FlashOptim's memory-efficient mixed-precision training can be extended to surrogate models used in amortized optimization, enabling larger surrogate networks on memory-constrained accelerators.
Adversarial Debate Score
72% survival rate under critique
Model Critiques
Supporting Research Papers
- Cheap Thrills: Effective Amortized Optimization Using Inexpensive Labels
To scale the solution of optimization and simulation problems, prior work has explored machine-learning surrogates that inexpensively map problem parameters to corresponding solutions. Commonly used a...
- FlashOptim: Optimizers for Memory Efficient Training
Standard mixed-precision training of neural networks requires many bytes of accelerator memory for each model parameter. These bytes reflect not just the parameter itself, but also its gradient and on...
- Universal Persistent Brownian Motions in Confluent Tissues
Biological tissues are active materials whose non-equilibrium dynamics emerge from distinct cellular force-generating mechanisms. Using a two-dimensional active foam model, we compare the effects of t...
- Toward Expert Investment Teams:A Multi-Agent LLM System with Fine-Grained Trading Tasks
The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has accelerated the development of autonomous financial trading systems. While mainstream approaches deploy multi-agent systems mimicking analyst and ma...
Formal Verification
Z3 checks whether the hypothesis is internally consistent, not whether it is empirically true.
This discovery has a Claude-generated validation package with a full experimental design.
Precise Hypothesis
Applying FlashOptim's mixed-precision training pipeline (combining FP16/BF16 forward passes with FP32 master weights and gradient accumulation) to surrogate neural networks within amortized optimization frameworks will enable training of surrogate models that are ≥2× larger (by parameter count) on a fixed GPU memory budget (e.g., 24 GB VRAM), while maintaining surrogate prediction accuracy within 5% relative error compared to full-precision baselines, and without degrading the quality of the amortized optimizer's output solutions by more than 10% on standard benchmark tasks.
- ACCURACY DISPROOF: Mixed-precision surrogate achieves >5% higher relative prediction error (RMSE or MAE) compared to FP32 baseline on held-out test sets across ≥3 benchmark tasks.
- SOLUTION QUALITY DISPROOF: Amortized optimizer using mixed-precision surrogate produces solutions with >10% worse objective value (averaged over 100 optimization runs) versus FP32 surrogate baseline.
- MEMORY DISPROOF: Peak GPU memory reduction is <20% compared to FP32 training, making the "larger model" claim untenable (i.e., cannot fit a model ≥1.5× larger).
- STABILITY DISPROOF: Mixed-precision training diverges (loss NaN/Inf) in >30% of training runs across benchmark tasks without recoverable loss scaling.
- OVERHEAD DISPROOF: Wall-clock training time per epoch increases by >15% due to mixed-precision overhead (loss scaling, dtype casting), negating practical benefit.
- GENERALIZATION DISPROOF: The approach fails on ≥2 of 3 tested physics/CS domains (e.g., works for molecular property prediction but fails for PDE surrogate and combinatorial optimization surrogate).
Experimental Protocol
Minimum Viable Test (MVT): Train a surrogate model for one amortized optimization benchmark (e.g., molecular property optimization using a GNN surrogate on QM9 or GuacaMol) in three conditions: (A) FP32 baseline, (B) FlashOptim mixed-precision on same model size, (C) FlashOptim mixed-precision on 2× larger model. Compare prediction accuracy, solution quality, memory usage, and training speed. Full validation extends to 3 domains and ablates loss scaling strategies.
- QM9 molecular property dataset (134k molecules, 19 quantum chemical properties) — freely available via PyTorch Geometric; used for molecular surrogate training.
- GuacaMol or ZINC250k for amortized molecular optimization benchmarks — freely available.
- OpenFOAM or AirfRANS dataset (aerodynamic surrogate, ~10k CFD simulations) — publicly available; used for physics domain validation.
- SATLIB or MIS benchmark instances (combinatorial optimization surrogate) — freely available; used for CS domain validation.
- Pre-trained FlashOptim codebase/weights — available via the FlashOptim GitHub repository (assumed open-source based on naming convention; if proprietary, a clean reimplementation of flash attention + mixed-precision training loop is required, estimated 2 weeks engineering).
- Baseline amortized optimization framework: BayesOpt with neural surrogate, or REINFORCE-based amortized optimizer (e.g., from Bengio et al. 2021 GFlowNet or similar).
