How far away are truly hyperparameter-free learning algorithms?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite major advances in methodology, hyperparameter tuning remains a crucial (and expensive) part of the development of machine learning systems. Even ignoring architectural choices, deep neural networks have a large number of optimization and regularization hyperparameters that need to be tuned carefully per workload in order to obtain the best results. In a perfect world, training algorithms would not require workload-specific hyperparameter tuning, but would instead have default settings that performed well across many workloads. Recently, there has been a growing literature on optimization methods which attempt to reduce the number of hyperparameters -- particularly the learning rate and its accompanying schedule. Given these developments, how far away is the dream of neural network training algorithms that completely obviate the need for painful tuning? In this paper, we evaluate the potential of learning-rate-free methods as components of hyperparameter-free methods. We freeze their (non-learning rate) hyperparameters to default values, and score their performance using the recently-proposed AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. We found that literature-supplied default settings performed poorly on the benchmark, so we performed a search for hyperparameter configurations that performed well across all workloads simultaneously. The best AlgoPerf-calibrated learning-rate-free methods had much improved performance but still lagged slightly behind a similarly calibrated NadamW baseline in overall benchmark score. Our results suggest that there is still much room for improvement for learning-rate-free methods, and that testing against a strong, workload-agnostic baseline is important to improve hyperparameter reduction techniques.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2025.
Builds on
24 of 45 references.
References · 24
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 6,979
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 4,993
- 2017Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hourcited by 1,479
- 2019Wide Neural Networks of Any Depth Evolve as Linear Models Under Gradient Descentcited by 732
- 2016Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 688
- 2015Cyclical Learning Rates for Training Neural Networkscited by 627
- 2024The Road Less Scheduledcited by 158
- 2020Stochastic Polyak Step-size for SGD: An Adaptive Learning Rate for Fast Convergencecited by 137
- 2023Prodigy: An Expeditiously Adaptive Parameter-Free Learnercited by 129
- 2019An Exponential Learning Rate Schedule for Deep Learningcited by 121
12 more
- 2020Descending through a Crowded Valley - Benchmarking Deep Learning Optimizerscited by 118
- 2023Learning-Rate-Free Learning by D-Adaptationcited by 113
- 2023DoG is SGD's Best Friend: A Parameter-Free Dynamic Step Size Schedulecited by 85
- 2024Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizerscited by 71
- 2023Benchmarking Neural Network Training Algorithmscited by 46
- 2019Training Neural Networks for and by Interpolationcited by 45
- 2023DoWG Unleashed: An Efficient Universal Parameter-Free Gradient Descent Methodcited by 35
- 2025Accelerating Neural Network Training: An Analysis of the AlgoPerf Competitioncited by 30
- 2023MoMo: Momentum Models for Adaptive Learning Ratescited by 24
- 2023Mechanic: A Learning Rate Tunercited by 20
- 2017Critical Hyper-Parameters: No Random, No Crycited by 8
- 2021Predicting the utility of search spaces for black-box optimization: a simple, budget-aware approachcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.