Optimizer-state quantization is commonly designed for Adam's dense, parameter-aligned first- and second-moment arrays. This abstraction breaks for memory-efficient optimizers, whose states may be factored, confidence-modulated, or maintained in a projected space, so similar reconstruction error can produce different update error. We formulate optimizer-state quantization as a joint problem over representation, topology, and update semantics. We then introduce Adaptive Log-Space (AL) quantization for non-negative states. AL fits each block's observed nonzero logarithmic interval and reserves a separate code for exact zero, enforcing $q = 0 \Leftrightarrow x = 0$; signed momentum and state precision remain independently selectable. Controlled probes show that adaptive ranges reduce update error and temporal drift, exact-zero reservation preserves dormant states, and state topology constrains useful block granularity. End-to-end language-model training evaluates the resulting policy across dense, factored, confidence, and projected optimizer states. On TinyLlama-1.1B, AL8 with uniform 8-bit momentum reaches 72.90 perplexity versus 73.54 for bitsandbytes 8-bit AdamW, with comparable optimizer-state storage and higher throughput. CAME matches reference-level final perplexity across three seeds when its non-negative states use AL16, while a semantic grouping-and-protection policy closes most of quantized Adafactor's 100K-step late-loss gap. These results make state topology and update semantics first-class design constraints for optimizer quantization.
Raphael Bernas, Paul G. Chevalier, Fanny Jourdan +1cs.CL
Understanding a model and its learning mechanisms in depth requires identifying when its internal structures become useful, rather than simply looking at the final state. We study this through concept dynamics: at each layer and checkpoint, we decompose activations, select sparse soft masks, and inject masked reconstructions into the model. Concept analysis is therefore tested functionally: a mask is useful only insofar as it preserves a target under intervention. We compare sufficiency for activation reconstruction, linear decodability, true downstream preservation, and checkpoint transfer under learned alignment. The framework treats decomposition assumptions as hypotheses rather than interpretability guarantees, monitoring functional sufficiency across checkpoints and source-to-final reconstructability under learned alignment. At the shared fixed-penalty operating point across seven models, downstream masks retain substantially less soft mass than reconstruction masks; predictive-distribution shifts remain small.
Ved Sriraman, Peihan Liu, Daniel Hsu +1cs.LG cs.AI stat.ML
Imitation Learning is a natural framework for learning in sequential decision-making systems and has emerged as the dominant paradigm through which we understand language model training. A central puzzle is that, while in theory offline IL can be horizon-free and optimal, in practice online methods such as on-policy distillation often outperform offline methods such as supervised fine-tuning. We propose a noisy expert model to explain this gap, in which the learner only has access to a noisy version of the expert's policy, but wishes to compete against the reward achieved by a clean expert, motivated by the fact that in many applications, e.g. training language models to perform long chains of thought, the expert is often imperfect. In this setting, we show a sharp separation between offline and online IL. Offline learning from noisy trajectories is fundamentally hard: to compete with the clean expert, the sample complexity must grow exponentially, in contradistinction to the clean expert setting where no explicit horizon dependence exists. In contrast, we prove that online interaction with the noisy expert via a novel variant of OPD enables polynomial dependence on the horizon in general. We further show that, under a natural condition on the expert noise distribution, which we show to be necessary for any horizon-free sample complexity, one can obtain such a guarantee, although our proposed algorithm sacrifices statistical efficiency in its dependence on the size of the policy class. Our analysis leads to an alternative loss function that is commonly considered empirically for LM training. We further provide algorithms and lower bounds, and extend our results to the more realistic setting of unknown corruption when the clean expert is deterministic, thereby providing a theoretical foundation for why OPD can outperform SFT when training language models from imperfect teachers.
Many modern Language Model (LM) pipelines return an averaged model, such as an exponential moving average of the training iterates, rather than the final iterate itself. This raises a fundamental question: given that we will return an iterate average, how should we change training to improve the performance of this average? We study this question by formulating optimizer design for the iterate-average estimator as an optimal-control problem. In a continuous-time stochastic quadratic model, we solve for the control strategy that minimizes the error of the returned average subject to a penalty on the size of the intervention. A practical approximation to this controller yields PACE, a lightweight wrapper around AdamW that pulls the live weights toward their exponential moving average with a clipped, per-coordinate control strength. We prove that a stylized version of PACE converges at the standard stochastic convex optimization rate, up to a factor depending on the averaging rule, while in the quadratic setting it can strictly improve the limiting squared error of the iterate-average estimator and can do so by an arbitrarily large factor on some instances. Empirically, our results suggest that PACE improves over AdamW and EMA-evaluated AdamW in supervised fine-tuning of 1-2B parameter LMs and in GPT-2 pretraining on FineWeb for a wide range of learning rates, decay schedules, and other hyperparameters.
Query-key (QK) normalization stabilizes attention by controlling the scale of queries and keys before the dot product, but is not immediately compatible with Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA). MLA achieves efficient decoding by caching low-dimensional latent states instead of full keys, whereas post-projection QK RMSNorm appears to require the fully projected key for every cached token. We show this apparent incompatibility is an implementation artifact, not an architectural constraint. RMSNorm decomposes into a static affine weight and a dynamic scalar RMS statistic. The static key-side weight can be absorbed into the MLA query-side projection; the dynamic key statistic reduces to one inverse-RMS scalar per token and KV group. The resulting formulation is exactly equivalent to explicit post-projection QK RMSNorm in exact arithmetic and preserves MLA's latent decode path. In our 400M runs trained for up to 100B tokens, QK-Normed MLA achieves lower training loss and better downstream accuracy than QK clipping, while H800 decode benchmarks show less than 2% latency overhead up to 256k context. These results make QK normalization a practical stabilization option for MLA models without requiring full-key caching.
This study examines training dynamics in a small Llama-style language model trained under a fixed, compute-constrained token budget. Rather than evaluating efficiency solely through endpoint performance, the study uses a quantitative experimental repeated measures design to analyze how validation loss, validation perplexity, rolling volatility, backslide behavior, spike behavior, and between-seed variability change across token-based training intervals. Six independent training runs were conducted on a 4.26-million-parameter model using the TinyStories corpus, CPU-based full-precision training, and a target budget of approximately 20 million cumulative training tokens. Metrics were collected across 21 intervals, producing 126 seed-by-interval observations. Repeated measures ANOVA showed statistically significant interval effects for validation loss, validation perplexity, and rolling volatility. Descriptive trajectories revealed rapid early improvement followed by non-monotonic degradation during later training intervals. Mean validation loss decreased from 8.3552 at initialization to 2.7996 near 4 million tokens, but increased to 3.9010 by the final checkpoint. Validation perplexity followed the same pattern, falling sharply early in training before rising later. Derived telemetry further showed recurrent validation-loss backslides and no interval-summary evidence of a stable phase under the predefined criteria. These findings suggest that compute-aware language model evaluation should examine training trajectories rather than endpoint metrics alone. In constrained compute settings, additional token exposure may increase computational cost without producing proportional generalization gains, and interval-level telemetry can reveal instability, regression, and diminishing returns that final metrics may obscure.
We track the developmental trajectory of attention-head circuit formation across three 1B-class language models spanning two architecture families (dense transformer, mixture-of-experts) and two pretraining corpora (The Pile, DCLM): Pythia 1B, OLMo 1B-0724-hf, and OLMoE 1B-7B-0924. At each of 10 log-spaced revisions per model -- 30 mechanistic-interpretability runs in total -- we apply a participation-ratio (PR) spectral signal and an all-head capability-specific selectivity screen to track induction, previous-token, and BOS-attractor heads as they emerge. Five findings. (F1) Layers 0 and 1 produce zero BOS-classified heads at every revision in every model: the L0/L1 zero-BOS floor is an architectural property, not a learned outcome. (F2) The whole-model BOS-attractor fraction follows three distinct emergence shapes -- a gradual ramp in Pythia 1B, a sharp phase transition in OLMo 1B (7% to 70% between adjacent checkpoints), and a gradual ramp in OLMoE 1B-7B. (F3) In DCLM models, induction-circuit formation precedes BOS-attractor formation by 10-20x in tokens; capability-circuit formation and attention-sink formation are two transitions, not one. (F4) The capability-specific screen converges to the final induction circuit within 0.3-2% of total training tokens -- circuit identification does not require the final model. (F5) For every final-checkpoint induction head sampled across all three models, per-head PR is elevated at or before the first revision at which that head crosses its capability-selectivity threshold. The results refine the induction-phase-transition framing: in 1B-class models trained on DCLM, the induction transition and the attention-sink transition are separated by an order of magnitude in tokens and have qualitatively different shapes.