LN trainFigure 5: Handwriting sequence generation model negative log likelihood with and without layer
normalization. The models are trained with mini-batch size of 8 and sequence length of 500,
differences between the original reported results and ours are likely due to the fact that the publicly
available code does not condition at each timestep of the decoder, where the original model does.
6.4 Modeling binarized MNIST using DRAW
0 20 40 60 80 100
Epoch80859095100Test Variational BoundBaseline
WN
LN
Figure 4: DRAW model test negative log likelihood with and without
layer normalization.We also experimented with the generative modeling on the
MNIST dataset. Deep Recurrent Attention Writer (DRAW)
[Gregor et al., 2015] has previously achieved the state-of-theart performance on modeling the distribution of MNIST digits. The model uses a differential attention mechanism and
a recurrent neural network to sequentially generate pieces of
an image. We evaluate the effect of layer normalization on
a DRAW model using 64 glimpses and 256 LSTM hidden
units. The model is trained with the default setting of Adam
[Kingma and Ba, 2014] optimizer and the minibatch size of
128. Previous publications on binarized MNIST have used
various training protocols to generate their datasets. In this
Training state-of-the-art, deep neural networks is computationally expensive.
One way to reduce the training time is to normalize the activities of the
neurons. A recently introduced technique called batch normalization uses the
distribution of the summed input to a neuron over a mini-batch of training
cases to compute a mean and variance which are then used to normalize the
summed input to that neuron on each training case. This significantly reduces
the training time in feed-forward neural networks. However, the effect of batch
normalization is dependent on the mini-batch size and it is not obvious how to
apply it to recurrent neural networks. In this paper, we transpose batch
normalization into layer normalization by computing the mean and variance used
for normalization from all of the summed inputs to the neurons in a layer on a
single training case. Like batch normalization, we also give each neuron its
own adaptive bias and gain which are applied after the normalization but before
the non-linearity. Unlike batch normalization, layer normalization performs
exactly the same computation at training and test times. It is also
straightforward to apply to recurrent neural networks by computing the
normalization statistics separately at each time step. Layer normalization is
very effective at stabilizing the hidden state dynamics in recurrent networks.
Empirically, we show that layer normalization can substantially reduce the
training time compared with previously published techniques.
Jimmy Lei Ba Jamie Ryan Kiros Geoffrey E. Hinton