We investigate scaling laws for stochastic momentum algorithms with small batch on the power law random features model, parameterized by data complexity, target complexity, and model size. When trained with a stochastic momentum algorithm, our analysis reveals four distinct loss curve shapes determined by varying data-target complexities. While traditional stochastic gradient descent with momentum (SGD-M) yields identical scaling law exponents to SGD, dimension-adapted Nesterov acceleration (DANA) improves these exponents by scaling momentum hyperparameters based on model size and data complexity. This outscaling phenomenon, which also improves compute-optimal scaling behavior, is achieved by DANA across a broad range of data and target complexities, while traditional methods fall short. Extensive experiments on high-dimensional synthetic quadratics validate our theoretical predictions and large-scale text experiments with LSTMs show DANA's improved loss exponents over SGD hold in a practical setting.

Scaling laws have emerged as a unifying lens for understanding and guiding the training of large language models (LLMs). However, existing studies predominantly focus on the final-step loss, leaving open whether the entire loss dynamics obey similar laws and, crucially, how the learning rate schedule (LRS) shapes them. We address these gaps in a controlled theoretical setting by analyzing stochastic gradient descent (SGD) on a power-law kernel regression model. The key insight is a novel intrinsic-time viewpoint, which captures the training progress more faithfully than iteration count. We then establish a Functional Scaling Law (FSL) that captures the full loss trajectory under arbitrary LRSs, with the schedule's influence entering through a simple convolutional functional. We further instantiate the theory for three representative LRSs--constant, exponential decay, and warmup-stable-decay (WSD)--and derive explicit scaling relations in both data-and compute-limited regimes. These comparisons explain key empirical phenomena: (i) higher-capacity models are more data-and compute-efficient; (ii) learning-rate decay improves training efficiency; and (iii) WSD-type schedules outperform pure decay. Finally, experiments on LLMs ranging from 0.1B to 1B parameters demonstrate the practical relevance of FSL as a surrogate model for fitting and predicting loss trajectories in large-scale pre-training.

Normalization layers have recently experienced a renaissance in the deep reinforcement learning and continual learning literature, with several works highlighting diverse benefits such as improving loss landscape conditioning and combatting overestimation bias. However, normalization brings with it a subtle but important side effect: an equivalence between growth in the norm of the network parameters and decay in the effective learning rate. This becomes problematic in continual learning settings, where the resulting learning rate schedule may decay to near zero too quickly relative to the timescale of the learning problem. We propose to make the learning rate schedule explicit with a simple re-parameterization which we call Normalize-and-Project (NaP), which couples the insertion of normalization layers with weight projection, ensuring that the effective learning rate remains constant throughout training. This technique reveals itself as a powerful analytical tool to better understand learning rate schedules in deep reinforcement learning, and as a means of improving robustness to nonstationarity in synthetic plasticity loss benchmarks along with both the single-task and sequential variants of the Arcade Learning Environment. We also show that our approach can be easily applied to popular architectures such as ResNets and transformers while recovering and in some cases even slightly improving the performance of the base model in common stationary benchmarks.

Layer normalization has demonstrated remarkable effectiveness at preventing plasticity loss in continual and reinforcement learning (RL), though the precise reasons for this effectiveness remain mysterious.

We explain the discrepancy by reproducing the Kaplan et al. scaling law on two datasets (OpenWebText2 and RefinedWeb)