Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

DiLoCoX: A Low-Communication Large-Scale Training Framework for Decentralized Cluster

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read DiLoCoX claims to make 100B+ parameter foundation-model pretraining practical on slow, decentralized clusters, reporting a 357x speedup over AllReduce on a 107B model over 1 Gbps links.

desk verdict The 107B/1Gbps engineering result is worth taking seriously, but the convergence theory is broken and the 'negligible degradation' claim is not supported by the paper's own ablations. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21263 v1 pith:RIZ2XM76 submitted 2025-06-26 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Ji Qi , WenPeng Zhu , Li Li , Ming Wu , YingJun Wu , Wu He , Xun Gao , Jason Zeng
show 1 more author
Michael Heinrich
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords decentralizedtraininglow-communicationpipelineparallelismdualoptimizergradientcompressionlocalSGDlargelanguagemodelsone-stepdelayoverlap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether foundation models larger than 100 billion parameters can be pre-trained on decentralized clusters connected by slow links instead of dedicated high-speed data-center interconnects. It answers yes with DiLoCoX, a framework that combines pipeline parallelism with a dual-optimizer scheme, overlaps pseudo-gradient communication with local training by one step, and adaptively compresses gradients using low-rank plus quantization. The central empirical claim is that a 107B-parameter model can be pre-trained over a 1 Gbps network at 3,728 tokens per second, a 357x speedup over vanilla AllReduce, with a final loss of 4.20 versus 3.90 for AllReduce. A convergence-rate bound is provided in which the compression error and the locality of updates appear as higher-order terms. The authors claim this is the first decentralized training framework successfully applied to models over 100B parameters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the end-to-end gradient compressor $C = C_Q \circ C_L$ with error bound $\omega^2 = (1 - r/d)\,2^{-q}$ for a $d$-dimensional gradient, low-rank $r$, and quantization precision $q$. It carries the communication-cost argument because it lets AllReduce run on highly compressed pseudo-gradients while the adaptive scheme lowers $r$ and raises $H$ as training proceeds. The one-step-delay overlap is the key scheduling mechanism: it consumes the previous averaged pseudo-gradient $\Delta_{t-1}$ after the current local window, so the AllReduce for step $t-1$ hides behind the local steps of step $t$. Pipeline parallelism with dual inner and outer optimizers is the scale mechanism that removes the VRAM ceiling of prior data-parallel-only methods by sharding both model and optimizer state. The convergence proof combines smoothness, bounded stochastic variance, data-heterogeneity, local-update-stability, and the compression-error identity to obtain a rate in which the compression term scales as $\omega^{2/3}/T^{2/3}$, showing it is a higher-order correction when compression is mild.

What would settle it

Run the same 107B pre-training task on a data stream engineered to shift distribution every few hundred steps and compare the one-step-delay variant against a fully synchronous variant; if the delayed variant's loss is materially higher, the overlap assumption fails. A direct monitor is to log the relative change in averaged pseudo-gradients across outer steps: when this ratio spikes, the delayed update is using a stale pseudo-gradient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DiLoCoX is a local-SGD variant built for communication-limited clusters. Each worker holds only a fraction of the model via pipeline parallelism, runs H local AdamW steps on its data shard, then computes its pseudo-gradient $\delta_{i,j}^{t} = \theta^{t-1}_j - \theta^{t}_{i,j}$ plus an error-compensation term, and averages it across data-parallel workers by AllReduce. A distributed outer Nesterov optimizer updates the parameters using the averaged delta. The one-step-delay overlap starts the AllReduce for step $t-1$'s pseudo-gradients while step $t$ is still training locally, then updates at the end with the delayed $\Delta_{t-1}$. The adaptive compressor first takes a low-rank approximation of the pseudo-gradient and quantizes it, with combined error $\omega^2 = (1 - r/d)\,2^{-q}$; the rank $r_t$ and local step count $H_t$ are adjusted according to the observed rank of the averaged gradient. Empirically the paper reports final loss 4.20 for DiLoCoX on the 107B model against 4.15 for the non-overlapped variant, 4.02 without adaptive compression, and 3.90 for AllReduce, while throughput jumps from 10.4 tokens per second for AllReduce to 3,728 tokens per second for DiLoCoX.

