Silent Inconsistency in Data-Parallel Full Fine-Tuning: Diagnosing Worker-Level Optimization Misalignment
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data-parallel (DP) training with synchronous all-reduce is a dominant paradigm for full-parameter fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs). While parameter synchronization guarantees numerical equivalence of model weights after each iteration, it does not necessarily imply alignment of worker-level optimization dynamics before gradient aggregation. This paper identifies and studies this latent mismatch, termed silent inconsistency, where cross-worker divergence in losses and gradients can remain invisible under conventional aggregated monitoring signals. We propose a lightweight, model-agnostic diagnostic framework that quantifies worker-level consistency using training signals readily available in standard pipelines. Specifically, we introduce three complementary metrics: loss dispersion, gradient-norm dispersion, and gradient-direction consistency measured by inter-worker cosine similarity. The proposed metrics incur negligible overhead and require no modification to model architecture, synchronization mechanisms, or optimization algorithms. We validate the framework by fully fine-tuning the 1B-parameter textttopenPangu-Embedded-1B-V1.1 model on the texttttatsu-lab/alpaca dataset using an 8-NPU DP setup, under controlled perturbations of cross-rank stochasticity. Experimental results show that progressively desynchronized data shuffling and random seeds lead to substantial increases in loss/gradient dispersion and reduced directional alignment, despite smooth globally averaged loss curves. These findings demonstrate that the proposed indicators provide actionable visibility into hidden instability modes in large-scale DP fine-tuning, enabling more reliable diagnosis and configuration assessment.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2026.
Builds on
15 of 21 references.
References · 15
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
- 2019Large Batch Optimization for Deep Learning: Training BERT in 76 minutescited by 671
- 2021Efficient Large-Scale Language Model Training on GPU Clusters Using Megatron-LMcited by 621
- 2018Horovod: fast and easy distributed deep learning in TensorFlowcited by 275
- 2024Inexact Unlearning Needs More Careful Evaluations to Avoid a False Sense of Privacycited by 78
- 2024How Does Critical Batch Size Scale in Pre-training?cited by 68
- 2025Gluon: Making Muon & Scion Great Again! (Bridging Theory and Practice of LMO-based Optimizers for LLMs)cited by 66
- 2025Pangu Embedded: An Efficient Dual-system LLM Reasoner with Metacognitioncited by 61
- 2024Large Language Model Inference Acceleration: A Comprehensive Hardware Perspectivecited by 36
- 2023Training and inference of large language models using 8-bit floating pointcited by 20
- 2025Understanding Silent Data Corruption in LLM Trainingcited by 13
3 more
- 2025Training with Confidence: Catching Silent Errors in Deep Learning Training with Automated Proactive Checkscited by 10
- 2025A Systematic Survey on Debugging Techniques for Machine Learning Systemscited by 2
- 2026Training instability in deep learning follows low-dimensional dynamical principlescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.