On the Surprising Effectiveness of Large Learning Rates under Standard Width Scaling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scaling limits, such as infinite-width limits, serve as promising theoretical tools to study large-scale models. However, it is widely believed that existing infinite-width theory does not faithfully explain the behavior of practical networks, especially those trained in standard parameterization (SP) meaning He initialization with a global learning rate. For instance, existing theory for SP predicts instability at large learning rates and vanishing feature learning at stable ones. In practice, however, optimal learning rates decay slower than theoretically predicted and networks exhibit both stable training and non-trivial feature learning, even at very large widths. Here, we show that this discrepancy is not fully explained by finite-width phenomena. Instead, we find a resolution through a finer-grained analysis of the regime previously considered unstable and therefore uninteresting. In particular, we show that, under cross-entropy (CE) loss, the unstable regime comprises two distinct sub-regimes: a catastrophically unstable regime and a more benign controlled divergence regime, where logits diverge but gradients and activations remain stable. Moreover, under large learning rates at the edge of the controlled divergence regime, there exists a well-defined infinite width limit where features continue to evolve in all the hidden layers. In experiments across optimizers, architectures, and data modalities, we validate that neural networks operate in this controlled divergence regime under CE loss but not under MSE loss. Our empirical evidence suggests that width-scaling considerations are surprisingly useful for predicting empirically maximal stable learning rate exponents which provide useful guidance on optimal learning rate exponents. Finally, our analysis clarifies the effectiveness and limitations of recently proposed layerwise learning rate scaling for standard initialization.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 May 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 4.
6 papers.
- 2025Weight Decay may matter more than muP for Learning Rate Transfer in Practicecited by 20
- 2025Train Once, Answer All: Many Pretraining Experiments for the Cost of Onecited by 6
- 2026Towards a Principled Muon under μmathsfP: Ensuring Spectral Conditions throughout Trainingcited by 0
- 2026Ghosts of Softmax: Complex Singularities That Limit Safe Step Sizes in Cross-Entropycited by 0
- 2026Validity Threats for Foundation Model Researchcited by 0
- 2026Learning Rate Transfer for Hybrid Transformer-SSM Architecturescited by 0
- 2026Learning Rate Transfer for Hybrid Transformer-SSM Architectures1 Oct 2026
- 2026Validity Threats for Foundation Model Research3 Jun 2026
- 2026Ghosts of Softmax: Complex Singularities That Limit Safe Step Sizes in Cross-Entropy13 Mar 2026
- 2026Towards a Principled Muon under μmathsfP: Ensuring Spectral Conditions throughout Training4 Jan 2026
- 2025Weight Decay may matter more than muP for Learning Rate Transfer in Practice21 Oct 2025
- 2025Train Once, Answer All: Many Pretraining Experiments for the Cost of One27 Sep 2025