ML Interview Q Series: Which variations of Gradient Descent do you know and in what scenarios might they be applied?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

Gradient Descent is a fundamental optimization method used to minimize a loss function by iteratively adjusting the parameters in the direction that reduces the loss. In its general form, the parameter update rule can be represented with the following central equation:

Here, theta_{t} denotes the parameters at the t-th iteration, alpha represents the learning rate that controls the step size, and grad J(theta_{t}) indicates the gradient of the loss function J evaluated at theta_{t}.

Different types of Gradient Descent approaches vary primarily by how they estimate the gradient (using the entire dataset, a single sample, or a batch of samples) and how they incorporate additional terms like momentum or adaptive learning rates. Below are some of the key variants:

Batch Gradient Descent

This approach computes the gradient using all training examples. At each iteration, you evaluate the gradient over the entire dataset. This results in stable and true gradient estimates but can become extremely slow and memory-intensive when the dataset is large. It is typically used for smaller datasets or when exact gradient estimates are necessary to stabilize updates.

Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)

In Stochastic Gradient Descent, the gradient is computed on a single randomly chosen sample (or a single example label pair) at a time. Because it updates parameters after seeing only one sample, it makes frequent updates and can sometimes lead to faster convergence in practice. However, it has higher variance in the updates, leading to noisy convergence. Despite the noise, SGD is very popular for large-scale problems, especially in Deep Learning.

Mini-Batch Gradient Descent

Mini-batch gradient descent is a hybrid approach that estimates the gradient on a small subset of the dataset (e.g., 32, 64, or 128 samples) rather than the entire dataset or a single sample. It strikes a good balance between computational efficiency (fewer updates than pure stochastic) and stable gradient estimates. Most modern Deep Learning frameworks (like PyTorch and TensorFlow) default to mini-batch training because it leverages vectorized operations efficiently on GPUs.

Momentum-Based Gradient Descent

Momentum-based methods track an exponentially decaying moving average of past gradients to build velocity. This technique helps the parameters move consistently in the same direction if consecutive gradients keep pointing that way. It is especially helpful in dealing with local minima or ravines. Momentum methods typically reduce oscillations in dimensions that do not consistently align with the optimal direction, leading to smoother and sometimes faster convergence.

Nesterov Accelerated Gradient (NAG)

NAG improves upon standard momentum by looking ahead at the likely future position of the parameters and then computing the gradient at that “lookahead” position. This can give a more accurate update direction and prevent overshooting caused by momentum. Practitioners often find that NAG can converge faster than vanilla momentum-based updates.

Adaptive Gradient Methods (Adagrad, RMSProp, Adam, etc.)

These methods adapt the learning rate for each parameter dimension based on historical gradient information.

• Adagrad adjusts the learning rate by dividing by the square root of the sum of historical squared gradients, making it useful for dealing with sparse data, though it can cause the learning rate to decrease monotonically over time.

• RMSProp modifies Adagrad by including an exponential decay on the squared gradients, thus controlling the rapid shrinkage of the learning rate.

• Adam (Adaptive Moment Estimation) combines concepts from Momentum and RMSProp by tracking both an exponential moving average of gradients and an exponential moving average of squared gradients. Adam often converges faster with minimal hyperparameter tuning and is widely used across many Deep Learning tasks.

Example of Implementing Gradient Descent in Python

Below is a simple demonstration using mini-batch gradient descent in a pseudo PyTorch style (without the actual forward/backward pass, just an update illustration). It demonstrates how parameters might be updated in practice:

import torch

# Suppose we have a simple linear model: y = Wx + b
# Let's say we want to optimize W and b using gradient descent

# Initialize parameters
W = torch.randn((1,), requires_grad=True)
b = torch.randn((1,), requires_grad=True)

# Learning rate
alpha = 0.01

# Dummy data
x_data = torch.randn((100, 1))
y_data = 3 * x_data + 2  # The "true" function

# Training loop
for epoch in range(1000):
    # Shuffle the data
    indices = torch.randperm(x_data.size(0))
    x_data = x_data[indices]
    y_data = y_data[indices]

    # Mini-batch size of 10
    batch_size = 10
    for start_idx in range(0, x_data.size(0), batch_size):
        end_idx = start_idx + batch_size
        x_batch = x_data[start_idx:end_idx]
        y_batch = y_data[start_idx:end_idx]

        # Forward pass (simple linear model)
        predictions = W * x_batch + b

        # Compute loss (mean squared error)
        loss = ((predictions - y_batch) ** 2).mean()

        # Backward pass
        loss.backward()

        # Update parameters
        with torch.no_grad():
            W -= alpha * W.grad
            b -= alpha * b.grad

        # Zero the gradients
        W.grad.zero_()
        b.grad.zero_()

This snippet highlights mini-batch gradient descent. Each epoch shuffles the data, splits it into batches, calculates gradients, and updates the parameters accordingly.

How Does Mini-Batch Size Affect Convergence?

A larger mini-batch size provides a more stable gradient estimate but requires more memory and might lead to slower updates because you do fewer parameter updates per pass through the data. A smaller mini-batch size adds noise to the gradient estimate (similar to pure SGD) but allows for more frequent updates and can sometimes escape shallow local minima. Tuning batch size is often a practical consideration in Deep Learning.

Why Not Use Pure Batch Gradient Descent for Large Problems?

When you have a massive dataset, computing the full gradient on the entire dataset at once can be computationally very costly. It also requires that all data (and intermediate gradient information) be held in memory, which can be infeasible. Most real-world applications adopt mini-batch or stochastic approaches to handle large-scale data and leverage hardware accelerations such as GPUs more efficiently.

Which Methods Are Used Most Often in Practice?

Most practitioners rely on mini-batch gradient descent combined with adaptive optimizers like Adam. This approach reduces the need for extensive manual tuning of the learning rate and can converge quickly in practice. However, plain SGD (with or without momentum) remains popular for certain tasks (e.g., large-scale image classification) when carefully tuned, because it can generalize well.

Could Momentum Methods Overshoot the Optimal Solution?

Momentum-based methods accumulate velocity. If the gradient changes sign or if the learning rate is too high, the accumulated momentum might cause the parameters to overshoot. Proper tuning of the momentum coefficient (often called beta) and the learning rate can mitigate this issue. Nesterov Accelerated Gradient can also reduce the risk by doing the gradient evaluation at the “lookahead” position rather than the current position.

Why Would Someone Choose Adagrad Over Adam or RMSProp?

Adagrad is sometimes preferred for dealing with very sparse features because its per-parameter learning rate scaling can significantly boost updates for infrequently occurring features. However, Adagrad can diminish the learning rate too rapidly over time. Methods like RMSProp and Adam address this by introducing a decaying average of the squared gradient, making them more robust over longer training horizons.

Are There Situations Where SGD Might Outperform Adaptive Methods?

Yes. Although Adam (and other adaptive methods) often converge faster, there are situations—particularly in some large-scale image classification tasks—where carefully tuned SGD (possibly with momentum) can lead to better generalization performance. Adaptive optimizers can sometimes converge to slightly suboptimal minima, whereas non-adaptive methods might find solutions that generalize more robustly.

What Happens If the Learning Rate is Set Too High or Too Low?

• A learning rate that is too high can cause divergence or large fluctuations during training (the loss may not decrease reliably).

• A learning rate that is too low slows down convergence, causing the model to take a large number of iterations to approach a minimum.

It’s common practice to experiment with different learning rates, or even to use learning rate schedules or adaptive optimizers to control the learning rate dynamically during training.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How does gradient descent handle non-convex landscapes? Does it always find the global minimum?

Gradient descent aims to move parameters downhill in the direction of the negative gradient, but in non-convex landscapes, local minima, saddle points, and plateau regions can present challenges. In high-dimensional spaces (like deep neural networks), saddle points can be more prevalent than strict local minima. Gradient descent does not guarantee finding the global optimum in these scenarios, especially when the loss surface is highly non-convex. However, in practice, reaching a good local minimum or even a saddle region that offers sufficient predictive performance can be acceptable for many real-world tasks.

