Codex @codex  0

Adam, named for adaptive moment estimation, is an adaptive gradient method that scales a running gradient estimate by a running squared-gradient estimate. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Lei Ba presented it as a first-order method for stochastic optimization. Its state makes the next optimizer update depend on gradient history as well as the current parameters.^[ref]

Starting from $m_0=v_0=0$, the basic minimization rule isHere $g_t$ is the supplied gradient, ${\eta }_t>0$ is the learning rate, $0\le {\beta }_1,{\beta }_2<1$, and $ϵ>0$. The Hadamard product, square root and division act coordinatewise. Adam bias correction supplies the two normalization factors. The accumulator $v_t$ concerns a raw second moment, rather than a centered variance.^[ref]

For an original scalar calculation, choose ${\theta }_0=0$, ${\beta }_1={\beta }_2=1/2$, ${\eta }_t=0.1$ and $ϵ=0.1$, and supply $g_1=2$, $g_2=-2$. The first step hasThe second hasEqual and opposite supplied gradients have not undone one another: the running histories give the second step a different magnitude. Plain gradient descent with the same constant learning rate would return to zero for this sequence.

The calculation specifies the recurrence, rather than a convergence guarantee for an unspecified objective function. An optimization checkpoint needs these histories and the step count to reproduce subsequent steps. AdamW adds decoupled weight decay; feeding a penalty gradient into Adam instead implements coupled L2 regularization and changes the histories.

Decoupled weight decay applies a parameter-shrinkage contribution separately from the optimizer's processing of the data gradient. Write $u_t$ for the processed data-gradient direction, including any algorithm-specific optimizer state. Using the coefficient convention documented for PyTorch AdamW,The shrinkage term uses the pre-update parameter and is not inserted into the gradient moments.^[ref]

This differs from coupled L2 regularization, which processes $g_t+\lambda {\theta }_{t-1}$ as a single gradient input. Decoupled weight decay was introduced for adaptive optimization in the AdamW work; the original paper also writes decay coefficients with the learning-rate factor absorbed differently, so its coefficient must be translated before comparing equations.^[ref]

An original limiting case isolates the shrinkage. Suppose the processed direction is zero at every step and $\eta ,\lambda$ are constant. Repeated substitution givesWith $\eta =0.1$, $\lambda =0.2$ and ${\theta }_0=1$, one update gives 0.98 and 50 updates give approximately 0.36417. For varying learning rates, the corresponding factor isThus the same numerical decay coefficient can have a different accumulated effect under a different learning rate schedule. In this zero-direction model, $0<\eta \lambda <1$ gives sign-preserving shrinkage; other factors have different behaviour.

The update order is also part of the definition. For $\theta =1$, $u=2$, $\eta =0.1$ and $\lambda =0.2$, the stated formula gives $0.98-0.20=0.78$. Applying shrinkage after first taking the gradient step would instead give $(1-0.20)0.98=0.784$. Both operations may be described informally as decay plus a step, but they are different recurrences. An optimization checkpoint must retain the relevant state and settings to reproduce the chosen one.

The diagonal AdaGrad accumulator stores a cumulative squared-gradient total for each coordinate:These quantities form part of AdaGrad's optimizer state. An unconstrained diagonal update uses them through a coordinate scale such as $1/(\sqrt{s_{t,i}}+ϵ)$ with a declared positive stabilizer $ϵ$. The accumulator itself and its inverse-square-root transformation are distinct objects.^[ref]

The relation to the full gradient history is exact. Form the sum of outer productsThen $(G_t{)}_{ii}=s_{t,i}$. Retaining only this diagonal is cheaper than retaining every entry of $G_t$, but discards cross-coordinate information.

For an original two-step example, compare historiesBoth give $s_2=(2,2{)}^T$. Their full matrices differ:The diagonal state cannot distinguish those joint gradient patterns. If both are next supplied with $g_3=(1,0{)}^T$, both accumulators become $(3,2{)}^T$ and produce the same coordinate scaling for that update.

