Skip to content

[DLRMv4] Restrict the dlrmv4 learning rate to a band around the scaled reference - #473

Merged
pavanky merged 1 commit into
mlcommons:masterfrom
chriscai-amd:chcai/update_lr_range
Sep 1, 2026
Merged

[DLRMv4] Restrict the dlrmv4 learning rate to a band around the scaled reference#473
pavanky merged 1 commit into
mlcommons:masterfrom
chriscai-amd:chcai/update_lr_range

Conversation

@chriscai-amd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The closed division left opt_base_learning_rate unconstrained apart from positivity, so a submission could report any learning rate while still being scored against RCPs collected on a single recipe. The reference sweep follows a linear scaling law -- 1e-6 at global batch 8192, 2e-6 at 16384, 4e-6 at 32768, i.e. 1e-6 * GBS / 8192 -- and convergence is only comparable near it.

Confine the learning rate to half to 1.5x that value, deriving the bounds in the global_batch_size POST block where the batch size is already parsed. Because the rules execute in log order, the check guards on the bounds being resolved so a log that reports the learning rate before the batch size fails with the state dump rather than raising inside the comparison. The sparse learning rate is already pinned to the dense one, so the band applies to both channels.

The open division is deliberately untouched: it exists to permit recipe changes, and the RCP checker only runs on closed submissions.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

MLCommons CLA bot All contributors have signed the MLCommons CLA ✍️ ✅

@chriscai-amd
chriscai-amd marked this pull request as ready for review August 31, 2026 09:21
@chriscai-amd
chriscai-amd requested review from a team as code owners August 31, 2026 09:21
@ShriyaRishab

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@chriscai-amd shouldn't open division have the same constraint as closed?
The open division is to showcase algorithmic changes but it shouldn't be a place where submitters just change the LR more than allowed by the rules to get faster convergence and better scores. That would not be in the spirit of the constraint.

@chriscai-amd
chriscai-amd force-pushed the chcai/update_lr_range branch from cf19554 to 81b4883 Compare August 31, 2026 18:42
Both divisions left opt_base_learning_rate unconstrained apart from positivity,
so a submission could report any learning rate while still being scored against
RCPs collected on a single recipe. The reference sweep follows a linear scaling
law -- 1e-6 at global batch 8192, 2e-6 at 16384, 4e-6 at 32768, i.e.
1e-6 * GBS / 8192 -- and convergence is only comparable near it.

Confine the learning rate to half to 1.5x that value, deriving the bounds in the
global_batch_size POST block where the batch size is already parsed. Because the
rules execute in log order, the checks guard on the bounds being resolved so a
log that reports the learning rate before the batch size fails with the state
dump rather than raising inside the comparison.

The band applies to the open division too. That division is meant to showcase
algorithmic changes, not to let submitters buy faster convergence with a
learning rate the closed division would reject. Because the open rules do not
pin the embedding rate to the dense one, opt_sparse_base_learning_rate is
banded independently there; in the closed division the existing equality rule
already covers it.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@chriscai-amd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@chriscai-amd shouldn't open division have the same constraint as closed? The open division is to showcase algorithmic changes but it shouldn't be a place where submitters just change the LR more than allowed by the rules to get faster convergence and better scores. That would not be in the spirit of the constraint.

thanks, @ShriyaRishab , updated the PR to restrict both the closed and open divisions

@pavanky
pavanky merged commit a330fa7 into mlcommons:master Sep 1, 2026
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants