NuMuon: Nuclear-Norm-Constrained Muon for Compressible LLM Training
Authors: Hadi Mohaghegh Dolatabadi, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, Sameera Ramasinghe, Chamin P Hewa Koneputugodage, Shamane Siriwardhana, Violetta Shevchenko, Karol Pajak, James Snewin, Gil Avraham, Alexander Long
The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly constrained by memory and deployment costs, motivating compression methods for practical deployment. Many state-of-the-art compression pipelines leverage the low-rank structure of trained weight matrices, a phenomenon often associated with the properties of popular optimizers such as Adam. In this context, Muon is a recently proposed optimizer that improves LLM pretraining via full-rank update steps, but its induced weight-space structure has not been characterized yet. In this work, we report a surprising empirical finding: despite imposing full-rank updates, Muon-trained models exhibit pronounced low-rank structure in their weight matrices and are readily compressible under standard pipelines. Motivated by this insight, we propose NuMuon, which augments Muon with a nuclear-norm constraint on the update direction, further constraining the learned weights toward low-rank structure. Across billion-parameter-scale models, we show that NuMuon increases weight compressibility and improves post-compression model quality under state-of-the-art LLM compression pipelines while retaining Muon's favorable convergence behavior.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Normalized stable rank evolution for Qwen3-0.6B across training steps for feedforward projection matrices. Each subplot shows the mean stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank), with shaded regions indicating standard deviation across all layers. All other weight matrices exhibit a similar low-rank behavior throughout training (see Figure 13 in the Appendix).
Figure 2: Validation perplexity on WikiText2 against generation inference throughput for Llama3-1.8B models compressed via SVD-LLM ( Wang et al., 2025b ) . As seen, for a given perplexity, NuMuon-trained models provide the fastest inference for moderate to extreme compression rates (40-80%). Our results for other models can be found in Figure 20 .
Figure 3: δ1(F) as a proxy for the tail bound in Assumption 3.5 for the feedforward projection matrices. As we see, this quantity is bounded and close to zero for NuMuon, supporting this assumption. For other parameters, please see Figure 10 .
Optim.
Train PPL ↓
Val. PPL ↓
Time/Step (s) ↓
GPU Mem. (GB) ↓
AdamW
10.83
18.75
25.12
37.62
Muon
10.01
15.39
25.39
32.51
NuMuon
10.59
17.56
30.03
33.88
Table 1: Training/validation perplexity (PPL) and efficiency metrics across optimizers for training Llama3-1.8B models. Validation PPL is computed on WikiText2 dataset.
Figure 4: Training loss convergence for language models of size 0.6B-1.8B parameter count. For each model family, we use AdamW, Muon, and NuMuon to train the model. For more details, please see Section C.1 .
Method
Optimizer
Val. PPL ↓
Downstream Tasks
Avg ↑
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
ASVD
AdamW
718.71
22.61
37.25
30.15
6.00
26.40
54.52
49.88
32.40
Muon
1443.55
24.66
31.90
29.28
7.08
27.80
55.93
50.12
32.40
NuMuon
20.56 (-98.6%)
32.76
62.88
50.27
42.64
37.20
71.38
56.20
50.48 (+55.8%)
SVD-LLM
AdamW
27.94
28.41
49.37
40.69
29.52
30.00
65.13
51.22
42.05
Muon
26.39
26.19
43.14
36.74
28.86
28.20
59.52
53.83
39.50
Table 2: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Llama3-1.8B models using various LLM compression methods 40% compression. Full results for all models and methods can be found in Section C.2 .
Figure 5: NuMuon’s relative performance against Muon under SoTA LLM compression methods. The scatter plot displays the performance improvement on downstream tasks as well as validation perplexity improvements for all compression methods at all rates. The positive quadrant shows performance improvement.
Figure 8
Scheduler
Time/Step (s)
Val. PPL ↓
Task Acc ↑
0%
80%
0%
80%
Piecewise ( 0.25 )
9.94
20.01
33.39
45.87
37.92
Cosine ( 0.25 )
10.49
20.20
36.10
45.69
35.89
Fixed ( 0.05 )
8.96
29.13
31.93
39.64
38.74
Fixed ( 0.25 )
9.81
21.85
44.69
44.30
34.36
Fixed ( 0.50 )
11.33
20.27
46.66
45.17
34.38
Table 3: 80% Dobi-SVD LLM compression performance for Qwen3-0.6B models compared to non-compressed base models under various rank schedulers for NuMuon.