Load-bearing premise

DiLoCoX assumes that the raw parameter change produced by H local training steps at one outer step is still a good update for the model at the next outer step, so a one-step-old averaged pseudo-gradient can be used while the current one is communicated; when that assumption fails, the overlap degrades convergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pre-training runs that previously required centralized clusters with fast interconnects can be moved to geo-distributed or underutilized clusters with only 1 Gbps links, at a reported 357x throughput gain over AllReduce.
  • Models beyond 100B parameters become trainable without requiring a single GPU to hold the full model, because pipeline parallelism plus the dual optimizer keeps per-worker VRAM bounded.
  • The one-step-delay overlap implies that pseudo-gradient averaging time can be almost fully hidden, so effective training time scales with compute rather than with inter-node bandwidth.
  • The adaptive low-rank compression offers a practical knob: use aggressive low-rank compression early, then raise fidelity and reduce local steps as gradients flatten, trading bandwidth for accuracy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same one-step-delay overlap could hide other synchronized traffic in foundation-model training, such as all-to-all exchanges in mixture-of-experts layers, not just pseudo-gradient AllReduce; that extension is not tested in the paper.
  • The rank-diminishing justification suggests compression should be tuned per layer or per parameter tensor rather than globally, since the theory predicts rank decays unevenly through depth; a per-layer adaptive rank schedule is a natural testable follow-up.
  • The reported comparison is at a fixed 4,000 training steps; at much longer pretraining runs, the error-feedback buffer in the compressor might accumulate differently, so measuring loss and throughput at, say, ten times more tokens would clarify whether the 'negligible degradation' persists.
  • If the delayed-pseudo-gradient assumption weakens on tasks with fast distribution shift, a hybrid mode that keeps the overlap only when consecutive pseudo-gradients are measured to be close could preserve both speed and convergence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DiLoCoX, a decentralized training framework that combines pipeline parallelism with a dual optimizer policy, a one-step-delay overlap between pseudo-gradient communication and local training, and an adaptive low-rank plus quantization gradient compression scheme. The authors report pre-training a 107B-parameter model on an emulated 1Gbps network, achieving a 357x throughput speedup over AllReduce while claiming negligible convergence degradation (loss 4.20 vs 3.90). They provide a convergence analysis in Appendix A and ablation studies in Section 4.3.

Significance. If the empirical result is reproducible, the paper would be a substantial engineering contribution: it is, to my knowledge, the first demonstration of decentralized pre-training at over 100B parameters over a low-bandwidth link, and the reported 357x speedup over AllReduce is striking. The paper also includes an ablation study that isolates the contribution of the overlap and compression mechanisms. However, the theoretical analysis does not cover the overlap mechanism as implemented, the compression error bound appears incorrect, and the 'negligible degradation' claim is not quantitatively supported. The engineering claims may survive revision, but the convergence claims need substantial rework. The paper does not provide code or full hyperparameter details, which limits reproducibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Algorithm 2, Appendix A.3] The one-step-delay overlap is not analyzed by the convergence proof. In Algorithm 2, the outer update at step t uses Δ^{t−1}, computed from pseudo-gradients δ^{t−1} that are measured from the parameter vector at step t−2, while Appendix A.3 bounds the 'Local Deviation' term as E∥δ^{t−1}_{i,j} − ∇f(θ^{t−1})∥² ≤ L²η²H²σ². A correct expansion would need to account for the difference ∇f(θ^{t−1}) − ∇f(θ^{t−2}), which introduces E∥θ^{t−1} − θ^{t−2}∥² and is absent from Corollary 3.8. Consequently, Corollary 3.8 does not establish convergence of Algorithm 2 with the overlap enabled. Table 1 gives empirical evidence that the assumption underpinning the overlap is only approximate: removing the overlap lowers loss from 4.20 to 4.15. The claimed theoretical justification for the overlap mechanism is therefore not established as written.
  2. [Lemma 3.6, Assumption 3.5] The end-to-end compression error bound in Lemma 3.6, ω² = 1 − (r/d)·2^{−q}, is inconsistent with the stated component errors. From ∥δ1−δ∥² ≤ (1−r/d)∥δ∥² and ∥δ2−δ1∥² ≤ 2^{−q}∥δ1∥², a triangle inequality yields a sum of terms, not the expression given. Moreover, in the limit r=d (full-rank, quantization only), the formula gives ω² = 1 − 2^{−q}, which increases toward 1 as q grows; more quantization bits would thus worsen the error bound, contradicting the stated quantization error. Since Assumption 3.5 and the compression-dependent term in Corollary 3.8 rely on this ω², the compression term in the convergence rate is not supported.
  3. [§2.4.3, Corollary 3.8] The convergence analysis assumes a fixed H and a fixed ω, while Algorithm 3 adaptively changes r_t and H_t at each outer step. No argument is provided that the adaptive schedule preserves the bound in Corollary 3.8. Thus the theory covers a simplified, non-adaptive version of the method, not the algorithm whose results are reported. This is a significant gap for a mechanism that is listed as a main contribution.
  4. [§4.2.1, Table 1] The claim that DiLoCoX 'maintains negligible degradation in model convergence' for the 107B run is not quantitatively supported. The full configuration reaches loss 4.20 versus 3.90 for AllReduce (a 0.30 gap); the ablations show removing the overlap reduces loss to 4.15 and removing compression reduces it to 4.02. Without a definition of 'negligible', error bars or repeated runs, and contextualization (e.g., validation perplexity or downstream task evaluation), the central empirical claim is overstated. The throughput result (357x) is separate from the convergence claim and should be presented as such.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 3] The estimator r'_t is not defined; the pseudo-code says 'Calculate r'_t with the globally averaged gradient' but no formula or method is given, making the adaptive rule unverifiable.
  2. [§4.1.1] The 107B model is described as 'modified Qwen1.5-107B (reducing the total number of layers from 80 to 78)', but the exact architecture (hidden size, number of heads, etc.) is not provided, so the parameter count and the validity of the modification cannot be checked.
  3. [Table 1] The losses are reported without error bars or multiple seeds; given the small gaps (0.05, 0.13, 0.30), it is not possible to assess whether these differences are statistically significant.
  4. [§4.2.2] The AllReduce baseline throughput for Qwen1.5-107B is 10.4 tokens/s; the experimental setup should be detailed, including whether AllReduce was run with the same batch size and whether the throughput includes the communication idle time, since this number is the denominator of the 357x claim.
  5. [Appendix A.1, Lemma 3.4] The proof of Lemma 3.4 assumes 'fully positively correlated' local updates and writes E[Δ_i·Δ_j] = E∥Δ_i∥·E∥Δ_j∥. This equality is not generally true for AdamW with stochastic gradients and is not listed among the assumptions. A valid bound can be obtained via Cauchy-Schwarz, but the current presentation asserts an unjustified equality, and the derivation of E∥Δ_h∥² ≤ η²σ² from the AdamW update is not rigorous.
  6. [Appendix A.3] The 'Stochastic Noise' term uses the notation 1/D Σ (∇f(θ^{t−1};x) − ∇f(θ^{t−1})) without specifying the distribution of x, which is inconsistent with Assumption 3.2; this section should be rewritten with consistent notation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The empirical 107B/1Gbps result is a direct measurement and is not circular, but the paper's convergence proof is partly circular: Lemma 3.4 assumes the H² local-update bound it claims to prove, and Appendix A.3 analyzes the overlap only by substituting the delayed pseudo-gradient with the current gradient.

