You will be presented with the title and body text of a computer science research paper. Please write a summary of the work that would be informative for a peer reviewer assessing its quality. Your summary should be 5 sentences long. In your response, include only the summary and no additional text.

Paper title:
Decentralized SGD with Asynchronous, Local and Quantized Updates

Paper body:
1 INTRODUCTION . Several techniques have been recently explored for scaling the distributed training of machine learning models , such as communication-reduction , asynchronous updates , or decentralized execution . For background , consider the classical data-parallel distribution strategy for SGD ( Bottou , 2010 ) , with the goal of solving a standard empirical risk minimization problem . Specifically , we have a set of samples S , and wish to minimize the d-dimensional function f : Rd → R , which is the average of losses over samples from S , by finding x ? = argmin x ∑ s∈S ` s ( x ) /|S| . We have n compute nodes which can process samples in parallel . In data-parallel SGD , each node computes the gradient for one sample , followed by a gradient exchange . Globally , this leads to the iteration : xt+1 = xt − ηt n∑ i=1 g̃it ( xt ) , where xt is the value of the global parameter , initially 0d , ηt is the learning rate , and g̃it ( xt ) is the stochastic gradient with respect to the parameter xt , computed by node i at time t. When executing this procedure at large scale , two major bottlenecks are communication , that is , the number of bits transmitted by each node , and synchronization , i.e. , the fact that nodes need to wait for each other in order to progress to the next iteration . Specifically , to maintain a consistent view of the parameter xt above , the nodes need to broadcast and receive all gradients , and need to synchronize globally at the end of every iteration . Significant work has been dedicated to removing these two barriers . In particular , there has been progress on communication-reduced variants of SGD , which propose various gradient compression schemes ( Seide et al. , 2014 ; Strom , 2015 ; Alistarh et al. , 2017 ; Wen et al. , 2017 ; Aji and Heafield , 2017 ; Dryden et al. , 2016 ; Grubic et al. , 2018 ; Davies et al. , 2020 ) , asynchronous variants , which relax the strict iteration-by-iteration synchronization ( Recht et al. , 2011 ; Sa et al. , 2015 ; Duchi et al. , 2015 ) , as well as large-batch or periodic model averaging methods , which aim to reduce the frequency of communication ( Goyal et al. , 2017 ; You et al. , 2017 ) and ( Chen and Huo , 2016 ; Stich , 2018 ) , or decentralized variants , which allow each node to maintain its own , possibly inconsistent , model variant ( Lian et al. , 2017 ; Tang et al. , 2018 ; Koloskova et al. , 2019 ) . ( We refer the reader to the recent surveys of ( Ben-Nun and Hoefler , 2019 ; Liu and Zhang , 2020 ) for a detailed discussion . ) Using such techniques , it is possible to scale SGD , even for complex objectives such as the training of deep neural networks . However , for modern large-scale models , the communication and synchronization requirements of these parallel variants of SGD can still be burdensome . Contribution . In this paper , we take a further step towards removing these scalability barriers , showing that all the previous scaling techniques—decentralization , quantization , asynchrony , and local steps—can in fact be used in conjunction . We consider a highly decoupled setting with n compute agents , located at vertices of a connected communication graph , each of which can execute sequential SGD on its own local model , based on a fraction of the data . Periodically , after some number of local optimization steps , a node can initiate a pairwise interaction with a uniform random neighbor . Our main finding is that this procedure can converge even though the nodes can take several local steps between interactions , may perform asynchronous communication , reading stale versions of each others ’ models , and may compress data transmission through quantization . However , both in theory and practice , we observe trade-offs between convergence rate and degree of synchronization , in that the algorithm may need to perform additional gradient steps in order to attain a good solution , relative to the sequential baseline . Our algorithm , called SWARMSGD , is decentralized in sense that each node maintains local version of the model , and two interacting nodes only see each others ’ models . We further allow that the data distribution at the nodes may not be i.i.d . Specifically , each node i is assigned a set of