mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Same Loss, Same Noise, Opposite Schedules: Noise Structure and Optimizer Normalization Jointly Determine Whether Learning-Rate Cooldown Helps

arXiv 2607.12360 ↗First posted 14 Jul 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The cooldown phase of a warmup-stable-decay (WSD) learning-rate schedule, now a default in large-model pretraining, lowers the final training loss in some settings and does nothing in others. We give a provable account of which case obtains, and it turns on two properties together: the structure of the gradient noise and whether the optimizer normalizes its update. On a strongly convex objective with multiplicative (gradient-proportional) noise, stochastic gradient descent contracts geometrically at a constant learning rate, so cooldown has nothing to improve. Under the same objective and noise, sign-based and normalized methods, the standard surrogates for adaptive optimizers, settle on a noise floor of order η2 and reach the minimizer only as the learning rate is driven to zero; any additive noise then reinstates a floor for every method. The mechanism is elementary: an SGD step shrinks in proportion to the gradient and so anneals itself, whereas a normalized step keeps unit scale and cannot. We solve the signSGD stationary law on the quadratic exactly and obtain the floor constant in closed form, prove a local form of the dissociation under (L0,L1)-smoothness, extend the floor to normalized SGD in dimension d>1 by a scale-invariance argument, and establish robustness to momentum and heavy-tailed noise. Simulation confirms every prediction, and we demonstrate the resulting noise-regime diagnostic on a real classification task with directly measured gradient noise. The mechanism explains whether cooldown helps; the interior cooldown fraction used at scale lies outside stationary landscape-and-noise geometry.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2026.

Builds on

13 of 14 references.

References · 13

  1. 2024MiniCPM: Unveiling the Potential of Small Language Models with Scalable Training Strategiescited by 723
  2. 2019Error Feedback Fixes SignSGD and other Gradient Compression Schemescited by 310
  3. 2024Scaling Laws and Compute-Optimal Training Beyond Fixed Training Durationscited by 170
  4. 2018Fast and Faster Convergence of SGD for Over-Parameterized Models and an Accelerated Perceptroncited by 143
  5. 2015Stochastic modified equations and adaptive stochastic gradient algorithmscited by 142
  6. 2023Noise Is Not the Main Factor Behind the Gap Between SGD and Adam on Transformers, but Sign Descent Might Becited by 114
  7. 2022On the SDEs and Scaling Rules for Adaptive Gradient Algorithmscited by 104
  8. 2017Bridging the Gap between Constant Step Size Stochastic Gradient Descent and Markov Chainscited by 88
  9. 2013Fast Convergence of Stochastic Gradient Descent under a Strong Growth Conditioncited by 54
  10. 2025The Surprising Agreement Between Convex Optimization Theory and Learning-Rate Scheduling for Large Model Trainingcited by 33
  11. 2026Deriving Hyperparameter Scaling Laws via Modern Optimization Theorycited by 10
  12. 2026Optimal Learning Rate Schedules under Functional Scaling Laws: Power Decay and Warmup-Stable-Decaycited by 8
1 more
  1. 2025On the Interaction of Batch Noise, Adaptivity, and Compression, under (L0,L1)-Smoothness: An SDE Approachcited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.