You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am not sure if here is the right place to ask this, but in the paper
"Simulating Three-dimensional Turbulence with Physics-informed Neural Networks"
exponential decay of learning rate is combined used with schedule free method.
However, to my knowledge, the intent of the schedule free method is to replace handcrafted scheduling, and documentation on optax.contrib.schedule_free also states that it is important to turn off momentum of the base optimizer. Looking at the JAXPI repository, both exponential decay and momentum is used alongside schedule free method.
Should there be a reason why schedule free method performs better with momentum and decaying lr schedule in the context of PINNs?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am not sure if here is the right place to ask this, but in the paper
"Simulating Three-dimensional Turbulence with Physics-informed Neural Networks"
exponential decay of learning rate is combined used with schedule free method.
However, to my knowledge, the intent of the schedule free method is to replace handcrafted scheduling, and documentation on optax.contrib.schedule_free also states that it is important to turn off momentum of the base optimizer. Looking at the JAXPI repository, both exponential decay and momentum is used alongside schedule free method.
Should there be a reason why schedule free method performs better with momentum and decaying lr schedule in the context of PINNs?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions