Terminal Shrinkage Averaging Reveals a Schedule-Estimator Interaction in LLM Pretraining
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM) pretraining conventionally returns the raw final iterate. This couples two design choices: the learning-rate schedule that generates the parameter trajectory and the estimator that constructs the deployed model (e.g. the raw final iterate or a checkpoint average). A schedule that promotes optimization progress may differ from one that minimizes variation in the raw final iterate. Separating these choices creates an opportunity to maintain progress late in training while reducing variation in the returned model. To this end, we propose Terminal Shrinkage Averaging (TSA), which interpolates between the raw final iterate and the average of recent checkpoints to balance recent progress against terminal variation. We analyze how TSA changes the preferred terminal learning-rate schedule under a local quadratic approximation and test this interaction through a sequence of controlled NanoChat experiments. Finally, we demonstrate that the resulting gains transfer to depth-22 NanoChat, where the combined schedule and estimator improve validation quality. A qualifying time-to-GPT-2 run also finishes faster than the public baseline used in our experiments, providing preliminary evidence of benchmark acceleration.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2026.
Builds on
23 of 32 references.
References · 23
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
- 2018Averaging Weights Leads to Wider Optima and Better Generalizationcited by 1,194
- 2024MiniCPM: Unveiling the Potential of Small Language Models with Scalable Training Strategiescited by 694
- 2018Shampoo: Preconditioned Stochastic Tensor Optimizationcited by 413
- 2025Muon is Scalable for LLM Trainingcited by 381
- 2019Lookahead Optimizer: k steps forward, 1 step backcited by 333
- 2024SOAP: Improving and Stabilizing Shampoo using Adamcited by 179
- 2024Scaling Laws and Compute-Optimal Training Beyond Fixed Training Durationscited by 160
- 2024The Road Less Scheduledcited by 158
11 more
- 2025Fantastic Pretraining Optimizers and Where to Find Themcited by 87
- 2022Stop Wasting My Time! Saving Days of ImageNet and BERT Training with Latest Weight Averagingcited by 54
- 2023Early Weight Averaging meets High Learning Rates for LLM Pre-trainingcited by 36
- 2025Straight to Zero: Why Linearly Decaying the Learning Rate to Zero Works Best for LLMscited by 34
- 2018Iterate averaging as regularization for stochastic gradient descentcited by 27
- 2025WSM: Decay-Free Learning Rate Schedule via Checkpoint Merging for LLM Pre-trainingcited by 21
- 2026Fantastic Pretraining Optimizers and Where to Find Them II: Hyperball Optimizationcited by 12
- 2026Anytime Pretraining: Horizon-Free Learning-Rate Schedules with Weight Averagingcited by 8
- 2025When, Where and Why to Average Weights?cited by 6
- 2026A Defense of the Quadratic Modelcited by 6
- 2026Training for the Model You Return: Improving Optimization for Iterate-Averaged Language Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.