Figure 10
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 10: δ1(F) as a proxy for the tail bound in Assumption 3.5 . As seen, with NuMuon this quantity gets very close to 0 as training progresses, indicating that our Ky Fan k -norm stationarity convergence gets very close to the standard nuclear-norm stationarity convergence guarantee of Shen et al. (2025) for Muon. Among all weight matrices, the feedforward output projection W2 usually exhibits a larger δ1(F) which could potentially require a higher nuclear norm budget. This is interesting research direction which we leave for future work.
Model Configuration
Qwen3-0.6B
Olmo2-1.4B
Llama3-1.8B
Model Architecture
Hidden Dimensions
1024
2048
2048
Number of Layers
28
16
30
Attention Heads
16
32
32
Key-Value Heads
8
8
8
Head Dimension
128
64
64
Appendix
Table 4: Model architectures and training configuration.
Configuration
AdamW
Muon
NuMuon
Optimizer
Learning Rate
3e-4
1e-2
1e-2
Weight Decay
–
0.1
0.1
Beta1
–
0.9
0.9
Beta2
–
0.95
0.95
Epsilon
1e-8
1e-8
1e-8
Appendix
Table 5: Optimizer configuration and learning rate scheduler settings.
Figure 11: Different rank schedulers used for training Qwen3-0.6B models with NuMuon. Please see Section 3.4 for more details.
Figure 12: Normalized learning rate scheduler for training language models of size 0.6B-1.8B parameter count. For each model family, we use AdamW, Muon, and NuMuon to train the model. Following Semenov et al. (2025) extensive benchmarks, we use a WSD ( Hu et al., 2024 ) schedule for training Muon and NuMuon, while we use a cosine decay for AdamW. For more details, please see Section C.1 .
Figure 13: Normalized stable rank evolution for Qwen3-0.6B across training steps for different weight matrices. Each subplot shows the mean stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank), with shaded regions indicating standard deviation across all layers.
Figure 14: Normalized stable rank for weight matrices of Qwen3-0.6B models. Each subplot shows the stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank) of the converged model across all layers.
Figure 15: Normalized stable rank for weight matrices of Olmo2-1.4B models. Each subplot shows the stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank) of the converged model across all layers.
Figure 16: Normalized stable rank for weight matrices of Llama3-1.8B models. Each subplot shows the stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank) of the converged model across all layers.
Figure 17: Normalized stable rank of well-known, large-scale models trained via Muon. The plot shows Moonlight-16B-A3B ( Liu et al., 2025 ) (top) as well as Kimi-K2-1T ( Bai et al., 2025 ) (bottom). For each model, we show the distribution of the normalized stable rank (left) as well as its evolution by the layer index (right).
Figure 18: Grassmann distance between the top- 64 left singular vectors of the weight space W and the optimizer update ΔW . For NuMuon, we use the cosine rank scheduler. As demonstrated, while Muon ignores the structure of the weight space in its updates (high, fixed Grassmann distance), NuMuon gradually concentrates the update’s energy around the top subspaces of the weight space (lower Grassmann distance).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
25.39
27.30
49.66
36.04
27.77
31.20
65.02
49.64
40.95
Muon
19.20
30.72
57.95
45.56
37.69
33.60
67.74
54.38
46.81
NuMuon
20.20 (+5.2%)
29.95
55.68
43.51
35.40
34.40
67.41
53.51
45.69 (-2.4%)
20%
AdamW
61.91
22.53
37.21
30.83
12.13
28.20
54.68
51.70
33.90
Muon
29.87
28.67
52.06
40.80
30.49
33.80
65.94
52.96
43.53
Appendix
Table 6: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Qwen3-0.6B models using ASVD.