  1. self definitional [Appendix A.1, Lemma 3.4 (Local Update Stability)]
    "Assume updates are fully positively correlated: E[Δi · Δj] = E∥Δi∥ · E∥Δj∥ ≤ η2σ2. Then, we get E∥∑H h=1 Δh∥2 ≤ Hη2σ2 + H(H − 1)η2σ2 = H2η2σ2."

    This is the only step that produces the H² factor in Lemma 3.4. The lemma's conclusion E∥θt_i,j − θ^{t−1}∥² ≤ η²H²σ² is exactly what the 'fully positively correlated' assumption imposes: if every pair of local updates has inner product equal to the product of its norms, the cross-term sum is (H−1)η²σ² by construction. No property of AdamW or of the loss is used to derive the H² scaling. Corollary 3.8 then feeds this bound into the Local Deviation term, so the convergence theorem's dependence on H is not derived from the algorithm but assumed in the lemma. The theorem is therefore not independent evidence for the convergence claim.

  2. other [Section 2.3 and Appendix A.3 (Local Deviation bound)]
    "We assume that the pseudo-gradients will not change significantly between two consecutive outer steps. ... E∥δ^{t−1}_{i,j} − ∇f(θ^{t−1})∥² ≤ L²η²H²σ²."

    Algorithm 2's overlap executes θ(t) ← OuterOpt(θ(t−1), △(t−1)) with △(t−1) averaged from δ^{t−1}, and δ^{t−1} is the pseudo-gradient computed from the local trajectory that began at θ^{t−2}. The A.3 Local Deviation term compares δ^{t−1}_{i,j} to ∇f(θ^{t−1}) and bounds it by L²η²H²σ². A correct expansion must include ∇f(θ^{t−1})−∇f(θ^{t−2}) and hence E∥θ^{t−1}−θ^{t−2}∥², which never appears. The proof therefore replaces the delayed gradient with the current gradient; that replacement is exactly the §2.3 assumption that pseudo-gradients do not change between consecutive outer steps. Thus the theorem does not derive the overlap's convergence benefit; it assumes it.

