Towards Robust Scaling Laws for Optimizers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The quality of Large Language Model (LLM) pretraining depends on multiple factors, including the compute budget and the choice of optimization algorithm. Empirical scaling laws are widely used to predict loss as model size and training data grow, however, almost all existing studies fix the optimizer (typically AdamW). At the same time, a new generation of optimizers (e.g., Muon, Shampoo, SOAP) promises faster and more stable convergence, but their relationship with model and data scaling is not yet well understood. In this work, we study scaling laws across different optimizers. Empirically, we show that 1) separate Chinchilla-style scaling laws for each optimizer are ill-conditioned and have highly correlated parameters. Instead, 2) we propose a more robust law with shared power-law exponents and optimizer-specific rescaling factors, which enable direct comparison between optimizers. Finally, 3) we provide a theoretical analysis of gradient-based methods for the proxy task of a convex quadratic objective, demonstrating that Chinchilla-style scaling laws emerge naturally as a result of loss decomposition into irreducible, approximation, and optimization errors.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2026.
Builds on
18 of 25 references.
References · 18
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,104
- 2024MiniCPM: Unveiling the Potential of Small Language Models with Scalable Training Strategiescited by 694
- 2019PyHessian: Neural Networks Through the Lens of the Hessiancited by 291
- 2025Training Deep Learning Models with Norm-Constrained LMOscited by 177
- 2024Why Transformers Need Adam: A Hessian Perspectivecited by 123
- 2020Descending through a Crowded Valley - Benchmarking Deep Learning Optimizerscited by 118
- 2024Scaling Laws for Precisioncited by 92
- 2024Scaling Exponents Across Parameterizations and Optimizerscited by 71
- 2025Nemotron-CLIMB: CLustering-based Iterative Data Mixture Bootstrapping for Language Model Pre-trainingcited by 62
- 2025Benchmarking Optimizers for Large Language Model Pretrainingcited by 53
6 more
- 2025Scaling Laws for Gradient Descent and Sign Descent for Linear Bigram Models under Zipf's Lawcited by 19
- 2023Scaling Laws for Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 16
- 2018Accelerated Gossip in Networks of Given Dimension using Jacobi Polynomial Iterationscited by 15
- 2025Hyperparameter Transfer Enables Consistent Gains of Matrix-Preconditioned Optimizers Across Scalescited by 15
- 2025Beyond Outliers: A Study of Optimizers Under Quantizationcited by 6
- 2025On the Effectiveness of the z-Transform Method in Quadratic Optimizationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Same Architecture, Different Capacity: Optimizer-Induced Spectral Scaling Lawscited by 2
- 2026Problems with Chinchilla Approach 2: Systematic Biases in IsoFLOP Parabola Fitscited by 0
- 2026Coupled Scaling: A Representational Accessibility Framework for Neural Scaling Lawscited by 0
- 2026Relative Generalization Invariance of LLM Pretrainingcited by 0
- 2026Relative Generalization Invariance of LLM Pretraining26 Sep 2026
- 2026Coupled Scaling: A Representational Accessibility Framework for Neural Scaling Laws3 Sep 2026
- 2026Same Architecture, Different Capacity: Optimizer-Induced Spectral Scaling Laws20 May 2026
- 2026Problems with Chinchilla Approach 2: Systematic Biases in IsoFLOP Parabola Fits21 Mar 2026