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
20.58
30.20
55.47
44.96
34.76
35.80
68.93
50.67
45.83
Muon
17.80
34.04
60.10
50.94
39.28
37.80
70.46
54.85
49.64
NuMuon
19.06 (+7.1%)
31.06
59.55
48.40
37.80
37.00
68.99
55.41
48.32 (-2.7%)
20%
AdamW
35.89
28.07
49.12
40.12
23.09
30.20
64.47
50.67
40.82
Muon
738.86
22.78
40.19
28.98
2.87
27.40
58.43
50.51
33.02
Appendix
Table 7: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Olmo2-1.4B models using ASVD.
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
18.75
33.79
62.67
51.28
40.46
37.00
71.82
55.33
50.34
Muon
15.39
38.82
67.80
58.35
47.47
41.80
74.37
59.27
55.41
NuMuon
17.56 (+14.1%)
35.49
65.19
54.96
44.38
38.20
72.91
58.56
52.81 (-4.7%)
20%
AdamW
27.19
31.57
57.53
46.29
32.25
36.20
68.06
52.01
46.27
Muon
19.13
34.47
62.71
52.62
42.60
37.60
71.38
56.27
51.09
Appendix
Table 8: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Llama3-1.8B models using ASVD.
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
25.39
27.30
49.66
36.04
27.77
31.20
65.02
49.64
40.95
Muon
19.20
30.72
57.95
45.56
37.69
33.60
67.74
54.38
46.81
NuMuon
20.20 (+5.2%)
29.95
55.68
43.51
35.40
34.40
67.41
53.51
45.69 (-2.4%)
20%
AdamW
39.36
25.17
42.30
31.10
14.30
27.40
56.86
49.96
35.30
Muon
27.89
26.62
45.33
37.70
28.04
31.40
62.46
53.83
40.77
Appendix
Table 9: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Qwen3-0.6B models using SVD-LLM (Whitening).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
20.58
30.20
55.47
44.96
34.76
35.80
68.93
50.67
45.83
Muon
17.80
34.04
60.10
50.94
39.28
37.80
70.46
54.85
49.64
NuMuon
19.06 (+7.1%)
31.06
59.55
48.40
37.80
37.00
68.99
55.41
48.32 (-2.7%)
20%
AdamW
26.65
26.11
50.38
39.95
27.60
32.00
65.23
51.85
41.87
Muon
20.13
30.72
56.31
43.98
37.94
33.80
65.72
56.67
46.45
Appendix
Table 10: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Olmo2-1.4B models using SVD-LLM (Whitening).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
18.75
33.79
62.67
51.28
40.46
37.00
71.82
55.33
50.34
Muon
15.39
38.82
67.80
58.35
47.47
41.80
74.37
59.27
55.41
NuMuon
17.56 (+14.1%)
35.49
65.19
54.96
44.38
38.20
72.91
58.56
52.81 (-4.7%)
20%
AdamW
24.27
29.78
56.19
43.82
35.77
33.40
67.03
53.67
45.67
Muon
18.04
30.20
58.38
47.86
40.69
34.40
66.54
58.33
48.06
Appendix
Table 11: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Llama3-1.8B models using SVD-LLM (Whitening).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
25.39
27.30
49.66
36.04
27.77
31.20
65.02
49.64
40.95
Muon
19.20
30.72
57.95
45.56
37.69
33.60
67.74
54.38
46.81
NuMuon
20.20 (+5.2%)
29.95
55.68
43.51
35.40
34.40
67.41
53.51
45.69 (-2.4%)
20%
AdamW
38.49
25.51
46.21
32.10
19.66
30.60
61.21
50.59
37.98
Muon
25.84
29.52
51.09
40.22
30.43
32.40
66.87
53.04
43.37
Appendix
Table 12: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Qwen3-0.6B models using SVD-LLM (Whitening + LoRA).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
20.58
30.20
55.47
44.96
34.76
35.80
68.93
50.67
45.83
Muon
17.80
34.04
60.10
50.94
39.28
37.80
70.46
54.85
49.64
NuMuon
19.06 (+7.1%)
31.06
59.55
48.40
37.80
37.00
68.99
55.41
48.32 (-2.7%)
20%
AdamW
28.69
26.96
52.10
41.15
30.70
32.80
66.21
52.09
43.14
Muon
21.48
32.76
57.74
46.80
38.19
35.60
68.93
54.70
47.82
Appendix
Table 13: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Olmo2-1.4B models using SVD-LLM (Whitening + LoRA).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
18.75
33.79
62.67
51.28
40.46
37.00
71.82
55.33
50.34
Muon
15.39
38.82
67.80
58.35
47.47
41.80
74.37
59.27
55.41
NuMuon
17.56 (+14.1%)
35.49
65.19
54.96
44.38
38.20
72.91
58.56
52.81 (-4.7%)
20%
AdamW
21.69
30.03
55.01
46.22
37.69
34.80
68.55
53.83
46.59
Muon
18.04
30.20
58.38
47.86
40.69
34.40
66.54
58.33
48.06
Appendix
Table 14: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Llama3-1.8B models using SVD-LLM (Whitening + LoRA).
