Why Adaptive Optimizers Underestimate Rare Tokens

arXiv:2609.37535v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In the softmax output layer, a rare token receives a small positive logit gradient on most steps and a much larger negative gradient on the few steps when it is the target. SGD simply adds these contributions. Coordinate-wise adaptive methods such as Adam, RMSProp, and sign descent instead divide each update by a running estimate of its magnitude, and that estimate is largest immediately after the token appears. This imbalance has two effects. At the level of the whole output layer, we characterize which optimizers preserve the mean output embedding: every method whose update is linear in past gradients does, as do Kronecker-factored and orthogonalized methods such as Shampoo and Muon. Adam, Adafactor, Lion, and sign descent do not, and for these methods we obtain an exact step-by-step expression for the change. At the level of an individual rare token, the same normalization shifts the training fixed point. In the unigram model, sign descent lowers the logit of every token that occurs in fewer than half of the minibatches at a constant expected rate. For RMSProp with periodic arrivals, we can solve the fixed point in closed form: if a token is absent for at least two consecutive minibatches, its equilibrium probability is strictly below its data frequency for every learning rate, and the ratio tends to $\kappa/(2(e^{\kappa/2}-1))$. Here $\kappa$ is the mean number of steps between occurrences divided by the second-moment time constant $1/(1-\beta_2)$. In the same model, SGD and AMSGrad retain the unbiased fixed point. We test these predictions both in a unigram model and in a small language model trained from a known generating distribution. With random arrivals, the bias is larger than the periodic formula predicts; in the language model, the optimizers with the biased fixed point also fit the generating distribution less well.

Abstract:In the softmax output layer, a rare token receives a small positive logit gradient on most steps and a much larger negative gradient on the few steps when it is the target. SGD simply adds these contributions. Coordinate-wise adaptive methods such as Adam, RMSProp, and sign descent instead divide each update by a running estimate of its magnitude, and that estimate is largest immediately after the token appears. This imbalance has two effects. At the level of the whole output layer, we characterize which optimizers preserve the mean output embedding: every method whose update is linear in past gradients does, as do Kronecker-factored and orthogonalized methods such as Shampoo and Muon. Adam, Adafactor, Lion, and sign descent do not, and for these methods we obtain an exact step-by-step expression for the change. At the level of an individual rare token, the same normalization shifts the training fixed point. In the unigram model, sign descent lowers the logit of every token that occurs in fewer than half of the minibatches at a constant expected rate. For RMSProp with periodic arrivals, we can solve the fixed point in closed form: if a token is absent for at least two consecutive minibatches, its equilibrium probability is strictly below its data frequency for every learning rate, and the ratio tends to $\kappa/(2(e^{\kappa/2}-1))$. Here $\kappa$ is the mean number of steps between occurrences divided by the second-moment time constant $1/(1-\beta_2)$. In the same model, SGD and AMSGrad retain the unbiased fixed point. We test these predictions both in a unigram model and in a small language model trained from a known generating distribution. With random arrivals, the bias is larger than the periodic formula predicts; in the language model, the optimizers with the biased fixed point also fit the generating distribution less well.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2609.37535 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.37535v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.37535 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Why Adaptive Optimizers Underestimate Rare Tokens

Related coverage