Adam: understand the update, not just the defaults
Why two moving averages can change the geometry of a training problem. Work through the first step and inspect the effect of bias correction.
Kingma & Ba · arXiv:1412.6980
17 papers. Seven topics. Each analysis connects the original claim to a worked example, an interactive explanation and a falsifiable experiment.
Detailed technical articles are available in English and Chinese. This locale shows the English article with localized navigation.
How updates move parameters, and why regularization changes the result.
Why two moving averages can change the geometry of a training problem. Work through the first step and inspect the effect of bias correction.
Kingma & Ba · arXiv:1412.6980
Separate a loss penalty from parameter shrinkage, then test the difference with an intentionally unequal preconditioner.
Loshchilov & Hutter · arXiv:1711.05101
From token interactions to GPU memory traffic.
Track Q, K and V, interpret a causal attention row, and distinguish parallel training from autoregressive generation.
Vaswani et al. · arXiv:1706.03762
See why not storing an attention matrix can matter as much as arithmetic, and reconstruct softmax one tile at a time.
Dao et al. · arXiv:2205.14135
Low-rank updates, quantized backbones and preference objectives.
Factor a weight update, count trainable parameters and explain the asymmetric first gradient.
Hu et al. · arXiv:2106.09685
Separate stored weights, computation precision, adapters and training state. Build an honest memory ledger.
Dettmers et al. · arXiv:2305.14314
Derive the pairwise margin and see what β changes in a single preference example.
Rafailov et al. · arXiv:2305.18290
What makes a positive pair, and what a representation should preserve.
Treat contrastive prediction as a classification problem and inspect what negative sampling assumes.
van den Oord, Li & Vinyals · arXiv:1807.03748
Follow two views through a shared encoder and projection head, then audit whether the invariance is valid.
Chen et al. · arXiv:2002.05709
Calibration, judges, uncertainty and fair compute budgets.
Adjust temperature without changing class ranking, and learn why one confidence score cannot establish calibration.
Guo et al. · arXiv:1706.04599
Separate seed variation, implementation choices and model selection before declaring an improvement.
Henderson et al. · arXiv:1709.06560
A better winning score can come from more attempts. Plot the selection process as part of the result.
Dodge et al. · arXiv:1909.03004
Separate answer preference from correctness and reveal how order effects can alter a reported win rate.
Zheng et al. · arXiv:2306.05685
Turn observations into actions, then test the entire loop.
Follow an external-evidence loop, then add operational limits that a research demonstration does not automatically provide.
Yao et al. · arXiv:2210.03629
From policy updates to feedback-driven language-model improvement.
Understand the sign of advantage, the rollout-policy ratio and the limits of clipping.
Schulman et al. · arXiv:1707.06347
Connect demonstrations, preference labels, reward learning and policy optimization.
Ouyang et al. · arXiv:2203.02155
Study R1-Zero and R1 separately, then build a controlled test of reasoning improvement. This analysis is pinned to arXiv v1.
DeepSeek-AI · arXiv:2501.12948