While spectral-based optimizers like Muon operate directly on the spectrum of updates, standard adaptive methods such as AdamW do not account for the spectral structure of weights and gradients, leaving them vulnerable to two empirical issues in large language model (LLM) training: (i) the optimizer updates can have large spectral norms, potentially destabilizing training and degrading generalization; (ii) stochastic gradient noise can exhibit sparse spectral spikes, with a few dominant singular values much larger than the rest. We propose SPECTRA, a general framework addressing these by (i) post-spectral clipping of updates to enforce spectral-norm constraints (ii) optional pre-spectral clipping of gradients to suppress spectral noise spikes. We prove that post-clipping constitutes a Composite Frank-Wolfe method with spectral-norm constraints and weight regularization. We further analyze how pre-clipping mitigates sparse spectral spikes. We propose efficient soft spectral clipping via Newton-Schulz iterations, avoiding expensive SVD. Experiments on LLM pretraining show SPECTRA uniformly improves validation loss for various optimizers, including AdamW, Signum, Mars, and AdEMAMix, with the best-performing variants achieving state-of-the-art results. Models trained with SPECTRA exhibit smaller weight norms, confirming the link between spectral clipping and regularization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Final validation loss comparison for large Llama-style models trained for the Chinchilla optimal horizon. ’Thin and deep’ models have smaller embedding dimensions but have more layers than ’wide and shallow’ ones. The running time comparisons w/wo using SPECTRA are provided in Figure F.7 . We use a total batchsize of 1012 and 992 for 780M and 820M model respectively with 1024 sequence length. The hyperparameters such as learning rate used for each method are reported in the tables in Section F.3 .
Figure 2: Validation loss comparison under small batch size training. Spectra-Signum maintains stability at the large learning rate, whereas Signum exhibits training instability (Signum typically prefers smaller LR than Adam-ish methods ( Semenov et al., 2025 ) ). Spectra-Signum with both pre and post clipping almost overlap with Spectra-Signum with post clipping.
Figure 3: Final validation loss comparison for a small size Llama model trained with both cos and wsd learning rate schedule. The run time comparisons w/wo using SPECTRA are provided in Figure F.8 . We use a total batchsize of 256 with 512 sequence length. The hyperparameters such as learning rate used for each method are reported in the tables in Section F.3 .
Figure 4: Evolution of the aggregated ℓ∞ and Frobenius norms of all weight matrices during training. SPECTRA consistently maintains a lower ℓ∞ norm compared to the base optimizer.
Optimizer
ARC-c
ARC-e
BoolQ
PIQA
HellaSwag
WinoGrande
OBQA
λ -OpenAI
Sciq
MMLU
Average
Mars
34.98
67.80
57.25
70.08
46.87
52.17
34.20
29.38
89.60
25.37
50.77
D-Muon
36.60
67.47
53.73
69.31
46.69
52.72
34.60
28.84
90.90
25.08
50.59
Signum
34.56
65.66
56.02
69.64
45.01
52.25
34.20
28.04
87.30
25.75
49.84
Spectra-Signum
35.58
68.81
58.10
70.46
47.04
54.46
35.60
29.36
90.30
26.44
51.62
AdamW
33.45
66.84
56.09
69.21
45.65
50.99
35.20
25.54
90.80
23.86
49.76
Spectra-AdamW
35.67
66.96
55.41
68.82
46.57
52.09
36.40
26.74
89.20
25.14
50.30
Table 1: The evaluation results (accuracy ×100% ) of the 820M model pretrained on Fineweb-Edu with 16.8B tokens (5-shot with lm-evaluation-harness ( Gao et al., 2024 ) ).
Baseline (extended steps)
SPECTRA
Optimizer
16000
+5%
+10%
+20%
16000
(16800)
(17600)
(19200)
AdamW
2.608
2.605
2.600
2.590
2.582
Signum
2.600
2.594
2.589
2.580
2.573
AdEMAMix
2.591
2.585
2.580
2.571
2.574
MARS
2.598
2.592
2.587
2.579
2.573
Table 2: Fixed-time budget comparison at 780M scale. Baseline optimizers are given 5–20% more training steps to compare with SPECTRA’s 2% per-step overhead. SPECTRA variants trained for 16000 steps are shown in the last column.
c
1
5
10
20
50
Val Loss
2.975
2.940
2.936
2.936
2.940
Table 3: Sensitivity to clipping threshold c (160M, WSD schedule, lr= 10−3 ). Baseline AdamW without SPECTRA: 2.958. Performance is flat from c=5 to c=50 (all within 0.004 of the optimum). Only c=1 degrades due to over-aggressive clipping.