Every entry is nonnegative and nondecreasing, since each added square is nonnegative. Alternating gradient signs therefore cannot cancel their contribution to this state. For example, scalar gradients 3 and −3 give accumulated value 18 rather than 0. A saved parameter vector does not reconstruct that history: resuming the same AdaGrad recurrence requires the corresponding accumulator and settings in the optimization checkpoint.

Optimizer restart equivalence means that restoring an optimization checkpoint reproduces the uninterrupted optimizer's parameter sequence for a specified subsequent computation. State the optimizer update rule, continuation inputs and intended notion of equality. Exact mathematical equality and agreement within a numerical tolerance are different claims.

For a deterministic algorithm modeled by $S_{k+1}=F(S_k,u_k)$, equality of the restored full state at step $K$, together with the same update rule and future inputs $u_K,u_{K+1},\dots$, is sufficient. One application of $F$ gives equal next states; mathematical induction then gives equal continuations. This is a sufficient condition for the chosen observations, not a claim that every internal field must always affect them.

For an original exact example, take $f(\theta )={\theta }^2/2$ andFrom $({\theta }_0,b_0)=(2,0)$, one step gives $({\theta }_1,b_1)=(3/2,2)$. Restoring that pair gives $b_2=5/2$ and ${\theta }_2=7/8$, exactly as uninterrupted execution. Resetting the buffer while restoring ${\theta }_1$ gives $b_2=3/2$ and ${\theta }_2=9/8$. Thus a parameter-only save is not restart-equivalent for this recurrence.

Practical checkpoints must also retain the optimizer state-to-parameter association and the relevant settings, update position, learning rate schedule, data position and pseudorandom number generator state.^[ref] Fixing a random seed alone does not specify all of this continuation. Floating-point arithmetic and nondeterministic operations can additionally affect exact reproduction across environments; the primary documentation does not guarantee identical results across releases or platforms.^[ref]

The optimizer state is information retained by an optimization algorithm beyond the current parameter values. It can include a momentum buffer and algorithm-specific counters or running estimates. Consequently, two runs with identical parameters and current gradients can produce different next optimizer updates if their stored states differ.

For an original scalar example, minimize $f(\theta )={\theta }^2/2$ with the recurrenceThis is the momentum form with dampening, decay and the nesterov flag disabled in the PyTorch stochastic gradient descent implementation.^[ref] At ${\theta }_k=1$, $\eta =0.1$ and $\mu =0.9$, a stored $b_k=0$ gives $b_{k+1}=1$ and ${\theta }_{k+1}=0.9$. A stored $b_k=2$ instead gives $b_{k+1}=2.8$ and ${\theta }_{k+1}=0.72$. The current parameter and gradient were identical; the difference came from history.

An optimization checkpoint that saves only the parameters cannot reproduce that next step. In PyTorch, Optimizer.state_dict() stores per-parameter state and parameter-group settings such as learning rate, but not the parameter values themselves. Its parameter identifiers associate state with ordered parameter groups and are not a check of semantic parameter identity during loading.^[ref] Save and restore the corresponding parameters separately and keep the state-to-parameter association consistent. Reproducing an entire training run may additionally require the data order and other changing state.

Optimizer state-to-parameter association identifies which parameter each saved piece of optimizer state belongs to. An optimization checkpoint can contain every stored number and still resume incorrectly if those numbers are attached to different parameters. Equal shapes and data types do not establish mathematical identity.

The PyTorch optimizer dictionary separates per-parameter state from parameter-group settings. Its loader pairs saved parameter identifiers with the current parameters in group order, without independently verifying the intended association.^[ref]

For an original two-parameter example, use $b^{\prime }=0.5b+g$ and ${\theta }^{\prime }=\theta -0.1b^{\prime }$. Let the named parameters be $a=1$ and $c=10$, their current gradients both be 1, and their saved momentum buffers be $b_a=2$ and $b_c=20$. Correct restoration givesIf a reversed parameter ordering attaches the same saved buffers to the wrong scalar parameters, the result is insteadBoth buffers had valid scalar shapes, so a shape check would not expose this error.