full rationale

The central empirical claims—357× throughput and the 4.20 loss on Qwen1.5-107B—are self-contained experimental measurements against AllReduce, OpenDiLoCo, and CocktailSGD. They do not depend on the theorems, so the headline result cannot be called circular. The circularity is confined to the theoretical justification. In Appendix A.1, Lemma 3.4 is introduced as a proof, but the only step that produces the H² factor is the sentence 'Assume updates are fully positively correlated: E[Δi·Δj]=E∥Δi∥·E∥Δj∥≤η²σ².' With that assumption the H² bound follows by construction; without it no argument is given. Corollary 3.8 uses Lemma 3.4 to bound the Local Deviation term, so the convergence theorem inherits an assumed conclusion. Separately, Section 2.3's overlap mechanism updates with Δ^{t−1}, computed from pseudo-gradients that start at θ^{t−2}; Appendix A.3 bounds E∥δ^{t−1}−∇f(θ^{t−1})∥² without the required E∥θ^{t−1}−θ^{t−2}∥² term, effectively assuming the one-step-delay assertion it is meant to justify. Table 1 corroborates that the overlap is not free: removing it lowers loss from 4.20 to 4.15. These are correctness and rigor problems for the theory, not for the measured speedup. Since no self-citation chain is load-bearing and the empirical content is independent, the circularity score is moderate, not extreme.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard smoothness and variance bounds plus several paper-specific postulates. The strongest ad hoc inputs are the fully-positive-correlation assumption used to get the H^2 local deviation bound and the unproven one-step-delay assumption. The compression error lemma intended to supply a bounded-error guarantee is algebraically incorrect, so the convergence theory does not actually cover the compression scheme as implemented.

free parameters (5)
  • H1 = 125
    Initial local training step count for both OPT-1.3B and Qwen1.5-107B runs; directly controls communication frequency and is a key factor in the claimed compression ratio.
  • r1 = 2048
    Initial low-rank compression rank for the 107B run, called approximately 2x compression; affects the compression error bound and convergence.
  • q = Int4 (4 bits)
    Quantization precision used for pseudo-gradients in all DiLoCoX runs.
  • c = 5
    Gradient rank window size in Algorithm 3; controls how fast rank and H adapt.
  • unstated r'_t estimator
    Algorithm 3 refers to r'_t computed from the globally averaged gradient but never defines the estimator, making the adaptive scheme effectively a hidden free choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Loss functions are L-smooth; stochastic gradients unbiased with bounded variance; data heterogeneity bounded (Assumptions 3.1-3.3).
    Common assumptions for LocalSGD convergence proofs; they bound the stochastic noise and local deviation terms in the appendix.
  • ad hoc to paper Local AdamW updates are fully positively correlated, so E[Δi·Δj] ≤ η^2σ^2 (Appendix A.1).
    This assumption is introduced in the proof of Lemma 3.4 to convert H independent-step terms into H^2; it is not justified and likely false for AdamW across steps.
  • ad hoc to paper The end-to-end compression error satisfies E∥C(θ)-θ∥^2 ≤ ω^2∥θ∥^2 with ω^2 = 1 - r/d * 2^{-q} (Lemma 3.6).
    The lemma is meant to prove the compression assumption, but the formula has quantization dependence inverted: more bits (larger q) increase the error bound, so the lemma is not a valid derivation.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-gradients do not change significantly between two consecutive outer steps (Section 2.3).
    This is the stated justification for using a one-step-delayed averaged pseudo-gradient; the appendix proof does not model the delay, so the assumption is unverified.
  • domain assumption Rank Diminishing Principle from Feng et al. 2022 applies to the trained model's pseudo-gradients, so ranks can be safely lowered over training (Section 2.4.3).
    The paper imports the rank-diminishing observation for deep networks and assumes the pseudo-gradient rank decays similarly, which is used to justify the adaptive compression rule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiLoCoX: A Low-Communication Large-Scale Training Framework for Decentralized Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIZ2XM76

@misc{pith2026250621263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiLoCoX: A Low-Communication Large-Scale Training Framework for Decentralized Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIZ2XM76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21263}
}
read the original abstract

