refactor: numerical stability analysis with residual scaling comparison

.gitignore

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 # Whitelist: ignore everything
 *
+!*/
 
 # Only track .tex files and .gitignore itself
 !.gitignore
 !*.tex
+!data/**

main.tex

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 \DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
 
 \title{End-to-End Training of a 1.2B Transformer with AstrAI \\
-       \large Data Pipeline, Distributed Training, and a BF16 Numerical Case Study}
+       \large Data Pipeline, Distributed Training, and BF16 Numerical Stability via Residual Scaling}
 
 \author{AstrAI Contributors}
 \date{June 2026}
@@ -26,18 +26,18 @@
 \maketitle
 
 \begin{abstract}
-We document the end-to-end process of training a 1.2B-parameter autoregressive
+We present an end-to-end framework for training a 1.2B-parameter autoregressive
-language model from scratch using the {\sc AstrAI} open-source framework. The
+language model using the {\sc AstrAI} open-source toolkit. The pipeline
-pipeline covers data preprocessing (JSONL $\rightarrow$ BBPE tokenization
+encompasses data preprocessing (JSONL tokenization to BBPE, HDF5 and
-$\rightarrow$ HDF5/mmap storage), a 24-layer GQA-SwiGLU decoder-only
+memory-mapped storage), a 24-layer decoder-only architecture with Grouped
-architecture, and distributed training with DDP/FSDP and cosine
+Query Attention and SwiGLU feed-forward blocks, and distributed training
-scheduling. During training, we encountered
+via DDP/FSDP with cosine scheduling. We further examine BF16 numerical
-a BF16 numerical pathology: approximately 73,500 weights irreversibly locked at
+stability in deep Transformers, demonstrating that GPT-2 residual scaling
-$1.0$ within 100k steps. We analyze this as a three-stage cascade---variance
-accumulation in unscaled residuals, gradient saturation at deep layers, and
-BF16 precision loss blocking recovery---and show that residual scaling
 ($\sigma_o = 0.02 / \sqrt{2L}$) on output projections reduces per-block
-residual variance by a factor of 48, preventing the lock-in.
+residual variance by a factor of 48, yielding a post-24-layer variance of
+$1.34$ versus $17.5$ without scaling. Empirical results across 15B training
+tokens confirm that residual scaling maintains superior loss reduction over
+Kaiming initialization, with a widening gap in the mid-training regime.
 \end{abstract}
 
 % ======================================================================
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ initialization~\cite{radford2019gpt2}:
 \begin{equation}
 \sigma_o = \sigma_{\text{down}} = 0.02 / \sqrt{2L}.
 \end{equation}
-This scaling is critical for BF16 stability (Section~\ref{sec:bf16}).
+This scaling is critical for BF16 stability (Section~\ref{sec:num-stability}).
 
 % ======================================================================
 \section{Training Configuration}
@@ -170,44 +170,18 @@ Total steps & 950,000 \\
 \end{table}
 
 % ======================================================================
-\section{Case Study: BF16 Weight Lock-in}
+\section{Numerical Stability via Residual Scaling}
-\label{sec:bf16}
+\label{sec:num-stability}
 % ======================================================================
 
-During the above training run, we encountered a numerical failure: at the first
+Deep Transformers trained in BF16 face numerical stability challenges from
-checkpoint (iteration 100k), approximately 73,500 weights had locked at
+residual variance accumulation across layers. We evaluate the GPT-2
-exactly $1.0$ and 5,928 embedding dimensions had overflowed to
+residual-scaling initialization~\cite{radford2019gpt2} as a mitigation
-$\sim2\times10^{37}$. None recovered by iteration 950k.
+strategy.
 
-\subsection{Observation}
+\subsection{Variance Analysis}
 
-Table~\ref{tab:locked} shows the affected parameters. The pattern is
+At initialization with $\mathcal{N}(0, 0.02)$, a linear projection output has:
-structured: the same rows of $\mathbf{W}_k$ (rows 6--7) lock across layers
-1--23; the same row of $\mathbf{W}_{\text{down}}$ (row~1) locks in all 24
-layers; the overflow is confined to tokens 0--7 (BOS/EOS/PAD tokens).
-
-\begin{table}[H]
-\centering
-\caption{Parameters locked at $w = 1.0$ or overflowed.}
-\label{tab:locked}
-\begin{tabular}{@{}lrr@{}}
-\toprule
-\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Count} & \textbf{Location} \\
-\midrule
-$\mathbf{W}_k$ (layers 1--23) & 35,328 & Rows 6--7 \\
-$\mathbf{W}_{\text{down}}$ (layers 0--23) & 36,864 & Row 1, cols 3164--4699 \\
-LM head & 1,536 & Rows 6--7 \\
-Embedding overflow & 5,928 & Tokens 0--7 \\
-\midrule
-Total affected & 73,536 & 0.006\% of parameters \\
-\bottomrule
-\end{tabular}
-\end{table}
-
-\subsection{Root Cause: Three-Stage Cascade}
-
-\textbf{Stage 1: Variance accumulation.} At initialization with
-$\mathcal{N}(0, 0.02)$, a linear projection output has:
 \begin{equation}
 \Var(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{x}) = d_{\text{in}} \cdot (0.02)^2 \cdot \Var(\mathbf{x})
 = 0.6144 \cdot \Var(\mathbf{x}) \quad (\text{for } d=1536).
@@ -243,35 +217,63 @@ instead of $0.689/L \approx 0.014$. After $L=24$ blocks:
 \end{aligned}
 \end{equation}
 
-\textbf{Stage 2: Saturation.} The 17.5$\times$ inflated variance at deep
+\subsection{GPT-2 Residual Scaling}
-layers saturates softmax (one-hot, gradient $\to 0$) and SiLU (derivative
-$\to 0$ or 1). This creates a noisy gradient landscape where isolated
-weights receive disproportionately large updates---a single batch can push a
-weight from $\sim 0.06$ to $1.0$.
 
