Source author record

Priyank Pathak

Priyank Pathak appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
1topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Local Learning on Transformers via Feature Reconstruction

Transformers are becoming increasingly popular due to their superior performance over conventional convolutional neural networks(CNNs). However, transformers usually require a much larger amount of memory to train than CNNs, which prevents their application in many low resource settings. Local learning, which divides the network into several distinct modules and trains them individually, is a promising alternative to the end-to-end (E2E) training approach to reduce the amount of memory for training and to increase parallelism. This paper is the first to apply Local Learning on transformers for this purpose. The standard CNN-based local learning method, InfoPro [32], reconstructs the input images for each module in a CNN. However, reconstructing the entire image does not generalize well. In this paper, we propose a new mechanism for each local module, where instead of reconstructing the entire image, we reconstruct its input features, generated from previous modules. We evaluate our approach on 4 commonly used datasets and 3 commonly used decoder structures on Swin-Tiny. The experiments show that our approach outperforms InfoPro-Transformer, the InfoPro with Transfomer backbone we introduced, by at up to 0.58% on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, STL-10 and SVHN datasets, while using up to 12% less memory. Compared to the E2E approach, we require 36% less GPU memory when the network is divided into 2 modules and 45% less GPU memory when the network is divided into 4 modules.