When Rank Rises as LLMs Degrade

Frontier large language model training consumes massive accelerator fleets and long wall-clock computation, making stability failures costly when they occur. After a numerical or a hyperparameter fault has already destabilized the training dynamics, it may continue for thousands of steps while loss and gradient norms still appear normal. We study mechanism-driven detection of training instability by deriving internal monitors from the functional role of each critical module and from the earliest computational sites where failures are expected to produce measurable signatures. For low-precision flash attention, we monitor the spectral entropy of a QK bilinear decomposition, whose first-order term becomes abnormal before the loss fully collapses. For MoE routers, we derive indicators from their role in expert selection. Our fault-injection experiments on low-precision attention, large learning-rate, and combined faults show that these signals provide distinct signatures for different failures, triggering thousands of steps before loss divergence.

Matrix-level low-rank compression is a promising way to reduce the cost of large language models, but running compression and evaluating the resulting models on language tasks can be prohibitively expensive. Can compression-induced degradation be predicted before committing to this compute? We systematically analyze the Qwen3 and Gemma3 model families across four representative low-rank compression methods: vanilla SVD, two ASVD variants, and SVD-LLM. We find that stable rank and information density, measured in bits per parameter, dominate performance degradation. The interaction term $γ\cdot \barρ_s$, defined as compression ratio times stable rank, is a robust predictor of accuracy degradation, achieving leave-one-out cross-validation Pearson correlations of $0.890$ for attention layers and $0.839$ for MLP layers. We provide theoretical intuition for why this predictor succeeds by connecting it to standard SVD truncation bounds and error composition mechanisms in transformer layers. These findings enable a predict-then-compress workflow: compute $γ\cdot \barρ_s$ from weights, estimate degradation, and invest compute only in desirable configurations.

Pre-training large language models is dominated by the memory cost of storing full-rank weights, gradients, and optimizer states. Low-rank pre-training has emerged to address this, and the space of methods has grown rapidly. A central question remains open: do low-rank methods produce models that generalize comparably to full-rank training, or does the rank constraint fundamentally alter the solutions reached? Existing comparisons rely almost entirely on validation perplexity from single-seed runs, often carried forward from prior literature. Yet perplexity is a poor proxy for solution quality; two methods can match on perplexity while converging to different loss landscape regions and internal representations. We close this gap by characterizing the solutions found by five low-rank pre-training methods, GaLore and Fira (memory-efficient optimizers), CoLA and SLTrain (architecture reparameterizations), and ReLoRA (adapter-style updates with periodic resets), against full-rank training at three model scales (60M, 130M, 350M). We evaluate each along 16 metrics across four dimensions: 1-D loss landscape along random/top-K PCA directions, 1-D interpolation between checkpoints, spectral structure of the weights and learned updates, and activation similarity to full-rank training. We show that low-rank methods are not equivalent to full-rank training, nor to one another, even when validation perplexity is close. Full-rank training settles into a sharper basin than low-rank methods along random directions, while the reverse holds for the top-1 PCA direction. Each method converges to a geometrically distinct basin. Low-rank activations diverge from full-rank in later layers as training progresses, with GaLore tracking full-rank most closely. Further, validation perplexity does not translate to downstream performance at every scale. Adding geometric and spectral metrics improves the prediction.