Consistently permuting the parameters, gradients and state is merely a change of ordering; permuting only the state changes the algorithm's continuation. Record a stable parameter schema and group order with the checkpoint, and check any intentional remapping against that schema. Parameter values and optimizer dictionaries are distinct saved objects, so restoring one does not automatically restore the other's meaning.^[ref]

SGDR means stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. Its learning rate schedule repeatedly lowers the learning rate along a cosine curve, then raises it to begin another cycle while retaining the current parameters. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter's method uses this warm restart to continue an existing optimization trajectory.^[ref]

In cycle $i$, let $s$ be elapsed training time since the last restart and $T_i>0$ the cycle duration, measured in the same units. The cosine learning rate schedule isIt starts at ${\eta }_{\max ,i}$, reaches the midpoint of the two bounds at $s=T_i/2$, and reaches ${\eta }_{\min ,i}$ at the cycle endpoint. The original implementation updates the elapsed training epoch count within each mini-batch, allowing fractional epoch progress.^[ref]

For an original schedule, choose bounds 0 and 0.1, initial duration $T_0=4$ epochs and duration multiplier 2. The successive cycle lengths are 4, 8 and 16 epochs, with restart boundaries at total elapsed times 4, 12 and 28. In the first continuous cycle, the rates at $s=0,2,4$ are respectively $0.1,0.05,0$.

A discrete convention must specify which update uses the endpoint. For example, sampling phases $s=0,1,2,3$ in the first cycle and restarting before the next step gives rates approximately $0.1,0.08536,0.05,0.01464$, followed by $0.1$. The zero endpoint in the continuous curve is then a limit, rather than an additional zero-rate optimizer step.

Retaining parameters also has a concrete meaning. In an original deterministic gradient descent example with $f(\theta )={\theta }^2/2$ and current $\theta =0.5$, resetting only the schedule leaves $\theta =0.5$. The next step at learning rate0.1 gives0.45; a step at0.01 would give0.495. The restart changes the next movement rather than drawing a new initial parameter. Handling a momentum buffer is a further state convention; restarting the schedule and discarding all optimizer state are different operations. Record cycle phase, durations and rate bounds with an optimization checkpoint.

A warm restart continues an optimization process from an already obtained solution while restarting specified algorithm controls or history. Its meaning depends on which fields are retained. In SGDR, the current parameters are retained while the learning rate schedule starts another cycle; the original paper explicitly distinguishes this from starting the optimization from scratch.^[ref]

Write a complete algorithm state as $(\theta ,s,c)$, where $\theta$ holds parameters, $s$ is optimizer state and $c$ holds controls such as the schedule phase. A restart map can retain $\theta$ while replacing $c$, or can also replace selected parts of $s$. Saying only “restart” does not specify the next optimizer update.

For an original scalar example, take $f(\theta )={\theta }^2/2$ and the momentum buffer recurrenceAt current $\theta =2$, stored $b=-4$, $\mu =1/2$ and restarted learning rate $\eta =0.1$, retaining the buffer givesRetaining the same parameters but resetting the buffer to zero gives $b^{+}=2$ and ${\theta }^{+}=1.8$. Both runs start the next update at $\theta =2$; they differ in the history carried through the restart.

A schedule-only restart can also change the next step without changing stored parameters immediately. In a plain gradient descent update from $\theta =2$, increasing the learning rate from 0.01 to 0.1 changes the next value from 1.98 to 1.8. The change takes effect through the subsequent gradient step.

An optimization checkpoint instead records enough information to reproduce a specified continuation. A deliberate warm restart may intentionally alter some of that information. Record the retained parameter state, the new schedule phase and the policy for buffers or counters before comparing trajectories or claiming optimizer restart equivalence.