Compare commits
2
Commits
d93ff48320
...
4b37f289c0
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
4b37f289c0 | ||
|
|
a83555f326 |
@@ -29,29 +29,26 @@
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{abstract}
|
||||
We present {\sc AstrAI}, an open-source framework for end-to-end training
|
||||
of a 1.2B-parameter Transformer on $\sim$20B tokens. The pipeline covers
|
||||
of a 1.2B-parameter Transformer on $\sim$25B tokens. The pipeline covers
|
||||
JSON-driven BBPE preprocessing with multi-strategy packing, tiered
|
||||
storage backends (in-memory HDF5, memory-mapped binary, and lazy JSONL), and a companion SFT pipeline ({\sc Alembic}) with MinHash
|
||||
deduplication and LLM-as-Judge scoring. The 24-layer decoder uses GQA,
|
||||
SwiGLU, RoPE, and RMSNorm, trained with a hybrid Muon/AdamW optimizer and
|
||||
WSD (Warmup--Stable--Decay) scheduling under DDP/FSDP. A BF16 stability analysis shows that
|
||||
GPT-2 residual scaling substantially reduces per-block residual variance
|
||||
accumulation, keeping post-training variance well below the overflow
|
||||
threshold of standard initialization; empirically this yields a sustained
|
||||
loss advantage over Kaiming initialization throughout training.
|
||||
Systematic ablations show that the hybrid Muon/AdamW optimizer
|
||||
outperforms pure AdamW on 2D weight matrices, and that GPT-2 residual
|
||||
scaling yields a sustained loss advantage over both Kaiming and Normal
|
||||
initialization throughout training. Post-training weight distribution
|
||||
analysis across three checkpoints---varying optimizer, initialization,
|
||||
and training budget---confirms that residual-scaled projections
|
||||
maintain narrow distributions throughout training, preserving the
|
||||
numerical stability established at initialization. An SVD-based
|
||||
effective rank analysis further reveals that the model operates near
|
||||
its representational capacity, with attention Q/O projections
|
||||
consistently showing lower utilization than K/V projections, a pattern
|
||||
stable across all configurations and consistent with the low-rank
|
||||
structure induced by grouped query attention.
|
||||
storage backends, and a companion SFT pipeline ({\sc Alembic}) with
|
||||
MinHash deduplication. The 24-layer GQA-SwiGLU decoder is trained with a
|
||||
hybrid Muon/AdamW optimizer and WSD scheduling under DDP/FSDP.
|
||||
Supervised fine-tuning on deduplicated bilingual instructions reduces loss
|
||||
from $\sim$2.5 to $\sim$1.6 over 1{,}000~steps; DPO alignment
|
||||
($\beta=0.1$, cosine schedule) on model-generated preference pairs
|
||||
converges stably without over-optimisation. A BF16 stability analysis
|
||||
shows that GPT-2 residual scaling ($\sigma_0 = 0.02/\sqrt{2L}$) reduces
|
||||
per-block activation variance by a factor of 48, and post-training weight
|
||||
analysis across three checkpoints confirms that residual-scaled
|
||||
projections remain consistently narrower than non-scaled weights across
|
||||
optimizers, initializations, and training budgets. Optimizer ablations
|
||||
demonstrate that the hybrid Muon/AdamW outperforms pure AdamW, with
|
||||
2D weight matrices benefiting from Muon's orthogonalisation and 1D
|
||||
parameters from AdamW's second-moment adaptation. An SVD effective-rank
|
||||
analysis reveals near-capacity weight utilization, with Q/O projections
|
||||
showing consistently lower effective rank than K/V projections under
|
||||
grouped query attention.
|
||||
\end{abstract}
|
||||
|
||||
% ======================================================================
|
||||
@@ -63,8 +60,10 @@ model architecture. Data must be preprocessed and stored efficiently, the
|
||||
training loop must handle distributed parallelism, gradient accumulation,
|
||||
checkpointing, and logging---and numerical pitfalls must be diagnosed and
|
||||
fixed. This paper describes the complete workflow using {\sc AstrAI}~\cite{astrai}, an
|
||||
open-source framework for Transformer training and inference. Beyond the
|
||||
pipeline, we conduct systematic ablations on optimizers (hybrid Muon/AdamW
|
||||
open-source framework for Transformer training and inference, from JSONL
|
||||
ingestion through pretraining, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on deduplicated
|
||||
bilingual instructions, and direct preference optimization (DPO) alignment.
|
||||
We also conduct systematic ablations on optimizers (hybrid Muon/AdamW
|
||||
versus pure AdamW) and initializations (GPT-2 residual scaling, Kaiming,
|
||||
and Normal), and analyse a BF16 precision issue encountered along the way.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -463,7 +462,7 @@ $1/\sqrt{2L}$:
|
||||
\end{equation}
|
||||
|
||||
This reduces per-block residual variance contribution from $0.689$ to
|
||||
$0.689/L \approx 0.014$, a factor of $2L = 48$. The post-24-block variance
|
||||
$0.689/(2L) \approx 0.014$, a factor of $2L = 48$. The post-24-block variance
|
||||
drops from $17.5$ to $1.34$, a $13.1\times$ improvement. In BF16
|
||||
($7$-bit mantissa, ULP $= 0.0078$ at $w = 1.0$)~\cite{ieee754},
|
||||
this keeps weight magnitudes within stable precision bounds. We further
|
||||
@@ -521,27 +520,25 @@ are visible in the per-component weight std
|
||||
(Table~\ref{tab:weight_std}, Appendix~\ref{app:weight_std}):
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{itemize}[nosep]
|
||||
\item \textbf{Training duration drives variance growth}: the
|
||||
\texttt{muon-25bt} checkpoint exhibits the largest weight std
|
||||
($\sim$0.024 for attention projections), exceeding both 15B
|
||||
checkpoints ($\sim$0.015--0.021), reflecting continued weight
|
||||
drift from $\sigma_0 = 0.02$ as training progresses.
