SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

The Impact of Optimizer Selection on Transformer Performance: Analyzing the Role of Model Complexity and Dataset Size

Hilal Çelik(SİVAS BİLİM VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5428-3411
Ramazan Katırcı(SİVAS BİLİM VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2448-011X
Pages
180–191
Publication Date
2026-01-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results show adaptive optimizers generally outperform non-adaptive ones like SGD, particularly as dataset size grows.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Model complexity, dataset size and optimizer choice critically influence machine learning model performance, especially in complex architectures like Transformers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For smaller datasets (20K, 50K), Adam, AdamW, Nadam and RMSprop perform best on low-complexity models, while AdaBelief, Adagrad and SGD excel with higher complexity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show adaptive optimizers generally outperform non-adaptive ones like SGD, particularly as dataset size grows.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Transformer architecture · Optimizer comparison · Model complexity

Abstract

Model complexity, dataset size and optimizer choice critically influence machine learning model performance, especially in complex architectures like Transformers. This study aims to analyze the impact of seven optimizers —Adam, AdamW, AdaBelief, RMSprop, Nadam, Adagrad and SGD—across two Transformer configurations and three dataset sizes. Results show adaptive optimizers generally outperform non-adaptive ones like SGD, particularly as dataset size grows. For smaller datasets (20K, 50K), Adam, AdamW, Nadam and RMSprop perform best on low-complexity models, while AdaBelief, Adagrad and SGD excel with higher complexity. On the largest dataset (∼140K samples), Nadam and RMSprop lead in low-complexity models, whereas Adam, AdaBelief, Adagrad, SGD and AdamW do so in high-complexity models. Notably, low-complexity models train more than twice as fast and, in some cases, achieve better accuracy and lower loss than their high-complexity counterparts. This result highlighting the importance of balancing optimizer choice, dataset size and model complexity for efficiency and accuracy. These results emphasize the trade-offs associated with optimizing model efficiency and accuracy through the interplay of optimizer selection, dataset size and model complexity.

Özet

Model complexity, dataset size and optimizer choice critically influence machine learning model performance, especially in complex architectures like Transformers. This study aims to analyze the impact of seven optimizers —Adam, AdamW, AdaBelief, RMSprop, Nadam, Adagrad and SGD—across two Transformer configurations and three dataset sizes. Results show adaptive optimizers generally outperform non-adaptive ones like SGD, particularly as dataset size grows. For smaller datasets (20K, 50K), Adam, AdamW, Nadam and RMSprop perform best on low-complexity models, while AdaBelief, Adagrad and SGD excel with higher complexity. On the largest dataset (∼140K samples), Nadam and RMSprop lead in low-complexity models, whereas Adam, AdaBelief, Adagrad, SGD and AdamW do so in high-complexity models. Notably, low-complexity models train more than twice as fast and, in some cases, achieve better accuracy and lower loss than their high-complexity counterparts. This result highlighting the importance of balancing optimizer choice, dataset size and model complexity for efficiency and accuracy. These results emphasize the trade-offs associated with optimizing model efficiency and accuracy through the interplay of optimizer selection, dataset size and model complexity.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çelik, H., Katırcı, R. (2026). The Impact of Optimizer Selection on Transformer Performance: Analyzing the Role of Model Complexity and Dataset Size. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1739598

