Organizations: the School of Information Science and Engineering, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang 050091, China · the School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China · the International Institute of Next Generation Internet, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau 519020
Euclidean gradient descent algorithms barely capture the geometry of objective function-induced hypersurfaces and risk driving update trajectories off the hypersurfaces. Riemannian gradient descent algorithms address these issues but fail to represent complex hypersurfaces via a single classic manifold. We propose geodesic gradient descent (GGD), a generic and learning-rate-free Riemannian gradient descent algorithm. At each iteration, GGD uses an n-dimensional sphere to approximate a local neighborhood on the objective function-induced hypersurface, adapting to arbitrarily complex geometries. A tangent vector derived from the Euclidean gradient is projected onto the sphere to form a geodesic, ensuring the update trajectory stays on the hypersurface. Parameter updates are performed using the endpoint of the geodesic. The maximum step size of the gradient in GGD is equal to a quarter of the arc length on the n-dimensional sphere, thus eliminating the need for a learning rate. Experimental results show that compared with the classic Adam algorithm, GGD achieves test MSE reductions ranging from 35.79% to 48.76% for fully connected networks on the Burgers' dataset, and cross-entropy loss reductions ranging from 3.14% to 11.59% for convolutional neural networks on the MNIST dataset.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The convergence direction in Euclidean space.
Fig. 2: The Riemannian gradient [ 5 ] .
Fig. 3: The convergence process of GGD algorithm.
Fig. 4: The variation curve of RBFs.
Fig. 5: Different vectors in the tangent space of a circle and their corresponding projected geodesics on the circle.
Optimizer
Hyper parameters
SGD
learning rate=0.001
SGDM
learning rate=0.001;momentum=0.9
ADAM
learning rate=0.001; β1 =0.9; β2 =0.999
Muon
learning rate=0.001; β1 =0.9
SSGD
learning rate=0.001
GGD
μ =0; σ and R0 are adjusted.
TABLE I: The hyper parameters of the optimizers compared in this paper.
Nets
Structures
MSE
SGD [ 1 ]
SGDM [ 15 ]
Adam [ 2 ]
Muon [ 4 ]
SSGD [ 11 ]
GGD(ours)
reduction (GGD V.S. Adam)
FCN_1
3,6,1
Training
1.83E-3
9.23E-3
1.37E-4
4.60E-4
1.81E-3
1.00E-4
27.01%
Test
2.80E-3
1.60E-3
4.47E-4
1.07E-3
2.61E-3
2.29E-4
48.76%
FCN_2
3,4,6,4,1
Training
1.47E-3
6.40E-4
1.88E-5
4.31E-5
2.27E-3
1.91E-5
-1.59%
Test
2.04E-3
1.20E-3
3.03E-4
2.13E-4
3.07E-3
1.80E-4
40.59%
FCN_3
3,10*10,1
Training
1.27E-3
4.27E-4
2.00E-6
1.73E-5
1.19E-3
5.12E-7
74.40%
Test
3.74E-3
3.88E-3
8.83E-4
2.34E-3
3.13E-3
5.67E-4
35.79%
TABLE II: The training loss of gradient descent optimizations on Burgers’ dataset.
Fig. 6: The training and validation progress of all comparative algorithms on Burgers’ dataset.
Nets
Structures
Errors
SGD [ 1 ]
SGDM [ 15 ]
Adam [ 2 ]
Muon [ 4 ]
SSGD [ 11 ]
GGD(ours)
reduction (GGD V.S. Adam)
CNN_1
2*(3*3)+10
Tr CE
1.96E-01
6.72E-02
1.74E-02
3.94E-02
7.89E-01
1.36E-2
11.49%
Te CE
1.38E-01
4.87E-02
3.97E-02
3.79E-02
6.97E-01
3.44E-02
11.59%
Acc
95.92%
98.34%
98.85%
98.71%
89.12%
99.04%
—
CNN_2
3*(3*3)+10
Tr CE
2.93E-01
8.56E-02
1.32E-02
2.32E-02
1.91
1.16E-02
12.12%
Te CE
1.70E-01
5.00E-02
2.87E-02
3.11E-02
1.85
2.78E-02
3.14%
Acc
95.20%
98.48%
99.14%
99.00%
63.30%
99.16%
—
TABLE III: The training loss of gradient descent optimizations on MNIST dataset.
Fig. 7: The training and validation progress of all comparative algorithms on MNIST dataset.
Fig. 8: The accuracy validation progress of all comparative algorithms on MNIST dataset.
Experiment
iterations
Networks
SGD
SGDM
Adam
Muon
SSGD
GGD
Burgers’
1000
FCN_1
102.59
123.56
147.95
127.15
182.39
161.30
FCN_2
179.99
181.81
265.88
242.45
271.87
238.66
FCN_3
501.80
606.11
801.47
727.92
832.16
697.33
MNIST
200
CNN_1
3258.90
3220.50
3409.10
3692.38
3625.72
3468.02
CNN_2
3613.33
3799.60
3872.47
3667.76
3677.74
3668.26
CNN_3
3615.88
3631.42
3788.23
3437.67
3633.23
3617.78
TABLE IV: The training time (seconds) of the 6 algorithms.
Fig. 9: The variations of Rt in Burgers’ and MNIST experiments.