Goto

Collaborating Authors

 weight decay


Do Deep Networks Forget Initialization? A Forgetting-Time View of Practical Inductive Bias

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Randomly initialized neural networks induce a prior over functions, but the predictor used in practice is produced only after training. We ask how much of this initial bias survives the training pipeline. To make the question measurable, we introduce initialization memory: the dependence of the validation-selected predictor on the scale of the random initialization. We perform controlled CIFAR-10 experiments on ResNets where initialization memory already sharply separates training regimes. Low-learning-rate SGD can interpolate while still remembering its initialization: on ResNet-9 with batch size $b=128$, test accuracy varies by $26.5$ percentage points across initialization scales despite $\ge99.5\%$ training accuracy. This is not undertraining: extending the same low-learning-rate regime to $5{,}000$ epochs leaves the spread essentially unchanged. In contrast, Adam-family methods largely erase the dependence. SGD can also be made to forget when larger learning rates are paired with explicit $L_2$ norm control. We interpret these findings in terms of the time scale of forgetting: gradient-flow-like dynamics can preserve initialization memory, whereas stochastic finite-step effects, explicit norm decay, and adaptive preconditioning erase it on scales governed by the size of explicit or implicit regularization. The practical inductive bias of a trained network is therefore not the architectural prior alone, but the architectural prior after being filtered by the forgetting dynamics of the training pipeline; and the same regularizers that improve generalization are precisely those that erase memory of initialization.


Negligible in Size, Significant in Effect: On Scale Vectors in Large Language Models

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Normalization layers in modern large language models (LLMs) consist of a deterministic normalization operation and a learnable scale vector. While the normalization operation has been extensively studied, the scale vector remains poorly understood despite its ubiquitous use. In this work, we present a systematic study of scale vectors in LLMs from the perspectives of expressivity, optimization, and architectural structure. First, we show empirically that although scale vectors constitute only a negligible fraction of model parameters, removing them substantially degrades LLM pre-training. Our theory further shows that, in Pre-Norm architectures, scale vectors do not increase expressivity; instead, they improve optimization through a self-amplifying preconditioning effect on subsequent linear mappings. Second, we investigate the role of weight decay for scale vectors. By distinguishing Input-Norm and Output-Norm layers, we theoretically show that weight decay is beneficial for the former but harmful for the latter, due to their distinct roles in optimization and expressivity. Third, motivated by this understanding, we propose three lightweight and complementary improvements to scale vectors: branch-specific heterogeneity, improved placement around linear mappings, and magnitude-direction reparameterization. Both theory and experiments show that each improvement yields consistent gains. Finally, we combine these improvements into a unified scale-vector strategy and evaluate it through extensive LLM pre-training experiments on dense and mixture-of-experts models ranging from 0.12B to 2B parameters, across multiple optimizers and learning rate schedules, under industrial-scale token budgets. The unified strategy consistently achieves lower terminal loss than well-tuned baselines and exhibits more favorable scaling behavior, while adding negligible parameter and computational overhead.


Anytime Training with Schedule-Free Spectral Optimization

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Standard neural network training relies on learning-rate schedules tied to a fixed horizon, leading to strong path dependence and costly re-tuning as data availability changes. Schedule-Free (SF) methods address this by removing explicit schedules, yet SF-AdamW, the current state-of-the-art anytime optimizer, consistently underperforms well-tuned AdamW baselines. We propose SF-NorMuon, a schedule-free spectral optimizer that closes this gap: with a single hyperparameter configuration, SF-NorMuon matches or exceeds tuned AdamW on 125M and 772M parameter language models across $1$--$8\times$ Chinchilla horizons. On the theoretical side, we prove a stationarity guarantee for schedule-free spectral dynamics and identify weight decay at the fast iterate as essential for long-horizon stability. SF-NorMuon enables practitioners to obtain high-quality checkpoints at any point during training without committing to a horizon in advance. By closing the performance gap with tuned baselines, SF-NorMuon makes horizon-free optimization more practical, taking a step towards truly open-ended, continual learning.