- Peak GPU memory reduction ≥30% (FP32 → mixed-precision, same model size), enabling ≥1.8× larger model on identical hardware. Target: 24 GB GPU fits ≥18M param surrogate vs. ≤10M in FP32.
- Surrogate prediction MAE within 5% relative of FP32 baseline (e.g., if FP32 MAE = 0.100 eV, mixed-precision MAE ≤ 0.105 eV on QM9 HOMO-LUMO gap).
- Amortized optimizer solution quality: best objective within 10% of FP32-surrogate-based optimizer over 100 runs (e.g., if FP32 finds molecules with affinity score 7.2, mixed-precision finds ≥6.5).
- Training stability: loss scale remains >1.0 in ≥90% of training steps across all runs and domains.
- Training throughput: mixed-precision training ≥0.9× wall-clock speed of FP32 (no more than 10% slower; ideally 1.3–1.8× faster due to Tensor Core utilization).
- Results replicate across ≥2 of 3 domains (molecular, aerodynamic, combinatorial).
- Surrogate MAE degrades >5% relative vs. FP32 on any primary benchmark domain.
- Loss scale collapses to <1.0 and training diverges in >2 of 5 seeds for any domain.
- Memory savings <20% (mixed-precision vs. FP32 at same model size), making scale-up impractical.
- 2× larger mixed-precision surrogate performs worse than 1× FP32 surrogate (accuracy regression from scale-up).
- Amortized optimizer solution quality degrades >10% vs. FP32 surrogate baseline.
- Wall-clock time per epoch increases >15% (mixed-precision overhead exceeds benefit).
420
GPU hours
50d
Time to result
$1,200
Min cost
$4,800
Full cost
ROI Projection
Implementation Sketch
# ============================================================ # FlashOptim Mixed-Precision Surrogate Training — Core Sketch # ============================================================ import torch import torch.nn as nn from torch.cuda.amp import autocast, GradScaler from torch_geometric.nn import DimeNetPlusPlus # example surrogate arch # --- Configuration --- CONFIG = { "model_size": "2x", # "1x" (baseline) or "2x" (scale-up test) "precision": "mixed_bf16", # "fp32", "mixed_fp16", "mixed_bf16" "loss_scale_init": 65536.0, "grad_clip_norm": 1.0, "batch_size": 64, "lr": 3e-4, "epochs": 100, } # --- Surrogate Model (GNN for molecular property prediction) --- class ScalableSurrogate(nn.Module): def __init__(self, hidden_dim=256, num_layers=6, scale_factor=1): super().__init__() # scale_factor=2 doubles hidden_dim → ~4x params (width scaling) h = hidden_dim * scale_factor self.encoder = DimeNetPlusPlus( hidden_channels=h, out_channels=1, num_blocks=num_layers, num_bilinear=8, num_spherical=7, num_radial=6, ) def forward(self, batch): return self.encoder(batch.z, batch.pos, batch.batch) # --- Mixed-Precision Training Loop --- def train_surrogate(model, train_loader, val_loader, config): optimizer = torch.optim.AdamW(model.parameters(), lr=config["lr"]) scaler = GradScaler(init_scale=config["loss_scale_init"], enabled=(config["precision"] != "fp32")) dtype_map = { "fp32": torch.float32, "mixed_fp16": torch.float16, "mixed_bf16": torch.bfloat16, } amp_dtype = dtype_map[config["precision"]] memory_log = [] for epoch in range(config["epochs"]): model.train() for batch in train_loader: batch = batch.to("cuda") optimizer.zero_grad(set_to_none=True) # --- Mixed-precision forward pass --- with autocast(dtype=amp_dtype, enabled=(config["precision"] != "fp32")): pred = model(batch) loss = nn.functional.mse_loss(pred.squeeze(), batch.y) # --- Scaled backward pass --- scaler.scale(loss).backward() # --- Gradient clipping (unscale first) --- scaler.unscale_(optimizer) torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_( model.parameters(), config["grad_clip_norm"] ) # --- Optimizer step with loss scale update --- scaler.step(optimizer) scaler.update() # --- Memory profiling --- mem_allocated = torch.cuda.memory_allocated() / 1e9 # GB mem_reserved = torch.cuda.memory_reserved() / 1e9 memory_log.append({ "epoch": epoch, "allocated_gb": mem_allocated, "reserved_gb": mem_reserved, "loss_scale": scaler.get_scale(), }) # --- Validation --- val_mae = evaluate(model, val_loader, amp_dtype) # --- Abort checkpoint: loss scale collapse --- if scaler.get_scale() < 1.0: print(f"ABORT: Loss scale collapsed at epoch {epoch}") return None, memory_log print(f"Epoch {epoch}: MAE={val_mae:.4f}, " f"Mem={mem_allocated:.2f}GB, Scale={scaler.get_scale():.0f}") return model, memory_log # --- Amortized Optimization Integration --- class AmortizedOptimizer(nn.Module): """Learned proposal network using surrogate as reward model.""" def __init__(self, surrogate, proposal_net): super().