-
Benchmarking Neural Network Training Algorithms
Authors:
George E. Dahl,
Frank Schneider,
Zachary Nado,
Naman Agarwal,
Chandramouli Shama Sastry,
Philipp Hennig,
Sourabh Medapati,
Runa Eschenhagen,
Priya Kasimbeg,
Daniel Suo,
Juhan Bae,
Justin Gilmer,
Abel L. Peirson,
Bilal Khan,
Rohan Anil,
Mike Rabbat,
Shankar Krishnan,
Daniel Snider,
Ehsan Amid,
Kongtao Chen,
Chris J. Maddison,
Rakshith Vasudev,
Michal Badura,
Ankush Garg,
Peter Mattson
Abstract:
Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a communi…
▽ More
Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
MLPerf Inference Benchmark
Authors:
Vijay Janapa Reddi,
Christine Cheng,
David Kanter,
Peter Mattson,
Guenther Schmuelling,
Carole-Jean Wu,
Brian Anderson,
Maximilien Breughe,
Mark Charlebois,
William Chou,
Ramesh Chukka,
Cody Coleman,
Sam Davis,
Pan Deng,
Greg Diamos,
Jared Duke,
Dave Fick,
J. Scott Gardner,
Itay Hubara,
Sachin Idgunji,
Thomas B. Jablin,
Jeff Jiao,
Tom St. John,
Pankaj Kanwar,
David Lee
, et al. (22 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devic…
▽ More
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devices to data-center solutions. Fueling the hardware are a dozen or more software frameworks and libraries. The myriad combinations of ML hardware and ML software make assessing ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner challenging. There is a clear need for industry-wide standard ML benchmarking and evaluation criteria. MLPerf Inference answers that call. In this paper, we present our benchmarking method for evaluating ML inference systems. Driven by more than 30 organizations as well as more than 200 ML engineers and practitioners, MLPerf prescribes a set of rules and best practices to ensure comparability across systems with wildly differing architectures. The first call for submissions garnered more than 600 reproducible inference-performance measurements from 14 organizations, representing over 30 systems that showcase a wide range of capabilities. The submissions attest to the benchmark's flexibility and adaptability.
△ Less
Submitted 9 May, 2020; v1 submitted 6 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
-
MLPerf Training Benchmark
Authors:
Peter Mattson,
Christine Cheng,
Cody Coleman,
Greg Diamos,
Paulius Micikevicius,
David Patterson,
Hanlin Tang,
Gu-Yeon Wei,
Peter Bailis,
Victor Bittorf,
David Brooks,
Dehao Chen,
Debojyoti Dutta,
Udit Gupta,
Kim Hazelwood,
Andrew Hock,
Xinyuan Huang,
Atsushi Ike,
Bill Jia,
Daniel Kang,
David Kanter,
Naveen Kumar,
Jeffery Liao,
Guokai Ma,
Deepak Narayanan
, et al. (12 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Machine learning (ML) needs industry-standard performance benchmarks to support design and competitive evaluation of the many emerging software and hardware solutions for ML. But ML training presents three unique benchmarking challenges absent from other domains: optimizations that improve training throughput can increase the time to solution, training is stochastic and time to solution exhibits h…
▽ More
Machine learning (ML) needs industry-standard performance benchmarks to support design and competitive evaluation of the many emerging software and hardware solutions for ML. But ML training presents three unique benchmarking challenges absent from other domains: optimizations that improve training throughput can increase the time to solution, training is stochastic and time to solution exhibits high variance, and software and hardware systems are so diverse that fair benchmarking with the same binary, code, and even hyperparameters is difficult. We therefore present MLPerf, an ML benchmark that overcomes these challenges. Our analysis quantitatively evaluates MLPerf's efficacy at driving performance and scalability improvements across two rounds of results from multiple vendors.
△ Less
Submitted 2 March, 2020; v1 submitted 2 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.