem? What about the academics? I don't know how people publish without connections to big labs (aka big compute) anymore. The ideas from the groups are the same (industry is a bit more hyped), but I've seen papers where the theory is good, the architecture makes sense (and is well explained) and my co-reviewers for a fucking workshop want to reject it because "not enough experiments" and "only one 'real world' experiment." These are papers that are on par or better than many I see in the main conferences (you can tell they're shifted to workshops due to rejects). Talk about holding back science. Holding back science is making authors submit works over and over and over to get orthogonal reviews every time. Holding back science is me arguing with my co-reviewers who admitted to not understanding the work that "more experiments" is not a sufficient reason to reject from a workshop (or a main conference).
Hell, I got rejected once for a distillation paper and the reviewers complained that my teacher model's performance didn't match that of the original paper (no one has replicated that work btw, and I beat the second best published result I could find). Another paper I got hard rejected because I redacted a github link and an appendix citation broke when splitting the work. Guess what the ACs did? They let that person write a stronger response and then because they were the only high confidence reviewer on that paper (others were 3/5 confidence and borderline/WA) and so rejected the work. What kind of insane system is that? I see instances like this all over the place from many different peers across many different universities. There's more that's broken before we can even begin to talk about other issues because our system of "what qualifies as meaningful work" shouldn't be a fucking slot machine run by undergrads.
CVPR has well over 10k submissions. Good luck to the <500 ACs and all the reviewers. God have mercy on the grad students who are just trying to graduate. I'm sure you're all doing good work even if the reviewer didn't read a word. I hope your pictures and tables are enough.
[-1] https://twitter.com/CVPR/status/1722384482261508498
[0] https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v23/20-1433.html
[1] https://web.njit.edu/~usman/courses/cs675_fall18/10.1.1.441....
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08415
[3] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~clean-fid/
[4] https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929
I find the Transformer architecture actually very simple compared to previous models like LSTMs or other recurrent models. You could argue that their vision counterparts like ViT are conceptually maybe even simpler than ConvNets?
Also, can someone explain why they are so keen to remove the skip connections? At least when it comes to coding, nothing is simpler than adding a skip connection and computationally the effect should be marginal?
This is especially true for example for inference for vision transformers, where it decrease the batch size you can use before hitting the L2 capacity wall.
I appreciate the sibling comment perspective that memory pressure is a problem, but that can be mediated by using fewer/longer skip connections across blocks of layers.
University researchers without a big lab's backing cannot try out such experiments on really large models.
I was using a 3090 though - I remember that because I was using vast.ai and a cheapskate! That card has serious bang for buck.
Pretty much at this point, to succeed transformer, one need to showcase, the alternative model could achieve chatgpt level performance with either significant reduction of compute or data requirements.