Trust, but Verify: Peeling Low-Bit Transformer Networks for Training Monitoring
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Understanding whether deep neural networks are effectively optimized remains challenging, as training occurs in highly nonconvex landscapes and standard metrics provide limited visibility into layer-wise learning quality. This challenge is particularly acute for transformer-based language models, where training is expensive, models are often reused in frozen form, and poorly optimized layers can silently degrade performance. We propose a layer-wise peeling framework for monitoring training dynamics, in which each transformer layer is locally optimized against intermediate representations of the trained model. By constructing lightweight, layer-specific reference solutions and projecting layers onto multiple intermediate outputs via different permutations, we obtain achievable baselines that enable fine-grained diagnosis of under-optimized layers. Experiments on decoder-only transformer models show that these layer-wise reference bounds can match or even surpass the trained model at various stages of training, exposing inefficiencies that remain hidden in aggregate loss curves. We further demonstrate that this analysis remains effective under binarization and quantized settings, where training dynamics are particularly fragile. Across all numerical results, the proposed bounds consistently separate apparent convergence from effective optimality, highlighting optimization opportunities that are invisible when relying on training loss alone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2026.
Builds on
21 of 25 references.
References · 21
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,195
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
- 2017Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hourcited by 1,479
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2016Optimization Methods for Large-Scale Machine Learningcited by 1,140
- 2018A Convergence Theory for Deep Learning via Over-Parameterizationcited by 784
- 2020How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model?cited by 713
- 2018Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlationcited by 318
- 2024The Era of 1-bit LLMs: All Large Language Models are in 1.58 Bitscited by 289
9 more
- 2014Identifying and attacking the saddle point problem in high-dimensional non-convex optimizationcited by 286
- 2014The Loss Surfaces of Multilayer Networkscited by 278
- 2021Scaling Laws for Transfercited by 265
- 2023Beyond Chinchilla-Optimal: Accounting for Inference in Language Model Scaling Lawscited by 155
- 2020Closing the convergence gap of SGD without replacementcited by 56
- 2017Geometry of Optimization and Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 39
- 2020On Convergence-Diagnostic based Step Sizes for Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 11
- 2022Generalization Bounds for Stochastic Gradient Descent via Localized varepsilon-Coverscited by 11
- 2024Optimistic Verifiable Training by Controlling Hardware Nondeterminismcited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.