samples Si , and maintains its own parameter estimate xi . Each node i performs local SGD steps on its model xi based on its local data , and then picks a neighbor uniformly at random to share information with , by averaging of the two models . ( To streamline the exposition , we ignore quantization and model staleness unless otherwise specified . ) Effectively , if node i interacts with node j , node i ’ s updated model becomes xit+1 ← xit , Hi + x j t , Hj 2 , ( 1 ) where t is the total number of interactions performed by all nodes up to this point , j is the interaction partner of i at step t + 1 , and the input models xit , Hi and x j t , Hj have been obtained by iterating the SGD step Hi and Hj times , respectively , locally from the previous interaction of either node . We assume that Hi and Hj are random variables with mean H , that is , each node performs H local steps in expectation between two communication steps . The update for node j is symmetric , so that the two models match after the averaging step . In this paper , we analyze variants of the above SwarmSGD protocol . The main intuition behind the algorithm is that the independent SGD steps will allow nodes to explore local improvements to the objective function on their subset of the data , while the averaging steps provide a decentralized way for the models to converge jointly , albeit in a loosely coupled way . We show that , as long as the maximum number of local steps is bounded , this procedure still converges , in the sense that gradients calculated at the average over all models are vanishing as we increase the number of interactions . Specifically , assuming that the n nodes each take a constant number of local SGD steps on average before communicating , we show that SwarmSGD has Θ ( √ n ) speedup to convergence in the nonconvex case . This matches results from previous work which considered decentralized dynamics but which synchronized upon every SGD step , e.g . ( Lian et al. , 2017 ; 2018 ) . Our analysis also extends to arbitrary regular graph topologies , non-blocking ( delayed ) averaging of iterates , and quantization . Generally , we show that the impact of decentralization , asynchrony , quantization , and local updates can be asymptotically negligible in reasonable parameter regimes . On the practical side , we show that this algorithm can be mapped to a distributed system setting , where agents correspond to compute nodes , connected by a dense communication topology . Specifically , we apply SwarmSGD to train deep neural networks on image classification and machine translation ( NMT ) tasks , deployed on the Piz Daint supercomputer ( Piz , 2019 ) . Experiments confirm the intuition that the average synchronization cost of SwarmSGD per iteration is low : it stays around 10 % or less of the batch computation time , and remains constant as we increase the number of nodes . For example , using SwarmSGD deployed on 16 nodes , we are able to train a TransformerXL ( Vaswani et al. , 2017 ) model on WMT17 ( En-Ge ) 1.5× faster than a highly-optimized largebatch SGD baseline , and to slightly higher accuracy , without additional hyper-parameter tuning . At the same time , our method appears to be faster and more accurate than the previous practical decentralized methods , e.g . ( Lian et al. , 2017 ; 2018 ; Assran et al. , 2018 ) , in the same setting . Importantly , we also note a negative result : in less overparametrized settings such as training residual CNNs ( He et al. , 2016 ) on ImageNet ( Russakovsky et al. , 2015 ) , nodes do need to perform more iterations over the dataset relative to the baseline in order to recover full accuracy . This is predicted by the analysis , and confirms similar findings in previous work ( Assran et al. , 2018 ) . Overall , however , our family of methods should be well-suited to training very large modern models in large-scale settings , where global synchronization among all nodes is prohibitively expensive . Related Work . The study of decentralized optimization algorithms dates back to Tsitsiklis ( 1984 ) , and is related to the study of gossip algorithms for information dissemination ( Kempe et al. , 2003 ; Xiao and Boyd , 2004 ; Boyd et al. , 2006 ) . Gossip is usually studied in one of two models ( Boyd et al. , 2006 ) : synchronous , structured in global rounds , where each node interacts with a randomly chosen neighbor , and asynchronous , where each node wakes up at times given by a local Poisson clock , and picks a random neighbor to interact with . The model we consider can be seen as equivalent to the asynchronous gossip model . The key differences between