__init__() self.surrogate = surrogate self.proposal_net = proposal_net def optimize(self, n_steps=100, n_samples=64): solutions = [] for step in range(n_steps): # Sample candidates from proposal network candidates = self.proposal_net.sample(n_samples) # Evaluate with surrogate (mixed-precision) with autocast(dtype=torch.bfloat16): with torch.no_grad(): scores = self.surrogate(candidates) # REINFORCE update for proposal network loss = -scores.mean() # maximize surrogate score loss.backward() best_idx = scores.argmax() solutions.append((candidates[best_idx], scores[best_idx].item())) return solutions # --- Evaluation --- @torch.no_grad() def evaluate(model, loader, amp_dtype): model.eval() total_mae, n = 0.0, 0 for batch in loader: batch = batch.to("cuda") with autocast(dtype=amp_dtype): pred = model(batch).squeeze() total_mae += (pred - batch.y).abs().sum().item() n += batch.num_graphs return total_mae / n # --- Memory Comparison Experiment --- def run_memory_comparison(): results = {} for precision in ["fp32", "mixed_bf16"]: for scale in [1, 2]: if precision == "fp32" and scale == 2: # Expected OOM — confirm and skip try: model = ScalableSurrogate(scale_factor=scale).cuda() # ... attempt training ... results[f"{precision}_scale{scale}"] = "OOM" except torch.cuda.OutOfMemoryError: results[f"{precision}_scale{scale}"] = "OOM_confirmed" continue model = ScalableSurrogate(scale_factor=scale).cuda() trained_model, mem_log = train_surrogate( model, train_loader, val_loader, {**CONFIG, "precision": precision} ) peak_mem = max(e["allocated_gb"] for e in mem_log) results[f"{precision}_scale{scale}"] = { "peak_mem_gb": peak_mem, "final_mae": evaluate(trained_model, val_loader, torch.bfloat16 if "bf16" in precision else torch.float32), } return results
- CHECKPOINT A (Day 7, end of baseline implementation): If FP32 surrogate baseline does not achieve published QM9 MAE within 15% (e.g., HOMO-LUMO gap MAE >0.5 eV for DimeNet++), abort and debug data pipeline before proceeding. Expected baseline: ~0.044 eV MAE.
- CHECKPOINT B (Day 12, end of mixed-precision integration): If loss scale collapses below 1.0 in >3 of 5 seeds during initial 20-epoch test run, abort mixed-precision approach and investigate BF16 alternative or gradient clipping tuning. Do not proceed to scale-up.
- CHECKPOINT C (Day 14, memory profiling): If measured memory reduction is <15% (mixed-precision vs. FP32, same model), the core memory efficiency claim is likely false. Abort scale-up experiment; investigate whether surrogate architecture has memory bottleneck outside of weight storage (e.g., large activation maps).
- CHECKPOINT D (Day 20, scale-up experiment): If 2× mixed-precision surrogate MAE is >10% worse than 1× FP32 baseline (not just 5%), abort domain replication and focus on diagnosing capacity vs. precision tradeoff. Do not generalize claim.
- CHECKPOINT E (Day 28, amortized optimization integration): If solution quality from mixed-precision surrogate is >15% worse than FP32 surrogate baseline on molecular optimization (measured by top-10% average score over 100 runs), abort domain replication. The surrogate accuracy degradation is propagating to optimization quality.
- CHECKPOINT F (Day 40, domain replication): If the approach fails on 2 of 3 domains (molecular, aerodynamic, combinatorial), downgrade hypothesis from "general extension" to "domain-specific result" and revise claims accordingly before publication.