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Abdulmumin, I., Galadanci, B. S., & Isa, A. (2021). Enhanced back-translation for low resource neural machine translation using self-training. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1350, 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69143-1_28
  2. Ahmad, R., & Al-Ramahi, I. A. M. (2023). Optimization of deep learning models: Benchmark and analysis. Advances in Computational Intelligence, 3(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43674-023-00055-1
  3. Babaeianjelodar, M., Lorenz, S., Gordon, J., Matthews, J., & Freitag, E. (2020). Quantifying gender bias in different corpora. Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020, 752–759. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3383559
  4. Baskakov, D. (2023). The computational complexity of machine learning (Issue January). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6632-9
  5. Çelik, H., Katırcı, R., & İşlek, B. (2024). Effect of parameters on performance in question-answer model with simple RNN deep learning method. International Conference on Scientific and Innovation Research, 161–169.
  6. Chakrabarti, K., & Chopra, N. (2021). Generalized AdaGrad (G-AdaGrad) and Adam: A state-space perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 1496–1501. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC45484.2021.9682994
  7. Chen, Y., Song, X., Lee, C., Wang, Z., Zhang, Q., Dohan, D., Kawakami, K., Kochanski, G., Doucet, A., Ranzato, M., Perel, S., & de Freitas, N. (2022). Towards learning universal hyperparameter optimizers with transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 1–16.
  8. Choi, D., Shallue, C. J., Nado, Z., Lee, J., Maddison, C. J., & Dahl, G. E. (2019). On empirical comparisons of optimizers for deep learning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.05446
  9. Developer, N. (2025). CUDA zone. https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone
  10. Fang, H., Lee, J. U., Moosavi, N. S., & Gurevych, I. (2023). Transformers with learnable activation functions. Findings of the EACL 2023, 2337–2353. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.181
  11. Fehrman, B., & Gess, B. (2020). Convergence rates for the stochastic gradient descent method for non-convex objective functions. arXiv:1904.01517.
  12. Guan, L. (2024). Adaplus: Integrating Nesterov momentum and precise stepsize adjustment on AdamW basis. ICASSP 2024, 5210–5214. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP48485.2024.10447337
  13. İşlek, B., Katırcı, R., & Çelik, H. (2024). Enhancing question answering systems through optimal hyperparameter tuning in GRU. 8th International Artificial Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium (IDAP 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/IDAP64064.2024.10710732
  14. Jelassi, S., & Li, Y. (2022). Towards understanding how momentum improves generalization in deep learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 162, 9965–10040.
  15. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  16. Katırcı, R., & Çelik, H. (2024). Transformer mimarisi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13971609
  17. Katırcı, R., & Çelik, H. (2025a). Evaluating the impact of activation functions on transformer architecture performance. International Science and Art Research Center, 626–639.
  18. Katırcı, R., & Çelik, H. (2025b). Learning rate sensitivity in transformer models: A case study in neural machine translation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15769066
  19. Lan, Z., Chen, M., Goodman, S., Gimpel, K., Sharma, P., & Soricut, R. (2020). ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. 8th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2020).
  20. Li, S. (2019). Getting started with distributed data parallel. https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/ddp_tutorial.html
  21. Luo, L. (2019). Adaptive gradient methods with dynamic bound of learning rate. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09843
  22. Mahadevaswamy, U. B., & Swathi, P. (2022). Sentiment analysis using bidirectional LSTM network. Procedia Computer Science, 218, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.400
  23. Pan, Y., Li, X., Yang, Y., & Dong, R. (2020). Morphological word segmentation on agglutinative languages for neural machine translation. arXiv:2001.01589.
  24. Pan, Y., & Li, Y. (2023). Toward understanding why Adam converges faster than SGD for transformers. arXiv:2306.00204.
  25. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Technical Report.
  26. Razzhigaev, A., Mikhalchuk, M., Goncharova, E., Oseledets, I., Dimitrov, D., & Kuznetsov, A. (2024). The shape of learning: Anisotropy and intrinsic dimensions. arXiv.
  27. Rithika. (2024). Recent advances in large language models: An upshot. Journal, 5(6), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0624.1403
  28. Saray, U., & Çavdar, U. (2024). Comparison of different optimization algorithms in the Fashion MNIST dataset. International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology, 8(2), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.36287/ijmsit.8.2.1
  29. Sarvepalli, S. K., Sarat, S., & Sarvepalli, K. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: The science behind an artificial brain. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22512.71682
  30. Shazeer, N., & Stern, M. (2018). Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. ICML 2018, 7322–7330.
  31. Shoeybi, M., Patwary, M., Puri, R., LeGresley, P., Casper, J., & Catanzaro, B. (2020). Megatron-LM: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08053
  32. Su, J., Ahmed, M., Lu, Y., Pan, S., Bo, W., & Liu, Y. (2024). RoFormer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding. Neurocomputing, 568, Article 127063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127063
  33. Sun, Y., & Platoš, J. (2024). Abstractive text summarization model combining a hierarchical attention mechanism and multiobjective reinforcement learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123356
  34. Tomihari, A., & Sato, I. (2025). Understanding why Adam outperforms SGD: Gradient heterogeneity in transformers. arXiv:2502.00213.
  35. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5999–6009.
  36. Vradam, V. A. (2025). A physics-inspired optimizer: Velocity regularized Adam. (Eksik: Yayın türü)
  37. Wang, X., & Aitchison, L. (2024). How to set AdamW’s weight decay as you scale model and dataset size. arXiv:2405.13698.
  38. Yan, H., & Shao, D. (2024). Enhancing transformer training efficiency with dynamic dropout. arXiv:2411.03236.
  39. Yehudai, G., Kaplan, H., Ghandeharioun, A., Geva, M., & Globerson, A. (2024). When can transformers count to n? arXiv:2407.15160.
  40. You, Y., Li, J., Reddi, S., Hseu, J., Kumar, S., Bhojanapalli, S., Song, X., Demmel, J., Keutzer, K., & Hsieh, C. J. (2020). Large batch optimization for deep learning: Training BERT in 76 minutes. ICLR 2020, 1-15.
  41. Zaheer, R., & Shaziya, H. (2019). A study of the optimization algorithms in deep learning. Proceedings of the ICISC 2019, 536–539. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISC44355.2019.9036442
  42. Zhang, G., Niwa, K., & Kleijn, W. B. (2022). A DNN optimizer that improves over AdaBelief by suppression of the adaptive stepsize range. arXiv:2203.13273.
  43. Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Ding, T., Li, Z., Sun, R., & Luo, Z. (2024). Why transformers need Adam: A Hessian perspective. NeurIPS.
  44. Zhao, R., Morwani, D., Brandfonbrener, D., Vyas, N., & Kakade, S. (2024). Deconstructing what makes a good optimizer for language models. arXiv:2407.07972.
  45. Zheng, J., Rezagholizadeh, M., & Passban, P. (2022). Dynamic position encoding for transformers. Proceedings of COLING 2022, 5076–5084.
  46. Zhou, Y., Huang, K., Cheng, C., Wang, X., Hussain, A., & Liu, X. (2021). FastAdaBelief: Improving convergence rate for belief-based adaptive optimizers by exploiting strong convexity. arXiv:2104.13790.
  47. Zhuang, J., Tang, T., Ding, Y., Tatikonda, S., & Dvornek, N. (2020). AdaBelief optimizer: Adapting stepsizes by the belief in observed gradients. arXiv:2010.07468.