NS Iters
5 (bf16)
10 (bf16)
15 (float32)
Val Loss
2.939
2.936
2.937
Table 4: Ablation of number of NS iterations for Spectra-AdamW (160M, WSD schedule, lr= 10−3 ). bfloat16 has only 7 bits of mantissa. Additional iterations beyond convergence don’t improve accuracy–they accumulate round-off errors. Therefore, we use float32 for NS=15 instead.
Appendix figures & tables36 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure E.1 : The plot of clipc(x):=sign(x)min(∣x∣,c) and hc(x):=1+x2/c2x .
Figure E.2 : Runtime comparison between Soft Spectral Clipping (SSC) and the orthogonalization operator on matrices with various sizes. By default, we use 10 Newton-Schulz iterations for SSC and 5 iterations for the latter for running the corresponding optimizers.
Figure F.1 : Convergence dynamics of update rule ( 4 ) using full-batch gradient. We report the function residual of the constrained composite logistic loss F(X) with D2=1.0 under different b . The unconstrained solution of f(X) has spectral norm close to 1 .
Figure F.2 : Convergence dynamics of update rule ( 4 ) using full-batch gradient. We report the function residual of the constrained composite logistic loss F(X) with D2=5.0 under different b . The unconstrained solution of f(X) has spectral norm close to 1 .
Figure F.3 : Convergence dynamics of update rule ( 4 ) using full-batch gradient. We report the function residual of the constrained composite logistic loss F(X) with D2=0.2 under different b . The unconstrained solution of f(X) has spectral norm close to 1 .
Figure F.4 : Convergence dynamics of update rule ( 4 ) using stochastic gradient. We report the function residual of the constrained composite logistic loss F(X) with D2=1.0 under different b . The unconstrained solution of f(X) has spectral norm close to 1 .
Figure F.5 : Convergence comparison of Vanilla SGD, SGD with Global Clipping, and SGD with Spectral Clipping under low-rank spectral noise. We vary the noise spike magnitude ℓ∈{10,100,1000} relative to the gradient spectral norm bound M≈15 .
Figure F.6 : Convergence comparison of Vanilla SGD-M and SGD-M with Spectral Clipping under low-rank spectral noise. We vary the noise spike magnitude ℓ∈{10,100,1000} relative to the gradient spectral norm bound M≈15 .
Parameters
124M
160M
780M
820M
Embed dimension
768
768
1280
2048
# Attention heads
12
12
20
16
# Layers
12
12
32
12
Untied embed
False
True
True
True
Appendix
Table F.1 : Configuration of the considered model architecture.
160M
780M
820M
Method
Total (ms)
Opt Step (%)
Overhead
Total (ms)
Opt Step (%)
Overhead
Total (ms)
Opt Step (%)
Overhead
AdamW
200.7
1.0
—
6550
0.2
—
4412
0.2
—
+ Pre-Clip
232.6
13.7
+15.9%
6640
1.4
+1.4%
4480
1.7
+1.5%
+ SPECTRA
238.3
15.6
+18.7%
6654
1.7
+1.6%
4504
2.4
+2.1%
Signum
203.2
1.9
—
6536
0.3
—
4408
0.5
—
+ SPECTRA
241.2
17.1
+18.7%
6667
1.9
+2.0%
4514
2.6
+2.4%
Appendix
Table F.2 : Per-step timing at 160M, 780M, and 820M scale (4 × H100 GPU, averaged over 180 steps after warm-up). SPECTRA overhead shrinks from ∼ 17–19% at 160M to ∼ 2% at 780M/820M as the forward/backward pass dominates at larger scale. D-Muon has comparable overhead to SPECTRA due to its NS-based orthogonalization ( ∼ 9% at 160M, ∼ 1–2% at 780M/820M). SOAP is the most expensive optimizer, adding +49% at 160M and +21% at 780M vs. AdamW, due to its larger memory footprint (requiring more accumulation steps), periodic eigendecomposition, and per-step gradient projection.
Optimizer
State Buffers
Memory
Factor
AdamW
m,v
2M
2×
AdEMAMix
mfast,mslow,v
3M
3×
D-Muon 3 3 3 D-Muon uses momentum-only updates for 2D matrices (with rows <10000 ) and AdamW for others including embeddings/biases.
m (2D), m,v (1D)
M2d+2M1d
<2×
Signum
m (momentum)
M
1×
SOAP 4 4 4 SOAP stores preconditioner matrices for any parameters with di≤D (default D=10000 ). For typical LLM architectures with di∼4096 , preconditioner overhead is approximately 2M .
m,v,GG,Q
2M+∑di≤D2di2
≈4×
MARS (AdamW) 5 5 5 MARS stores gradient history for variance reduction where gprev represents the previous gradient.
m,v,gprev (2D)
≈3M
≈3×
Appendix
Table F.3 : Memory requirements of different optimizers. M denotes total model parameters, M2d and M1d denote 2D and 1D parameters respectively, m and v denote the first and second momentum buffer, and di represents the size of each dimension of a parameter tensor (e.g., for a matrix of shape (d1,d2) , both d1 and d2 are considered)
Figure F.7 : Training dynamics of the 820M-parameter model. The plots display validation loss with respect to training iterations (up) and wall-clock time (down), conducted on 4 H100 GPUs. We use a micro batchsize of 31 with 8 accumulation steps on each machine. The hyperparameters such as learning rate used for each method are reported in the tables in Section F.3 .
Figure F.8 : Training dynamics of the 160M-parameter model. The plots display validation loss with respect to training iterations (up) and wall-clock time (down), conducted on 4 H100 GPUs. We use a micro batchsize of 64 with 1 accumulation step on each machine. The hyperparameters such as learning rate used for each method are reported in the tables in Section F.3 .
Method
Val Loss
Signum (lr= 2×10−4 )
4.955
Signum (lr= 10−4 )
3.688
SPECTRA-Signum (lr= 10−3 )
3.439
+ pre-clip (constant c=0.1 )
3.431
+ pre-clip (cos decay, c : 10→0.01 )
3.425
Appendix
Table F.4 : Pre-spectral clipping ablation on SlimPajama (160M, batch size 8, seq len 512, 128k iterations). Pre-spectral clipping improves the baseline SPECTRA by 0.014 nats under noisy conditions, and a decaying threshold schedule outperforms a constant threshold.
Optimizer
LR
Val Loss
Optimizer
LR
Val Loss
SOAP
5×10−3
2.653
Spectra-Signum
2×10−3
2.642
D-Muon
2×10−3
2.658
3×10−3
2.638
MARS
2×10−3
2.643
5×10−3
2.643
AdEMAMix
2×10−3
2.647
Spectra-AdEMAMix
2×10−3
2.640
3×10−3
2.642
3×10−3
2.635
Appendix
Table F.5 : Short training ( 8 B tokens or 8 k steps) of 1.5 B muP models. The details and scripts can be found in https://github.com/mlolab/llm-spectral-clipping/tree/main/scripts/1.5b-mup-models .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Learning Rate η
5e-4, 1e-3 , 2e-3
1e-3, 2e-3 , 3e-3
1e-3
1e-3
Clipping Threshold c
5.0, 10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
Clipping Schedule
standard
standard
standard
standard
Others
Same as in Table F.9
Appendix
Table F.6 : Hyperparameter configurations for Spectra-AdamW .
Method (lr)
780M
820M
SOAP ( 10−3 )
2.586
2.606
SOAP ( 3×10−3 )
2.571
2.602
SOAP ( 5×10−3 )
2.574
2.603
SPECTRA-Signum ( 10−3 )
2.573
2.594
Appendix
Table F.7 : SOAP vs. SPECTRA-Signum at larger scales (final validation loss). SOAP is tuned over three learning rates. Despite SOAP requiring ∼ 19% more time per step at 780M (+8% at 820M) and nearly 2 × more memory than SPECTRA-Signum, it achieves comparable results at 780M and worse results at 820M.