Quantifying Hyperparameter Transfer and the Importance of Embedding Layer Learning Rate

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Hyperparameter transfer allows extrapolating optimal optimization hyperparameters from small to large scales, making it critical for training large language models (LLMs). This is done either by fitting a scaling law to the hyperparameters or by a judicious choice of parameterization, such as Maximal Update ($μ$P), that renders optimal hyperparameters approximately scale invariant. In this paper, we first develop a framework to quantify hyperparameter transfer through three metrics: (1) the quality of the scaling law fit, (2) the robustness to extrapolation errors, and (3) the asymptotic loss penalty due to choice of parameterization. Next, we investigate through a comprehensive series of ablations why $μ$P appears to offer high-quality learning rate transfer relative to standard parameterization (SP), as existing theory is inadequate. We find that the overwhelming benefit of $μ$P relative to SP when training with AdamW arises simply from maximizing the learning rate of the embedding layer. In SP, the embedding layer learning rate acts as a bottleneck that induces training instabilities; increasing it by a factor of width to match $μ$P dramatically smooths out training while improving hyperparameter transfer. We also find that weight decay improves the scaling law fits, while, in the fixed token-per-parameter setting, it hurts the robustness of the extrapolation.


Does Weight Decay Enhance Training Stability?

arXiv.org Machine Learning

In modern deep learning, weight decay is often credited with "stabilizing" training dynamics, diverging from its classical role as a static regularization penalty. We investigate a fundamental question: *does weight decay stabilize training dynamics, and if so, through which mechanism?* Indeed, training stability is understood through different but related notions in the literature. We consider how weight decay affects the parameter-space dynamics and loss sharpness by analyzing its effects at the \emph{Edge of Stability} (EoS). We show that weight decay robustly slows *progressive sharpening}. Furthermore, we uncover a striking architecture-dependent phase transition. In CNNs, weight decay dampens the oscillations at the EoS, while in MLPs, increasing weight decay causes a phase transition in which the sharpness stabilizes at a threshold significantly below the theoretical $\frac{2}η$ boundary. We develop a mathematical framework that accurately models these phenomena and identify the global alignment of the parameter vector and the sharpness gradient as the mechanistic driver of the phase transition. Importantly, we show that these phenomena translate into stability in terms of search in function-space (NTK). Last, this shows that curvature thresholds obtained from convex/quadratic heuristics may not be reliable stability diagnostics under regularization.


Unveiling Memorization-Generalization Coexistence: A Case Study on Arithmetic Tasks with Label Noise

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Highly over-parameterized models can simultaneously memorize noisy labels and generalize well, yet how these behaviors coexist remains poorly understood. In this work, we investigate the underlying mechanisms of this coexistence using modular arithmetic tasks under heavy label noise. Through extensive experiments on two-layer neural networks, we find that larger models tend to generalize better under appropriate optimization and model configurations, while noisy labels are memorized faster than clean data. Over-parameterized models internally form a generalization structure, but its expression in the output is suppressed by the need to fit noisy labels. Remarkably, even with 80\% label noise, near-perfect test accuracy can be achieved by extracting this internal structure using frequency-based methods. We further propose a task-agnostic method to partition networks into generalization and memorization components. Although this subnetwork improves generalization, it is limited compared with frequency-based extraction, indicating that the generalization structure is distributed across neurons and motivating the development of new tools to retrieve generalizable knowledge from over-parameterized networks.




Appendix

Neural Information Processing Systems

This appendix is structured as follows: In Appendix A we provide more training details. In particular, we report the hyperparameters used for the CIFAR experiments in A.1 and for the ImageNet experiments in A.2. In A.3 we provide more details and a formal definition of the SAM-variants used throughout this paper. In Appendix B we show additional experimental results for: CIFAR in B.1, ImageNet in B.3, and a machine translation task in B.5. In B.2 we provide additional ablation studies for sparse perturbation SSAM approaches and in B.4 we extend the discussion on adversarial robustness.


ADerivation of D1 Denote the logit vector as x, we have pj = exj

Neural Information Processing Systems

Without zero-mean constraint, the training becomes unstable. Following the training setting of [23], the classifier network is trained with SGD with a weight decay 5e-4, an initial learning rate of 1e-1 and a mini-batch size of 100 for all methods. We use the cosine learning rate decay schedule [49] for a total of 80 epochs. We set the outer level learning ηω as 14 Figure 7: Training curve without zero-mean constraint on CIFAR10 under 40% uniform noise. The MLP weighting network is trained with Adam [51] with a fixed learning rate 1e-3 and a weight decay 1e-4.