One subtle issue is that certain non-convex surfaces contain flat or nearly flat regions (plateaus). When the gradient is tiny in these regions, learning can stall for many iterations, leading to slow progress. Another subtlety is that if gradients exhibit high variance or the learning rate is poorly tuned, the model might oscillate around sharper minima or even diverge. These factors make it crucial to experiment with different optimization techniques (momentum, adaptive learning rates) and to rely on careful hyperparameter tuning.

What is a typical approach for setting the learning rate in practice, and how do learning rate schedules work?

A common approach is to start with a learning rate in a range that empirically tends to work for similar problems or architectures. Typical initial values might be something like 0.1 or 0.01 for large-scale image classification tasks, though this can vary widely depending on the model and the data. The learning rate is often chosen based on a heuristic or a small hyperparameter search.

Learning rate schedules gradually modify the learning rate over time to achieve a better balance between exploration and convergence. For example, you might decay the learning rate by some constant factor every few epochs, or you can use a schedule that reduces the learning rate whenever validation loss plateaus. In more advanced schedules like cyclical learning rates, the learning rate is varied between a minimum and maximum boundary according to a certain cycle. This can allow the model to escape shallow local minima by occasionally increasing the learning rate again.

In real-world applications, you might see a rapid warm-up phase where the learning rate slowly ramps up from a very small value to the desired initial rate over the first few epochs, especially in very deep networks. This mitigates issues when early gradients can be extremely large or unstable. The key pitfall is setting the learning rate schedule too aggressively or not aggressively enough; the former can cause abrupt drops that disrupt smooth convergence, while the latter can waste computational resources by converging too slowly.

How does gradient descent scale in distributed training environments with large neural networks?

Distributed training involves splitting the workload of computing gradients across multiple GPUs, machines, or both. Each device processes a portion of the training data (a subset of a mini-batch or an entire mini-batch), computes gradients, and then communicates these gradients to synchronize the model parameters.

When scaling up to many machines, communication overhead becomes a significant bottleneck. Techniques like gradient compression, reduced-precision arithmetic (e.g., float16), or more efficient all-reduce algorithms are often used to manage this overhead. One subtle pitfall is that if synchronization is not done correctly, you might run into inconsistent parameter states across workers, leading to model divergence. There can also be issues where the global effective batch size becomes very large, reducing the stochasticity of updates and sometimes hurting generalization. Practitioners typically adjust learning rate or use techniques like linear scaling of the learning rate with the batch size to counteract this issue.

Could you illustrate the concept of gradient clipping and why it is used?

Gradient clipping is a technique to limit (clip) the magnitude of gradients before performing an update. One of the simplest forms is norm-based clipping, where if the norm of the gradient exceeds a certain threshold, the gradient is scaled down proportionally so that its norm matches the threshold. This is often seen in models with recurrent connections (like LSTMs and GRUs) where gradients can explode under certain conditions.

A typical issue arises if your model’s gradients become extremely large due to sudden changes in the loss landscape. This can lead to drastic, destabilizing updates that cause the model to diverge. Clipping the gradient ensures the update remains within a controlled range, thus improving training stability. It is not a panacea, but it often helps models train more reliably, especially in deep sequential models.

In which scenarios might gradient descent fail or lead to suboptimal solutions, and how do you diagnose and mitigate this?

Gradient descent can fail or produce suboptimal results in several situations:

• Extremely pathological loss surfaces might trap the model in regions where gradients are very small (plateaus), causing slow or no progress. • Poorly set hyperparameters (learning rate, momentum, etc.) can cause divergence or chronic oscillation around suboptimal points. • High variance in stochastic gradients might keep the model from settling into deeper minima, especially if batch sizes are too small or data is too noisy.

One way to diagnose these issues is to track the training and validation loss curves. If the training loss decreases very slowly or not at all, you might be stuck in a plateau or have an overly small learning rate. If the loss diverges, the learning rate is likely too high or you are encountering exploding gradients. If you see significant overfitting, the model might still converge to a minimum but generalize poorly; that indicates you might need better regularization or more data.

Mitigations include trying different batch sizes, tuning learning rates carefully, introducing momentum or adaptive optimizers, and applying gradient clipping if exploding gradients are detected. You can also adjust your model architecture or regularization if overfitting is a problem.

What are typical ranges or best practices for setting the momentum term in momentum-based methods?