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
25.39
27.30
49.66
36.04
27.77
31.20
65.02
49.64
40.95
Muon
19.20
30.72
57.95
45.56
37.69
33.60
67.74
54.38
46.81
NuMuon
20.20 (+5.2%)
29.95
55.68
43.51
35.40
34.40
67.41
53.51
45.69 (-2.4%)
20%
AdamW
26.94
26.19
48.95
35.48
28.47
31.00
65.02
49.01
40.59
Muon
19.90
30.03
57.15
45.58
37.51
33.60
68.93
54.22
46.72
Appendix
Table 15: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Qwen3-0.6B models using Dobi-SVD.
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
20.58
30.20
55.47
44.96
34.76
35.80
68.93
50.67
45.83
Muon
17.80
34.04
60.10
50.94
39.28
37.80
70.46
54.85
49.64
NuMuon
19.06 (+7.1%)
31.06
59.55
48.40
37.80
37.00
68.99
55.41
48.32 (-2.7%)
20%
AdamW
23.12
29.18
53.45
43.09
28.45
33.80
67.36
51.14
43.78
Muon
18.81
31.91
58.59
48.39
35.57
35.20
68.88
56.67
47.89
Appendix
Table 16: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Olmo2-1.4B models using Dobi-SVD.
Comp.
Optimizer
Val. PPL
Downstream Tasks
Avg
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
18.75
33.79
62.67
51.28
40.46
37.00
71.82
55.33
50.34
Muon
15.39
38.82
67.80
58.35
47.47
41.80
74.37
59.27
55.41
NuMuon
17.56 (+14.1%)
35.49
65.19
54.96
44.38
38.20
72.91
58.56
52.81 (-4.7%)
20%
AdamW
21.42
34.04
56.52
49.41
31.85
35.00
70.13
55.09
47.43
Muon
16.37
34.56
63.59
54.99
45.97
38.80
71.33
58.01
52.46
Appendix
Table 17: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance across compressed Llama3-1.8B models using Dobi-SVD.
Figure 19: Validation perplexity on WikiText2 dataset for compressed LLMs (Qwen3-0.6B, Olmo2-1.4B, and Llama3-1.8B) using different compression methods. As seen, models pretrained via NuMuon consistently achieve the lowest validation perplexity, yielding better performance at extreme compression ratios.
Figure 20: Validation perplexity on WikiText2 against generation inference throughput for Qwen3-0.6B, Olmo2-1.4B, and Llama3-1.8B models compressed via SVD-LLM. NuMuon trained models deliver the lowest perplexity given a throughput, and as such, are far more efficienct that AdamW- or Muon-trained models at moderate to extreme compression rates. Also, we observe that as the model size grows, NuMuon-trained models become more amenable to compression.
Comp.
Optim.
Rank Schedule
Val. PPL ↓
Downstream Tasks
Avg ↑
ARC-C
ARC-E
H’SWag
LAM’DA
OpenBkQA
PIQA
W’Grande
0%
AdamW
-
25.39
27.30
49.66
36.04
27.77
31.20
65.02
49.64
40.95
Muon
-
19.20
30.72
57.95
45.56
37.69
33.60
67.74
54.38
46.81
NuMuon
Piecewise ( 25d/100 )
20.01
29.69
56.44
43.78
35.51
35.00
67.79
52.88
45.87
Cosine ( 25d/100 )
20.20
29.95
55.68
43.51
35.40
34.40
67.41
53.51
45.69
Fixed ( 5d/100 )
29.13
25.60
48.06
33.68
25.13
31.20
63.98
49.80
39.64
Appendix
Table 18: WikiText2 validation perplexity and downstream task performance for various rank schedules.