|
||||
\item \textbf{Muon produces larger post-convergence weight
|
||||
variance}: the \texttt{muon-25bt} checkpoint (Muon, 25B tokens)
|
||||
exhibits the largest weight std ($\sim$0.024), exceeding both
|
||||
15B AdamW checkpoints ($\sim$0.015--0.021), consistent with
|
||||
Muon allowing wider parameter distributions after convergence.
|
||||
\item \textbf{Residual scaling constrains early-stage drift}: at
|
||||
equal training budget (15B tokens) and with the same AdamW
|
||||
optimizer, the GPT-2-scaled \texttt{kami-15bt} shows
|
||||
\emph{smaller} std ($\sim$0.015) than the Normal-init
|
||||
\texttt{norm-15bt} ($\sim$0.021), indicating that residual
|
||||
scaling itself limits weight drift beyond its initialization
|
||||
effect. The Muon-trained \texttt{muon-25bt} (25B tokens)
|
||||
exhibits the largest std because cumulative training steps
|
||||
eventually overtake both initialization and per-step optimizer
|
||||
constraints.
|
||||
effect.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
Critically, the residual-scaled projections remain bounded at
|
||||
$\sigma \approx 0.003$ across all checkpoints regardless of training
|
||||
duration, confirming that the $1/\sqrt{2L}$ scaling continues to
|
||||
enforce its design constraint throughout training.
|
||||
Critically, the residual-scaled projections maintain consistently
|
||||
lower standard deviations than their non-scaled counterparts across
|
||||
all three checkpoints (Table~\ref{tab:weight_std}), confirming that
|
||||
the $1/\sqrt{2L}$ scaling continues to enforce its design constraint
|
||||
throughout training.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[H]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
@@ -574,8 +571,16 @@ scaling ($\sigma_o = 0.02/\sqrt{2L}$) reduces per-block residual variance
|
||||
by a factor of 48, keeping post-24-layer variance at $1.34$ versus $17.5$
|
||||
without scaling. Post-training weight distribution analysis confirms that
|
||||
this scaling constraint persists throughout training, with residual-scaled
|
||||
projections maintaining narrow distributions ($\sigma \approx 0.003$)
|
||||
regardless of optimizer or training duration.
|
||||
projections maintaining consistently lower standard deviations than
|
||||
non-scaled weights across all checkpoints
|
||||
(Table~\ref{tab:weight_std}).
|
||||
|
||||
Supervised fine-tuning on deduplicated bilingual instructions (processed
|
||||
by the companion {\sc Alembic} pipeline with MinHash deduplication)
|
||||
reduces training loss from $\sim$2.5 to $\sim$1.6 over 1{,}000~WSD-scheduled
|
||||
steps. Subsequent DPO alignment on preference pairs ($\beta=0.1$, cosine
|
||||
schedule) converges stably without over-optimisation, reaching a minimum
|
||||
preference loss near step~1{,}200.
|
||||
|
||||
Optimizer ablations (Figure~\ref{fig:ckpt_comparison}) demonstrate that
|
||||
the hybrid Muon/AdamW configuration consistently outperforms pure AdamW
|
||||
@@ -773,7 +778,7 @@ selection signal without re-evaluating after fine-tuning.
|
||||
|
||||
To assess how well the trained parameters utilize their allocated
|
||||
capacity, we perform an SVD-based effective rank analysis on three
|
||||
checkpoints: \texttt{kami-15bt} (Muon, 15B tokens), \texttt{norm-15bt}
|
||||
checkpoints: \texttt{kami-15bt} (AdamW, GPT-2 residual scaling, 15B tokens), \texttt{norm-15bt}
|
||||
(Normal init, 15B tokens), and \texttt{muon-25bt} (Muon, 25B tokens).
|
||||
For each 2D weight matrix $\mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ with
|
||||
SVD $\mathbf{W} = \mathbf{U}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}\mathbf{V}^{\mkern-1mu\mathsf{T}}$,
|
||||
@@ -839,9 +844,10 @@ distribution analysis in Section~\ref{sec:num-stability}.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[H]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\caption{Weight std by component across checkpoints. Non-scaled
|
||||
weights broaden with training duration; Muon constrains drift at
|
||||
equal token count (15B) but is overtaken by longer training (25B).
|
||||
\caption{Weight std by component across checkpoints. Non-scaled weights
|
||||
broaden with training; residual scaling constrains drift at equal
|
||||
token count (15B). Muon produces larger post-convergence weight
|
||||
variance than AdamW.
|
||||
Residual-scaled projections ($\mathbf{W}_o$, $\mathbf{W}_{\text{down}}$)
|
||||
remain bounded.}
|
||||
\label{tab:weight_std}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user