The distributed training of foundation models, particularly large language models (LLMs), demands a high level of communication. Consequently, it is highly dependent on a centralized cluster with fast and reliable interconnects. Can we conduct training on slow networks and thereby unleash the power of decentralized clusters when dealing with models exceeding 100 billion parameters? In this paper, we propose DiLoCoX, a low-communication large-scale decentralized cluster training framework. It combines Pipeline Parallelism with Dual Optimizer Policy, One-Step-Delay Overlap of Communication and Local Training, and an Adaptive Gradient Compression Scheme. This combination significantly improves the scale of parameters and the speed of model pre-training. We justify the benefits of one-step-delay overlap of communication and local training, as well as the adaptive gradient compression scheme, through a theoretical analysis of convergence. Empirically, we demonstrate that DiLoCoX is capable of pre-training a 107B foundation model over a 1Gbps network. Compared to vanilla AllReduce, DiLoCoX can achieve a 357x speedup in distributed training while maintaining negligible degradation in model convergence. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first decentralized training framework successfully applied to models with over 100 billion parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21263 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One-Step-Delay Overlap of Communication and Local Training. 2.4. Design of Adaptive Gradient Compression Algorithm 2.4.1. ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION OVERHEAD After H steps of local training in C clusters, we need to perform a pseudo-gradient update of decentralized clusters. Suppose that the number of model parameters is θ, so the total number of parameters that must be communicated by all workers is θ × D, where D i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training loss comparison across different distributed optimization methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Throughput Comparison between AllReduce, OpenDiLoCo, CocktailSGD and DiLoCoX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LoRDO: Distributed Low-Rank Optimization with Infrequent Communication

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LoRDO combines global low-rank projections with full-rank quasi-hyperbolic momentum to let infrequent-synchronization distributed training match low-rank DDP at roughly 10x less communication.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M

    Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosse- lut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258,

    arXiv

  2. [6]

    A., Chhaparia, R., Donchev, Y ., Kuncoro, A., Ranzato, M., Szlam, A., and Shen, J

    8 DiLoCoX: A Low-Communication Large-Scale Training Framework for Decentralized Cluster Douillard, A., Feng, Q., Rusu, A. A., Chhaparia, R., Donchev, Y ., Kuncoro, A., Ranzato, M., Szlam, A., and Shen, J. Diloco: Distributed low-communication training of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08105,

    arXiv

  3. [8]

    Crafting papers on machine learning

    Langley, P. Crafting papers on machine learning. In Langley, P. (ed.),Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000), pp. 1207–1216, Stan- ford, CA,

    2000

  4. [12]

    Wang, H., Li, J., Wu, H., Hovy, E., and Sun, Y

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1905.13727. Wang, H., Li, J., Wu, H., Hovy, E., and Sun, Y . Pre-trained language models and their applications. Engineering,

    arXiv 1905

  5. [13]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1710. 09854. Zhang, Z., Zheng, S., Wang, Y ., Chiu, J., Karypis, G., Chilimbi, T., Li, M., and Jin, X. Mics: near-linear scal- ing for training gigantic model on public cloud. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00119,

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y ., Min, Y ., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., et al

    Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y ., Min, Y ., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 2023a. Zhao, Y ., Gu, A., Varma, R., Luo, L., Huang, C.-C., Xu, M., Wright, L., Shojanazeri, H., Ott, M., Shleifer, S., Desmai- son, A., Balioglu, C., Damania, P., Nguyen, B., Cha...

    arXiv

  7. [2000]

    Merity, S., Xiong, C., Bradbury, J., and Socher, R

    Morgan Kaufmann. Merity, S., Xiong, C., Bradbury, J., and Socher, R. Pointer sentinel mixture models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.07843,

    arXiv

  8. [2016]

    Megatron-lm: Training multi- billion parameter language models using model paral- lelism

    Shoeybi, M., Patwary, M., Puri, R., LeGresley, P., Casper, J., and Catanzaro, B. Megatron-lm: Training multi- billion parameter language models using model paral- lelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053,

    arXiv 1909

Show all 14 references
  1. [2017]

    Alistarh, D., Hoefler, T., Johansson, M., Khirirat, S., Kon- stantinov, N., and Renggli, C

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1610.02132. Alistarh, D., Hoefler, T., Johansson, M., Khirirat, S., Kon- stantinov, N., and Renggli, C. The convergence of spar- sified gradient methods,

    arXiv

  2. [2018]

    org/abs/1809.10505

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1809.10505. Baidu. Bringing hpc techniques to deep learning,

    arXiv

  3. [2020]

    Rendle, S., Fetterly, D., Shekita, E

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1910.02054. Rendle, S., Fetterly, D., Shekita, E. J., and Su, B.-y. Robust large-scale machine learning in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1125–1134,

    1910 arXiv

  4. [2021]

    Brown, T. B. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165,

    2005 arXiv

  5. [2022]

    M., and Hagemann, J

    Jaghouar, S., Ong, J. M., and Hagemann, J. Opendiloco: An open-source framework for globally distributed low-communication training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07852,

    arXiv

  6. [2024]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional trans- formers for language understanding

    Devlin, J. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional trans- formers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.