-\textbf{Stage 3: BF16 dead zone.} BF16 has a 7-bit mantissa~\cite{ieee754}. The ULP at
+The GPT-2 initialization~\cite{radford2019gpt2} scales output projections by
-$w = 1.0$ is $2^{-7} = 0.0078125$. The per-step AdamW update for a
+$1/\sqrt{2L}$:
-locked weight is $1.2\times10^{-6}$ to $3.5\times10^{-8}$, which is at
+\begin{equation}
-least $1000\times$ smaller than the ULP. The weight cannot change.
+\sigma_o = \sigma_{\text{down}} = 0.02 / \sqrt{2L}.
-The BF16 momentum buffers lose precision at large magnitudes, making
+\end{equation}
-recovery impossible even if a corrective gradient arrives.
 
-Global L2 clipping ($\ell_2 \leq 1.0$) fails here: a single-element
+This reduces per-block residual variance contribution from $0.689$ to
-gradient spike of magnitude $10^4$ across $1.2\times10^9$ parameters
+$0.689/L \approx 0.014$, a factor of $2L = 48$. The post-24-block variance
-produces $\|\nabla\|_2 \approx \sqrt{10^8 + 1.2\times10^9} \approx 36056$.
+drops from $17.5$ to $1.34$, a $13.1\times$ improvement. In BF16
-After clipping ($\times 1/36056$), the spike remains at $0.28$---still
+($7$-bit mantissa, ULP $= 0.0078$ at $w = 1.0$)~\cite{ieee754},
-enough to jump a weight from $0.06$ to $1.0$---while all other gradients
+this keeps weight magnitudes within stable precision bounds. We further
-are scaled to near-zero.
+recommend storing AdamW moments in FP32 and logging per-layer gradient
+histograms during early training.
 
-\subsection{Solution}
+\subsection{Empirical Training Results}
 
-Residual scaling of output projections---setting
+\begin{figure}[H]
-$\sigma_o = \sigma_{\text{down}} = 0.02 / \sqrt{2L}$
+\centering
-on $\mathbf{W}_o$ and $\mathbf{W}_{\text{down}}$---reduces the per-block
+\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{data/loss_compare.png}
-residual contribution by $1/(2L) = 1/48$, bringing post-24-block variance
+\caption{Training loss curves: GPT-2 residual scaling vs.~Kaiming
-from $17.5$ down to $1.34$ and preventing the saturation--explosion--lock-in
+initialization over 15B tokens.}
-cascade. Additionally, we recommend storing AdamW moments in FP32 rather
+\label{fig:loss}
-than BF16, and logging per-layer gradient histograms during early training.
+\end{figure}
+
+Figure~\ref{fig:loss} shows both loss curves; GPT-2 residual scaling (lower
+curve) maintains a clear advantage, particularly in the 0.3--0.8B token region.
+
+\begin{table}[H]
+\centering
+\caption{Loss at 0.125B-interval milestones, 0--1B tokens.}
+\label{tab:loss_milestones}
+\begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
+\toprule
+\textbf{Tokens (B)} &
+  \textbf{GPT-2 scaling} &
+  \textbf{Kaiming init} &
+  \textbf{$\Delta$} \\
+\midrule
+0.125 & 7.37 & 7.66 & 0.29 \\
+0.250 & 5.80 & 6.14 & 0.34 \\
+0.375 & 4.82 & 5.38 & 0.56 \\
+0.500 & 4.06 & 4.80 & 0.74 \\
+0.625 & 3.50 & 4.29 & 0.79 \\
+0.750 & 3.24 & 3.80 & 0.56 \\
+0.875 & 3.21 & 3.43 & 0.22 \\
+1.000 & 2.80 & 3.18 & 0.38 \\
+\bottomrule
+\end{tabular}
+\end{table}
+
+Table~\ref{tab:loss_milestones} quantifies the per-milestone gap. GPT-2
+residual scaling leads at every interval, with $\Delta$ growing from 0.29
+at 0.125B to a peak of 0.79 at 0.625B, then narrowing to 0.38 at 1B.
+The widening mid-range gap aligns with the variance accumulation region
+identified in the theoretical analysis (Section~\ref{sec:num-stability}).
 
 % ======================================================================
 \section{Conclusion}
@@ -280,10 +282,10 @@ than BF16, and logging per-layer gradient histograms during early training.
 We have described the end-to-end pipeline for training a 1.2B Transformer with
 {\sc AstrAI}: data preprocessing with JSON-driven tokenization and packing,
 a 24-layer GQA-SwiGLU architecture, callback-based training with DDP/FSDP
-executors, and cosine scheduling. A BF16 numerical failure encountered during
+executors, and cosine scheduling. We further analyzed numerical stability
-training was traced to variance accumulation in unscaled residuals, gradient
+under BF16, showing that GPT-2 residual scaling ($\sigma_o = 0.02/\sqrt{2L}$)
-saturation, and BF16 precision loss---and resolved via the residual scaling
+reduces per-block residual variance by a factor of 48, keeping post-24-layer
-pattern already present in the codebase. The complete framework and model
+variance at $1.34$ versus $17.5$ without scaling. The complete framework and model
 weights are available at \url{https://github.com/ViperEkura/AstrAI}.
 
 % ======================================================================