our work and averaging in the gossip model , e.g . Boyd et al . ( 2006 ) , are that that 1 ) we consider local SGD steps , which would not make sense in the case of averaging fixed initial values ; and 2 ) the gossip input model is static ( node inputs are fixed , and node estimates must converge to the true mean ) , whereas we study a dynamic setting , where models are continually updated via SGD . Several optimization algorithms have been analyzed in this setting ( Nedic and Ozdaglar , 2009 ; Johansson et al. , 2009 ; Shamir and Srebro , 2014 ) , while Tang et al . ( 2018 ) ; Koloskova et al . ( 2019 ) analyze quantization in the synchronous gossip model . Lian et al . ( 2017 ; 2018 ) and Assran et al . ( 2018 ) considered SGD-type algorithms in gossip-like models . Specifically , they analyze the SGD averaging dynamic in the non-convex setting but do not allow nodes to perform local updates or quantize . In particular , nodes perform pairwise averaging upon every SGD step . Table 2 in the Appendix provides a thorough comparison of assumptions , results , and rates . Their results are phrased in the synchronous gossip model , in which nodes interact in a sequence of perfect matchings , for which they provide O ( 1/ √ Tn ) convergence rates under analytical assumptions . Lian et al . ( 2018 ) extends these results to a variant of the gossip model where updates can be performed based on stale information , similarly to our non-blocking extension . Upon careful examination , one can find that their results can be extended to the asynchronous gossip setting we consider , as long as nodes are not allowed to perform local SGD updates to their models ( corresponding toH = 1 ) or to quantize communication . Extending the analysis of distributed SGD to allow for local steps is challenging even in centralized models , see for instance Stich ( 2018 ) . If we assume H = 1 , our technique yields similar or better bounds relative to previous work in the decentralized model , as our potential analysis is specifically-tailored to this dynamic interaction model . For instance , for Assran et al . ( 2018 ) , the speedup with respect to the number of nodes depends on a parameter C , which in turn , depends on 1 ) the dimension d of the objective function , 2 ) the number of iterations for the graph given by edge sets of all matrices used in averaging to be connected , and the 3 ) diameter of the aforementioned connected graph . In the dynamic interaction model we consider , the parameter C will be at least linear in the number of nodes n , which will eliminate any speedup . We present a systematic comparison in Appendix B . In sum , relative to prior work on decentralized algorithms , our contributions are as follows . We are the first to consider the impact of local updates , asynchrony , and quantization in conjunction with decentralized SGD . We show that the cost for the linear reduction in communication in H given by local steps is at worst a squared variance increase in the parameter H . Our analysis technique relies on a fine-grained analysis of individual interactions , which is different than that of previous work , and can yield improved bounds even in the case where H = 1 . By leveraging the lattice-based quantization scheme of Davies et al . ( 2020 ) , we also allow for communication-compression . From the implementation perspective , the performance of our algorithm is superior to that of previous methods , notably D-PSGD ( Lian et al. , 2017 ) , AD-PSGD ( Lian et al. , 2018 ) and SGP ( Assran et al. , 2018 ) , mainly due to the ability to take local steps . Wang and Joshi ( 2018 ) and Koloskova et al . ( 2020 ) provide analysis frameworks for the synchronous version of decentralized SGD with local updates , and possibly changing topologies . This is a different setting from ours , since it requires each agent to take an equal number of gradient steps before every interaction round , and therefore does not allow for agents to progress at different speeds ( asynchrony ) . Further , we support quantization , and validate our analysis at scale .

5-sentence paper summary:
This paper combines the existing scaling techniques to reduce the communication cost of distributed SGD among a large number of computing nodes. These techniques include asynchronous, decentralized, or quantized communication. The authors prove that this combined algorithm converges to a local optimal point. In the experiments, this algorithm also successfully converges and scales for big data. The authors claim that this is the first work to consider decentralization, local updates, asynchrony, and quantization in conjunction.