Momentum introduces an exponential decay factor (often denoted beta or gamma), usually set between 0.8 and 0.99. If you pick a value too low, momentum may not accumulate enough “velocity” to smooth out gradients effectively. If you pick a value too high, the updates might overshoot, causing unstable training and oscillations. In many practical deep learning tasks, beta in the range 0.9 to 0.99 is common. You typically combine this with a well-chosen learning rate.

One subtlety is that momentum interacts with other hyperparameters, such as learning rate schedules. If the learning rate drops too quickly, momentum has less impact since step sizes become smaller. If the learning rate stays large, momentum can accumulate large updates that are slow to reverse. Hence, you often fine-tune momentum and the learning rate together.

How does the dimensionality of the parameter space affect the choice of gradient-based algorithms?

As the dimensionality increases, the loss landscape can become much more complex. In high-dimensional settings, saddle points are more common, and local minima may be less of a concern compared to broad plateaus. Adaptive methods like Adam and RMSProp tend to help navigate these landscapes by providing per-parameter scaling of the learning rate, which can be beneficial when different dimensions exhibit varying gradient magnitudes.

However, in very high-dimensional spaces, second-order methods that rely on computing or approximating Hessians often become computationally infeasible. When the dimensionality is moderately large (but not extremely), quasi-Newton methods or advanced preconditioning might still help. Another subtlety is that some dimensions might be more sensitive than others, so controlling step sizes individually (as done by Adagrad or Adam) can be valuable. The main pitfall is that any approach that scales linearly or more with the parameter count can become extremely resource intensive in modern deep networks.

What if the data distribution changes during training (non-stationary data)? Should you re-initialize training?

When the data distribution shifts significantly over time (known as dataset shift or non-stationarity), the model may start to perform poorly on the new distribution. One strategy is to continue training (fine-tuning) on the new data with caution, as the previously learned parameters might still hold valuable information. Another approach is to use domain adaptation methods or maintain a buffer of recent data to retrain or partially retrain the model as distribution shifts occur.

A potential pitfall is catastrophic forgetting, where continued training on newer data causes performance to degrade drastically on previously learned tasks. If the shift is large enough, you might need to re-initialize and train from scratch or at least adopt specialized techniques like elastic weight consolidation that mitigate forgetting by penalizing large deviations from important parameters learned earlier. Detecting distribution shift can be tricky; one might monitor performance metrics over time or track changes in the input feature distribution.

When might a second-order method (like Newton’s method) be more suitable than basic gradient descent?

Second-order methods use curvature information from the Hessian (or approximations thereof) to guide parameter updates more intelligently. They can converge in fewer iterations on problems where the curvature information helps navigate narrow or curved valleys. This is sometimes seen in smaller-scale or specialized problems like logistic regression or small neural networks, especially where computing Hessians or quasi-Newton approximations is feasible.

In large-scale deep learning, second-order methods become impractical because computing and storing Hessians is memory-intensive, and the computational overhead for matrix inversion or factorization can be prohibitive. Approaches like K-FAC (Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature) try to approximate second-order updates for large neural networks, but they still introduce extra complexity. Thus, second-order methods remain more of a niche solution, suited primarily to problems small enough in scale to afford the overhead or where the data is limited but precise convergence is critical.

What happens when gradient descent is combined with batch normalization or other normalizations in deep networks?

Batch normalization normalizes activations within a mini-batch before passing them to the next layer. By stabilizing the distribution of intermediate representations, it often allows for higher learning rates and faster training convergence. Gradient descent typically benefits from this because normalized activations reduce the problem of internal covariate shift, making the loss surface smoother in practice.

A subtle point is that batch normalization makes the effective gradients for each parameter dependent on the mini-batch statistics. If the mini-batch size is very small or if there is a wide range of distributional changes during training, the estimates of means and variances might become noisy, potentially destabilizing the updates. Other normalizations like Layer Normalization, Group Normalization, or Instance Normalization can circumvent some issues of batch-size dependence but come with their own trade-offs. In all these cases, gradient descent remains the core update method; normalization primarily modifies how the forward pass is computed and how stable the gradients are, often resulting in more robust convergence.