When and Why SignSGD Outperforms SGD: A Theoretical Study Based on $\ell_1$-norm Lower Bounds

Sign-based optimization algorithms, such as SignSGD, have garnered significant attention for their remarkable performance in distributed learning and training large foundation models. Despite their empirical superiority, SignSGD is known to diverge on non-smooth objectives, which are ubiquitous in modern machine learning due to ReLUs, max-pools, and mixture-of-experts. To overcome this fundamental limitation, we propose \textbf{StoSignSGD}, an algorithm that injects structural stochasticity into the sign operator while maintaining an unbiased update step. In the regime of (online) convex optimization, our theoretical analysis shows that StoSignSGD rigorously resolves the non-convergence issues of SignSGD, achieving a sharp convergence rate matching the lower bound. For the more challenging non-convex non-smooth optimization, we introduce generalized stationary measures that encompass prior definitions, proving that StoSignSGD improves upon the best-known complexity bounds by dimensional factors. Empirically, StoSignSGD exhibits robust stability and superior efficiency across diverse large language model (LLM) training regimes. Notably, in low-precision FP8 pretraining -- a setting where AdamW fails catastrophically -- StoSignSGD remains highly stable and yields a remarkable 1.44$\times$ to 2.14$\times$ speedup relative to established baselines. Furthermore, when fine-tuning 7B LLMs on mathematical reasoning tasks, StoSignSGD delivers substantial performance gains over both AdamW and SignSGD. Finally, to dissect the mechanisms driving its success, we develop a sign conversion framework capable of transforming any general optimizer into its unbiased, sign-based counterpart. Utilizing this framework, we deconstruct the core components of StoSignSGD and present a comprehensive ablation study to empirically validate our algorithmic design choices.

SignSGD compresses each stochastic gradient coordinate to a single bit, offering substantial memory and communication savings, but its 1-bit quantization removes magnitude information and is known to leave a generalization gap relative to well-tuned SGD. We revisit SignSGD from a 1-bit quantization and dithering perspective and contribute three improvements. First, we derive a small-batch convergence rate for SignSGD under unimodal symmetric gradient noise using a signal-to-noise weighted stationarity measure, removing the large-batch assumption of prior analyses. Second, we inject annealed Gaussian noise before the sign operator, which acts as a classical dithering mechanism and probabilistically restores magnitude information lost to hard thresholding. Third, we adapt the SWATS strategy to sign-based updates with a projection-based learning-rate calibration that smoothly transitions from SignSGD to SGD. Single-worker experiments on ResNet-18 isolate optimizer effects from communication aspects: pre-sign dithering surpasses Adam on CIFAR-100, and the calibrated switch reaches 92.18% test accuracy on CIFAR-10, outperforming both pure SGD 91.38% and pure SignSGD with momentum 90.82%.

Recently, Muon and related spectral optimizers have demonstrated strong empirical performance as scalable stochastic methods, often outperforming Adam. Yet their behaviour remains poorly understood. We analyze stochastic spectral optimizers, including Muon, on a high-dimensional matrix-valued least squares problem. We derive explicit deterministic dynamics that provide a tractable framework for studying learning behaviour with a focus on (stochastic) SignSVD, which Muon approximates, and (stochastic) SignSGD, the latter serving as a proxy for Adam. Our analysis shows that for large batch size, SignSVD performs a square-root preconditioning with respect to the data covariance spectrum, while for small batch size smaller eigenmodes behave like SGD, slowing down convergence. We contrast with SignSGD which for generic covariance performs no preconditioning and has no transition, leading to different optimal learning rates and convergence characteristics. The two methods match up to a constant factor with isotropic data, but behave differently with anisotropic data. An analysis of a power law covariance model with data exponent $α$ and target exponent $β$ shows there are three phases in the $(α,β)$ plane: one where SignSGD is uniformly favored, one where SignSVD is uniformly favored, and a third where the two methods exhibit a trade-off in performance.