Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Memory Savings at What Cost? A Study of Alternatives to Backpropagation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.21833 v2 pith:PZYKXYCO submitted 2025-06-27 cs.LG

Memory Savings at What Cost? A Study of Alternatives to Backpropagation

classification cs.LG
keywords fmadmemorymemory-efficientmethodsaccuracyactivationalternativesbackpropagation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Forward-mode automatic differentiation (FmAD) and zero-order (ZO) optimization are increasingly proposed as memory-efficient, backpropagation-free alternatives for large language model (LLM) fine-tuning, yet their benefits are typically evaluated only against standard backpropagation (BP), omitting memory-efficient variants such as activation checkpointing. We present a unified theoretical and empirical comparison of BP, checkpointed BP, FmAD, and ZO for LLM and vision-language model training, showing that while FmAD and ZO reduce activation memory, they trade memory for higher computational cost and longer wall-clock time to convergence, resulting in lower accuracy and slower training, especially under constrained perturbation budgets. Across models, BP with checkpointing outperforms FmAD and ZO variants, including variance-reduced methods, achieving up to 31.1% higher accuracy, 34.8% faster convergence, and 3.8x fewer computations at comparable memory usage, while also revealing instability-related failure modes in FmAD and ZO. Overall, our results correct a one-sided benchmarking narrative by showing that memory-efficient methods entail fundamentally different trade-offs, and that ignoring these distinctions has led to misleading conclusions about LLM optimization in prior work. Our source code is available at {https://github.com/Astuary/Gradient_Estimation_Methods}.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Adaptive directional gradients for parameterised quantum circuits

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Forward gradient framework for PQCs unifies SPSA and parameter-shift as limits, introduces QUIVER adaptive optimizer with closed-form measurement allocation, and demonstrates efficient training of 60-qubit circuits on...

  2. On-Device Fine-Tuning via Backprop-Free Zeroth-Order Optimization

    cs.LG 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    MeZO enables larger models for on-device fine-tuning by estimating gradients via forward passes only, with theoretical size estimates and numerical results showing accuracy benefits when wall-clock time is sufficient.