arXiv preprint ·
Same Function, Different Gradients: Evaluating Gradient Reliability under Reparameterization
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Gradients are no longer used only to train models: Gradient magnitudes are now measurement instruments, used to rank attention heads for pruning, to decide per-example clipping in private training, to allocate adapter rank budgets, and to debug models. Across these workflows, larger gradient magnitudes are taken to mean greater importance. Even for a fixed input--output function, these gradients are computed in one of many possible parameter coordinate systems. For example, attention scores depend on the query and key projections only through the paired product $W_QW_K^\top$. Scaling a head's query projection by $c$ and the corresponding key projection by $1/c$ therefore leaves every output logit unchanged. This change in parameter coordinates rescales the corresponding query and key gradient norms by $1/c$ and $c$, respectively. To test whether gradient-based decisions remain unchanged under these coordinate changes, we introduce Gradient Reliability under Reparameterization (GRR). GRR rewrites a trained model in new parameter coordinates that compute exactly the same function, verifies that predictions are unchanged, and then tests whether the decisions derived from the gradients are unchanged too. Our audits span GLUE classifiers, a ViT on CIFAR-10, GPT-2-medium and GPT-2-large, a 1.1B-parameter Llama-style model on WikiText-2, and six trained LoRA adapters. Empirically, predictions are preserved throughout, but both the gradients and the gradient-based decisions change. Across 66 GLUE attention audits, the median top-3 overlap of raw head-gradient rankings is only $1/3$, and rankings and pruning masks change even under the mildest rescalings we test. In the largest of 14 global-pruning audits, the shifted ranking selects head masks that differ in four of 22 pruned heads and reach $50.92\%$ and $94.84\%$ validation accuracy on one ELECTRA SST-2 model.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
State-Augmented Learning for Post-Deployment Adaptation of Coexisting O-RAN Applications
CytoWave: Perturbation-Centric Pretraining for Single-Cell Response Prediction
Information-Theoretic Design of Sparse Autoencoder-Based Steering
Improving Financial Cybersecurity Through Fraud Transaction Detection with Deep Learning
Toward Executable Multi-framework Front-end Code Generation with Self-Correction
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.