Learning Rate
Schedule
Method
1e-3
2e-3
3e-3
4e-3
5e-3
wsd
AdamW-Post-Orth
2.988
2.973
2.974
–
–
wsd
Spectra-AdamW
2.936
–
–
–
–
cos
AdamW-Post-Orth
3.009
2.966
2.955
2.953
2.956
cos
Spectra-AdamW
–
2.922
–
–
–
Appendix
Table F.8 : Final validation loss comparison for the 160M Llama model trained on 16.8B tokens. Best results per schedule are bolded .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Batch Size
256
256
1012
992
Sequence Length
512
512
1024
1024
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
2000
Weight Decay λ
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Gradient Clipping
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Momentum β1
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
Appendix
Table F.9 : Hyperparameter configurations for AdamW .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Batch Size
256
256
1012
992
Sequence Length
512
512
1024
1024
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
2000
Weight Decay λ
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Gradient Clipping
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Momentum β1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Appendix
Table F.10 : Hyperparameter configurations for AdEMAMix .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Learning Rate η
5e-4, 1e-3 , 2e-3
1e-3, 2e-3 , 3e-3
5e-4, 1e-3
1e-3
Clipping Threshold c
5.0, 10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
Clipping Schedule
standard
standard
standard
standard
Others
Same as in Table F.10
Appendix
Table F.11 : Hyperparameter configurations for Spectra-AdEMAMix .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Batch Size
256
256
1012
992
Sequence Length
512
512
1024
1024
Warmup Steps
8000
8000
2000
2000
Weight Decay λ
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Gradient Clipping
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Momentum β
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Appendix
Table F.12 : Hyperparameter configurations for Signum .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
2000
Learning Rate η
5e-4, 1e-3 , 2e-3
1e-3, 2e-3 , 3e-3
1e-3
1e-3
Clipping Threshold c
10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
Clipping Schedule
standard
standard
standard
standard
Others
Same as in Table F.12
Appendix
Table F.13 : Hyperparameter configurations for Spectra-Signum .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
Learning Rate Mars
3e-3
3e-3
3e-3
Clipping Threshold c
10.0
10.0
10.0
Clipping Schedule
standard
standard
standard
Others
Same as in Table F.16
Appendix
Table F.14 : Hyperparameter configurations for Spectra-Mars .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Batch Size
256
256
1012
992
Sequence Length
512
512
1024
1024
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
2000
Weight Decay λ
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Gradient Clipping
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Momentum β
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Appendix
Table F.15 : Hyperparameter configurations for D-Muon .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Batch Size
256
256
1012
992
Sequence Length
512
512
1024
1024
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
2000
Weight Decay λ
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Gradient Clipping
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Learning Rate AdamW
5e-4, 1e-3
1e-3
1e-3
1e-3
Appendix
Table F.16 : Hyperparameter configurations for Mars (AdamW) .
Hyperparameter
160M (wsd)
160M (cos)
780M (wsd)
820M (wsd)
Batch Size
256
256
1012
992
Sequence Length
512
512
1024
1024
Warmup Steps
2000
2000
2000
2000
Weight Decay λ
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Gradient Clipping
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Preconditioner dimension
10000
10000
10000
10000
Appendix
Table F.17 : Hyperparameter configurations for SOAP . (Due to the large memory footprint of SOAP, we need larger gradient accumulation steps to fit the model in memory, which largely extended the training runtime.
Figure F.9 : Singular value distribution of raw stochastic gradients for the 124M-parameter model trained with AdamW. We visualize the spectrum at four training stages (0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%) for representative layers across the network depth. Each panel reports the maximum and minimum singular values along with their ratio (condition number). We observe that a small number of singular values are orders of magnitude larger than the rest, leading to high condition numbers.
Figure F.10 : Singular value distribution of update matrices ( Uk ) trained with AdamW on the 124M-parameter model. We visualize the spectrum at four training stages (0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%) for representative layers across the network depth. Each panel reports the maximum and minimum singular values along with their ratio (condition number). AdamW updates show a more uniform spectral distribution compared to the raw gradient. However, they fail to impose a hard ceiling.
Figure F.11 : Singular value distribution of update matrices ( Uk ) trained with Signum on the 124M-parameter model. We visualize the spectrum at four training stages (0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%) for representative layers across the network depth. Each panel reports the maximum and minimum singular values along with their ratio (condition number). The spectral norm of the update matrices ranges from 70 to 1300.
Figure F.12 : Singular value distribution of update matrices Uk=αclipcksp(UkAdamW) trained with Spectra-AdamW on the 124M-parameter model. We visualize the spectrum at four training stages (0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%) for representative layers across the network depth. Each panel reports the maximum and minimum singular values along with their ratio (condition number). The spectral norms of the update matrices exhibit hard ceilings and the condition numbers are small.
Figure F.13 : Singular value distribution of update matrices Uk=αclipcksp(UkSignum) trained with Spectra-Signum on the 124M-parameter model. We visualize the spectrum at four training stages (0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%) for representative layers across the network depth. Each panel reports the maximum and minimum singular values along with their ratio (condition number). The spectral norms of the update matrices exhibit hard ceilings and the condition numbers are small.
Figure F.14 : For each layer, we report the singular value distribution of large-batch gradient G (blue bar) and top-5 singular value distribution of the noise matrices {Ni}i=150 (red) in the first row. In the second row, we report the distribution of both the spectral and chordal subspace distances of the top-5 principal directions between the noise matrices and the large-batch signal. Results are shown for representative layers of the 124M model (AdamW) at four training stages 0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%. (Part 1) This confirms the presence of ”sparse spectral spikes” in the noise and indicates that the dominant noise spikes are nearly orthogonal to the principal directions of the true signal.
Figure F.15 : Part 2 of Figure F.14 . We observe a consistent phenomenon as in part 1.
Figure F.16 : Singular value distribution of raw stochastic gradients for the 124M-parameter GPT with muP trained with AdamW. The heavy-tailed ’spectral outlier’ phenomenon is less significant than 124M-llama model without muP.
Figure F.17 : For each layer, we report the singular value distribution of large-batch gradient G (blue bar) and top-5 singular value distribution of the noise matrices {Ni}i=150 (red) in the first row. In the second row, we report the distribution of both the spectral and chordal subspace distances of the top-5 principal directions between the noise matrices and the large-batch signal. Results are shown for representative layers of the 124M GPT model with muP (AdamW) at four training stages 0%, 5%, 50%, and 99%. The presence of ”sparse spectral spikes” in the noise appears mostly only in the end of the training.
Soft spectral clipping (SSC) reduces gradient singular values, but its effect depends on the gradient scale and clipping threshold. We introduce CAST (Clipping with Adaptive Scales and Thresholds), a history-adaptive extension of SSC. AdamW's previous second moment sets row and column scales. An exponential moving average of the clipped output's estimated spectral norm sets each matrix's threshold. CAST restores the original coordinates before the AdamW update. We train a mixture-of-experts (MoE) model with 19.08B total parameters for 83.89B tokens. CAST achieves lower training and mean validation losses than nine gradient-processing baselines, with the fewest relative gradient spikes. It reaches the best baseline's final smoothed training loss in 7.2% fewer steps.
Modern LLM optimizers such as Muon often produce weight matrices with higher effective rank than Adam, yet further spectral control has delivered only modest gains. We identify a tension behind this result: concentrated spectra can suppress gradient directions in coupled weight matrices and slow optimization, while constraints maintained throughout training can limit task-specific adaptation and raise the attainable loss floor. We introduce ORCA (Orthogonal Regularization, Cooled After), a minimal optimizer intervention that applies strong but temporary soft orthogonality regularization early in training, then removes it. This allows the weights to benefit from a broader spectrum early on and adapt freely afterward. Across LLaMA, Qwen3, and fine-grained mixture-of-experts models ranging from 130M to 8B parameters, ORCA achieves lower final validation loss than Muon. Its loss reduction relative to Muon matches or exceeds Muon's reduction relative to Adam. Ablations support the early-shaping, later-release design. Further, ORCA requires no architectural changes and adds minimal overhead.
Yuanshi Liu, Boyuan Jiang, Liang Hou +4
School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University · Kling Team
Orthogonal optimisers such as Muon can substantially accelerate large language model pretraining relative to Adam, yet the mechanism remains incompletely understood. We investigate this through an out-of-sample spectral probing analysis of Transformer loss landscapes. At checkpoints along real training trajectories, we decompose each momentum buffer into its singular directions and estimate the loss-optimal step size along each direction on held-out data. The resulting spectral profile is anisotropic yet stable across batches and training stages, and consistent across the optimisers and model scales: a volatile head operating at the Edge-of-Stability supports a much smaller step size than the tolerant bulk, which permits substantially larger steps. This profile provides a unified spectral allocation account of why Muon outperforms Adam, which outperforms SGD. It also exposes a limitation of Muon's uniform scaling: it still underutilises the bulk. Guided by this finding, we introduce Spectral-Aware Muon (SAMuon), which holds the head at the Muon scale and amplifies the bulk using a static spectral prior. We provide two variants: the complete SAMuon follows the measured profile using a low-rank randomised SVD and the simplified SAMuon-lite uses a two-level approximation via rank-one power iteration. Neither method adds persistent optimiser state or notable extra FLOPs beyond Muon at scale, and the idealised exact-whitening versions of both retain Muon's asymptotic convergence rate under standard assumptions. Across "modded-nanogpt" models from 124M to 1B parameters, both variants outperform tuned AdamW and Muon (Scion implementation) baselines in all evaluated model-scale and batch-size configurations. SAMuon requires 13.3% to 24.0% fewer training tokens to reach the same validation loss as Muon, while SAMuon-lite retains most of this gain with near-zero wall-clock overhead.
Xiaodong Wu, Wenyi Yu, Chao Zhang +1
Department of Engineering University of Cambridge · Department of Electronic Engineering Tsinghua University