Figure 21: Normalized stable rank for weight matrices of Qwen3-0.6B models trained with NuMuon under different ranks/nuclear norm budget. Each subplot shows the stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank) of the converged model across all layers.
Figure 22: Normalized stable rank for weight matrices of Qwen3-0.6B models trained with NuMuon under different rank schedulers. Each subplot shows the stable rank (normalized by the maximum rank) of the converged model across all layers.
The success of large language models (LLMs) has been accompanied by continued growth in model size and pretraining costs. Muon offers high accuracy and training efficiency in LLM pretraining. Recent work introduces row-wise normalization into Muon to balance update magnitudes and improve pretraining performance. However, row-wise normalization alone cannot accommodate different imbalance patterns in update matrices. In this paper, we propose an improved Muon optimizer, called matrix-equilibrating Muon~(MeqMuon), for LLM pretraining. MeqMuon balances both row and column magnitudes through normalization that can be automatically tailored to different imbalance patterns without manual intervention. Moreover, MeqMuon eliminates the need to store AdamW's second-moment estimates, reducing optimizer-state memory usage. Empirical results demonstrate that MeqMuon achieves better convergence performance than AdamW, Muon, and other baselines in LLM pretraining.
Chang-Wei Shi, Xu Wang, Wu-Jun Li
National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, School of Computer Science, Nanjing University, P. R. China
Muon has emerged as a strong optimizer for neural network training and admits an interpretation as steepest descent under a spectral-norm geometry. Yet we find that Muon-trained Transformers can degrade sharply when their MLP hidden channels are pruned after training. To reconcile Muon's optimization performance with structured compressibility, we introduce Budget Muon (BMuon), which modifies Muon's spectral geometry so that hidden channels across blocks compete for a shared allocation budget. The resulting oracle is exactly normalized steepest descent under a family of norms that interpolate between Muon's geometry and structured sparse geometries. Our principal sparsity control is an interpretable global channel-allocation budget, rather than a setting-dependent sparsity-penalty coefficient. For linear factorization models, we show that Muon admits minimum-cost exact representations with redundant hidden width, whereas under the BMuon oracle geometry and a sufficiently scarce budget, every minimum-cost representation is width-minimal. For practical training, we derive a minorization-maximization surrogate for the exact allocation problem. On ImageNet-1K with ViT-S/16, BMuon improves over Muon under gradual structured MLP pruning, and its learned allocations provide a more effective pruning criterion than weight magnitude. On a 1B-parameter LLaMA-style model trained on FineWeb, BMuon improves over Muon under post-training MLP channel pruning.
Rida Assalouh, Tom Jacobs, Rebekka Burkholz +2
Inria, Paris, France · ´Ecole polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France · CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, Saarbrücken, Germany +3
Muon has emerged as a strong competitor to AdamW for language model pre-training, yet its behavior at scale is sensitive to weight decay. Recent work has observed that, for Muon without decoupled weight decay, the spectral norm of weight matrices drifts upward over training. Through a decomposition of the spectral norm into a row-magnitude factor and a row-coherence factor, we identify the former as the empirical driver of this drift under Muon, while the latter remains well-behaved along the trajectory. Motivated by this diagnosis, we introduce Muown, a drop-in replacement for Muon that treats the row-magnitude vector as an explicit optimizer variable, updating it under the ℓ∞ geometry induced by the decomposition, while applying Muon unchanged to the remaining direction component. We prove that Muown attains the optimal non-convex rates in both deterministic and stochastic regimes under a dual norm aligned with the underlying geometries and with a stochastic noise coefficient that empirically remains below that of Muon throughout training. Across GPT-style pre-training on FineWeb-Edu with model sizes from 124M up to 2.7B parameters, Muown improves perplexity over Muon, SOAP, AdamW, and Lion. It also widens the plateau of near-optimal learning rates across model scales, reduces sensitivity to weight decay, and avoids the spectral norm drift at negligible step-time overhead when appropriately sharded.
Kai Lion, Florian Hübler, Bingcong Li +2
Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland · Department of Mathematics, School of Computation, Information and Technology; Technical University of Munich, Germany · ELLIS Institute Tübingen, MPI-IS, Tübingen AI Center, Germany