Can Representation Learning Decouple from Loss Minimization? Polar Updates Have an Answer
On the map: Knowledge distillation → General knowledge distillation methods
Abstract (arXiv)
Does representation learning stop when the training loss stops improving? We study this question for matrix Muon, whose polar-normalised updates have a step length set by the gradient's rank rather than its norm. Near the edge of stability, full-batch Muon on teacher-student problems enters approximately period-2 loss oscillations that persist for thousands of steps: the cycle-mean loss stays flat or rises, yet the weights keep moving and the learned features continue to align with the teacher subspace. For linear teacher-student learning toys, we derive explicit cycle and alignment formulas and conditional plateau and decay bounds. For a population mean-field ReLU model, we prove that, under stated dimension, initialisation and small-head conditions, the leading eigenspace of the average gradient outer product (AGOP) recovers the teacher subspace exactly during a loss plateau, before the loss later drops. In all 33 ReLU, GELU and SiLU teacher configurations we study, direction-only alignment metrics show the student AGOP aligned with, or still aligning to, the teacher subspace during the period-2 oscillations; projected head refitting on selected configurations shows that the learned directions are useful for prediction, and further measurements distinguish AGOP alignment from weight-mass concentration. In deep residual ReLU students, freezing the downstream layers while the first layer trains with full-batch exact polar updates recreates a nearly flat cycle-mean loss with improving input-AGOP alignment; freezing and unfreezing switch between this plateau and loss decrease, and the effect is sensitive to momentum and to the choice of orthogonaliser.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General knowledge distillation methods, one of 12 directions in Knowledge distillation. Builds on 9 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.
Builds on
9 of 27 references.
References · 9
- 2020The large learning rate phase of deep learning: the catapult mechanismcited by 216
- 2025Training Deep Learning Models with Norm-Constrained LMOscited by 192
- 2022Analyzing Sharpness along GD Trajectory: Progressive Sharpening and Edge of Stabilitycited by 63
- 2023Catapults in SGD: spikes in the training loss and their impact on generalization through feature learningcited by 31
- 2022Mechanism of feature learning in deep fully connected networks and kernel machines that recursively learn featurescited by 25
- 2024Feature learning as alignment: a structural property of gradient descent in non-linear neural networkscited by 10
- 2026AMUSE: Anytime Muon with Stable Gradient Evaluationcited by 4
- 2026Muon Learns More Robust and Transferable Features than Adamcited by 3
- 2026Towards Understanding the Power and Limits of the Muon Optimizer: A River-Valley Perspectivecited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Training-Loss Guarantees for Muon with Finite-Step Newton--Schulz Orthogonalization
- 2026An Isotropy-Preserving Spectral Cap for Muon: Theory and Three Case Studies
- 2026AF-Muon: An AdamW-Free Muon Optimizer for Tied-Embedding Models
- 2026Muon Meets Mamba: Spectral Optimization for State Space Models
- 2026Muon-C: Operator-Aligned Muon for Convolutional Kernels
- 2025Muon: Training and Trade-offs with Latent Attention and MoE
- 2026How Much Orthogonalization Does Muon Need?
- 2026A Minimal Model of Representation Collapse: Frustration, Stop-Gradient, and Dynamics