Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchMachine learning

analiza aiqbench

This research clarifies that while adaptive optimizers like Adam alter the speed of convergence per training step, they do not change the fundamental $1/3$ scaling law observed when loss is normalized by dataset size. By decomposing dynamics into radial and tangential components, the study demonstrates that all tested optimizers ultimately converge to this universal exponent once learning rates are tuned to their specific optima. This finding provides a robust theoretical foundation for understanding neural scaling laws independent of the specific optimization algorithm used.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Optimizer-dependent training dynamics converge to the same one-third optimal data scaling

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2609.37745v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Neural scaling, in which loss falls as a power law with training, is central to large language models, and one recent proposal is that a $1/3$ exponent emerges from learning peaked distributions. That account describes SGD, but models in practice are trained with adaptive optimizers. Here we separate two exponents the $1/3$ account does not distinguish: how fast the loss falls with training steps along a single run, and how fast the optimally tuned loss falls with dataset size $D$. We show that the first, a dynamic exponent, is optimizer-specific while the second, an optimal data exponent, converges to $1/3$ across optimizers. In an online teacher-student model we decompose the loss into norm growth (radial) and alignment toward the teacher direction (tangential), each decaying as a power law with dynamic exponents $\alpha_{r}$ and $\alpha_{t}$. Under SGD, both are close to $1/3$, so the data exponent is also $1/3$ across different learning rates. Under Adam the two separate: $\alpha_{r} \simeq 0.48$ but $\alpha_{t} \simeq 0.08$. Since the total loss is minimized when these two parts are balanced, the optimal learning rate is optimizer-dependent: $D$-independent for SGD but falls with $D$ for Adam. Yet tuned to that optimum, the loss returns to $D^{-1/3}$ for both. A stochastic-dynamics analysis explains why: the optimizers can trade decay speed between the two channels, but they all fall on a single dynamic exponent relation, $2\alpha_{r}+ \alpha_{t} = 1$, which fixes the optimal data exponent at $1/3$. Across seven optimizers, including Muon, the measured exponents are consistent with this relation, and the optimal-loss envelopes agree with $D^{-1/3}$ across them. The optimizer sets how fast a model learns per step; tuned optimally, it changes the prefactor but not the rate at which loss falls per sample.

Abstract:Neural scaling, in which loss falls as a power law with training, is central to large language models, and one recent proposal is that a $1/3$ exponent emerges from learning peaked distributions. That account describes SGD, but models in practice are trained with adaptive optimizers. Here we separate two exponents the $1/3$ account does not distinguish: how fast the loss falls with training steps along a single run, and how fast the optimally tuned loss falls with dataset size $D$. We show that the first, a dynamic exponent, is optimizer-specific while the second, an optimal data exponent, converges to $1/3$ across optimizers. In an online teacher-student model we decompose the loss into norm growth (radial) and alignment toward the teacher direction (tangential), each decaying as a power law with dynamic exponents $\alpha_{r}$ and $\alpha_{t}$. Under SGD, both are close to $1/3$, so the data exponent is also $1/3$ across different learning rates. Under Adam the two separate: $\alpha_{r} \simeq 0.48$ but $\alpha_{t} \simeq 0.08$. Since the total loss is minimized when these two parts are balanced, the optimal learning rate is optimizer-dependent: $D$-independent for SGD but falls with $D$ for Adam. Yet tuned to that optimum, the loss returns to $D^{-1/3}$ for both. A stochastic-dynamics analysis explains why: the optimizers can trade decay speed between the two channels, but they all fall on a single dynamic exponent relation, $2\alpha_{r}+ \alpha_{t} = 1$, which fixes the optimal data exponent at $1/3$. Across seven optimizers, including Muon, the measured exponents are consistent with this relation, and the optimal-loss envelopes agree with $D^{-1/3}$ across them. The optimizer sets how fast a model learns per step; tuned optimally, it changes the prefactor but not the rate at which loss falls per sample.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.37745 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.37745v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.37745 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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 382 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe