cs.LGMay 28, 2026

On the Optimizer Dependence of Neural Scaling Laws

Authors: Vansh RamaniShourya Vir Jain

Abstract

The scaling exponent αα in neural scaling laws L(N)NαL(N) \propto N^{-α} is commonly treated as a fixed constant set by architecture and data. We present evidence that αα depends systematically on the optimizer. In controlled random-feature regression experiments -- the canonical theoretical framework for neural scaling -- we measure αα across five optimizer variants and six spectral conditions. Preconditioned optimizers consistently yield steeper scaling (larger αα), with the αα-shift increasing across most of the tested spectral range, peaking near s=1.5s = 1.5, and remaining large at s=2.0s = 2.0. At s1.0s \approx 1.0 (characteristic of natural language), the full natural gradient achieves α0.31α\approx 0.31 versus α0.12α\approx 0.12 for gradient descent -- a 2.6×2.6\times larger fitted exponent that, within the random-feature model, compounds with each model-size doubling. Whether and how this exponent shift transfers to large-scale LLM training -- where recent evidence suggests the advantage may attenuate with scale -- remains an important open question. Our results imply that scaling-law forecasts should account for optimizer choice, and we provide a spectral diagnostic predicting when advanced optimizers will pay off.

Explore similar work

May 20, 2026cs.LG

Same Architecture, Different Capacity: Optimizer-Induced Spectral Scaling Laws

Scaling laws have made language-model performance predictable from model size, data, and compute, but they typically treat the optimizer as a fixed training detail. We show that this assumption misses a fundamental axis of representation scaling: how effectively the optimizer converts added FFN width into utilized spectral capacity. Using eigenspectra of feed-forward network representations, measured through soft and hard spectral-ranks, we find that \emph{the same Transformer architecture realizes markedly different spectral scaling laws when trained with different optimizers}. Holding architecture and width schedule fixed, AdamW exhibits weak hard-rank scaling (ββ=0.44) on rare-token (TAIL) representations where learning is known to be hardest, whereas Muon achieves linear scaling (ββ=1.02) in the same regimes, a 2.3×2.3\times increase in the scaling exponent. This difference is not reducible to validation loss: AdamW configurations can match low-rank Dion variants in perplexity, under extended training, while exhibiting sharply different spectral geometry, demonstrating that matched loss does not imply matched representation structure. Hard--soft rank asymmetry further reveals that optimizers differ not only in how much capacity is realized, but also in how that capacity is structured across eigenmodes. To disentangle optimizer effects from architectural ones, we compare against architectural interventions (e.g., attention rank and positional encoding), and find that optimizer-induced spectral shifts often exceed the architectural effects. These results suggest optimization as a first-class axis of representation scaling, motivating optimizer--architecture co-design.
Nandan Kumar Jha, Brandon Reagen
Jun 23, 2026cs.LG

Neural Scaling Universality: If Exponents Are Fixed, Time to Understand Coefficients

Neural scaling laws describe how pre-training loss decays as power laws with training time, model size, and compute. This position paper argues that the exponents of these power laws are fixed by generic mechanisms: a one-third time scaling due to the strong nonlinearity of Softmax, an inverse width scaling due to representational superposition, and an inverse depth scaling due to ensemble averaging of Transformer layers. These mechanisms are robust to a wide range of data structures and architectural details, placing current large language models in a universality class with fixed exponents. The coefficients, however, are expected to be sensitive to data and architecture details, and directly determine practical quantities such as the optimal model shape and the compute-optimal frontier. We therefore argue that understanding the coefficients is the key to near-term performance improvements, and that a closer examination of the current universality class may reveal pathways to better universality classes.
Yizhou Liu, Jeff Gore
May 8, 2026cs.LG

Tokens-per-Parameter Coverage Is Critical for Robust LLM Scaling Law Extrapolation

Neural scaling laws approximate a language model's loss as a power-law function of parameter count NN and token count DD. Following Chinchilla-style compute-optimal training, many studies fit scaling laws from runs performed under a fixed tokens-per-parameter (TPP) ratio kk and set D=kND = kN. We show that this collinear design, combined with the empirically common near-equality of the exponents governing NN and DD, induces an inherent ill-conditioning in the Gauss-Newton least-squares problem: the condition number of the design grows as the inverse square of the gap between the NN and DD-exponents. The scale coefficients become practically unidentifiable, with confidence intervals inflating by an order of magnitude or more, yielding a ``sloppy'' model whose extrapolations degrade sharply off the training ray. We prove this for four scaling-law formalisms and derive a closed-form TPP-diversity threshold that is necessary and sufficient for well-conditioned estimation. Empirically, non-collinear designs outperform collinear ones on held-out splits with a 97.3% win rate across four laws, five corpora, multiple floating point precision modes. We further show the degeneracy is rooted in Jacobian geometry and is not an artifact of the loss function: any smooth estimation objective whose curvature involves the Jacobian inherits the same ill-conditioning.
Joshua Shay Kricheli, Alexander Lawrence Reid, Soumajyoti Sarkar +2