Kronecker-preconditioned optimizers recompute a cached curvature eigendecomposition only periodically, and implementations and adaptive methods control this through the refresh frequency. We show that frequency leaves part of a schedule free: at a fixed number of refreshes, when they occur changes held-out loss at the same compute. Training GPT-style models with the Mousse optimizer across model sizes, we move the middle refreshes of a four-refresh schedule while fixing the first and last. On FineWeb the two placements exchanged rank as the learning rate rose (later placement was better at low rates, earlier placement at high ones), so a single-learning-rate comparison can report either ranking. The reversal held under controls including the published optimizer internals, and placement still mattered at the published refresh density. The learning rate at which the preference flips fell with model size, consistent with a held-out smaller model, and shifted with training length. A spectral-width staleness score predicted the same ranking at every learning rate and missed the reversal. Refresh schedules should be reported in full and compared across the learning rates at which they will be used.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) The two schedules. Both perform four refreshes and share their first and last refresh step, and only the two middle refreshes differ. (b) Seed-mean difference τ in endpoint held-out negative log-likelihood (NLL), later schedule minus earlier, against the matrix learning rate (FineWeb, 350M). Positive values mean earlier placement is better. λ× marks the interpolated sign change, and the grey band is the tie tolerance.
Figure 2: The placement contrast τ(corpus,η) at GPT-350M (positive = early better). FineWeb is drawn heavier, the grey band is the ±0.002 tie tolerance, and the marker is the interpolated crossing. Crossing corpora are solid, non-crossing dashed.
corpus
tuned LR
∣τ∣ tuned
surface max
FineWeb
.012
.009
.033 (at .004 )
Pile-CC
.012
.011
.031 (at .024 )
GitHub
.012
.084
.084 (at .012 )
PubMed
.012
.068
.082 (at .024 )
arXiv
.016
.039
.095 (at .024 )
Books3
.012
.043
.063 (at .016 )
Table 1: Placement effect at each corpus’s tuned learning rate beside the largest effect on the surface (350M, 591 steps).
Figure 3: Endpoint NLL relative to the earliest centre c=251 for five placements of the middle pair at the same budget and endpoints (FineWeb, 350M). Faint points are individual seeds, and the grey band is the tie tolerance.
condition
reversal
λ×
primary pair (reference)
✓
.0166
schedule construction
shared refresh added at warmup end
✓
.0164
budget 8, first and largest gaps kept
✓
.0166
budget 16, first and largest gaps kept
✓
.0171
budget 59, every gap at most 15 steps
— a
—
Table 2: Controls on the FineWeb reversal (350M, primary pair unless stated). A check mark means a seed-consistent sign change, a cross means none, and λ× is the interpolated crossing. Details are in App. C .
Figure 4: (a) The budget-59 schedules as tick marks (grey bands are WSD warmup and warmdown). (b) τ against the matrix learning rate on FineWeb at 350M for the budget-59 pair (median and individual seeds) and the primary budget-4 pair (seed mean). Filled seed points mark seed-consistent cells, open points the others, and the grey band is the tie tolerance. Per-seed values are in Table 5 .
Figure 5: (a) λ× against parameter count, one experiment per scale. The dashed line is the fit to the four larger scales, and the square is the held-out 64M measurement. Filled markers are the main estimates, and open markers are independent fresh-seed cohorts (App. D ). (b) The held-out test: the preselected tolerance band, the zero-slope benchmark and the 64M measurement. (c) λ× against the uniform-schedule optimal learning rate λref-opt .
Figure 6: (a) Normalised spectral-width profiles w(t) of the 20-refresh reference runs (FineWeb, five learning rates). The dashed line marks the first step at which the two schedules differ. (b) Top: decomposition of the score contrast ΔIw into D1 and Rw (Eq. 5 ), in width × steps. Bottom: the measured τ of the same cells, in NLL, with the tie band. (c) ΔIw (Eq. 4 ) against measured τ over all 30 cells, with per-corpus fits.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Optimizer (matrix parameters)
momentum μ
0.95 (heavy ball, Nesterov off)
curvature EMA β
0.95 , bias-corrected at refresh
curvature exponent α
0.125, before and after Newton–Schulz
eigenvalue cleanup ε
10−10 (nonnegative correction after trace normalization)
orthogonalization
Newton–Schulz, 5 iterations
norm grafting
update rescaled to ∥O∥F
Appendix
Table 3: Hyperparameters used in all experiments unless stated otherwise. Matrix learning-rate grids are given with each experiment.
Figure 7: Per-cell τ from the two seeds of the 350M surface, one point per (corpus, LR) cell. The line is y=x .
corpus
.004
.008
.012
.016
.024
FineWeb
−.0332
−.0177
−.0091
−.0013
+.0189
Pile-CC
+.0016
−.0043
+.0105
+.0164
+.0306
GitHub
+.0253
+.0635
+.0844
+.0825
+.0793
PubMed
+.0219
+.0321
+.0675
+.0676
+.0821
arXiv
+.0236
+.0477
+.0452
+.0393
+.0947
Books3
+.0182
+.0505
+.0432
+.0630
+.0023
Appendix
Table 4: Seed-mean τ at 350M and 591 steps (positive = early better).
LR
seed 1
seed 2
seed 3
median
consistent
.008
−.0080
−.0067
−.0077
−.0077
yes
.012
−.0048
−.0054
−.0042
−.0048
yes
.016
−.0065
−.0153
−.0037
−.0065
yes
.020
−.0007
−.0079
+.0018
−.0007
no
.024
+.0069
+.0144
−.0028
+.0069
no
Appendix
Table 5: τ at budget 59 (FineWeb, 350M, three seeds). A cell is consistent when all seeds receive the same label (early better, late better, or tie).
Figure 8: The schedules as tick marks (grey bands are WSD warmup and warmdown). Top: the primary mirrored pair. Bottom: the budget-59 pair, whose interval lengths run in opposite directions while every gap stays between 5 and 15 steps. The labels early_mid and late_mid denote SE and SL , and early_b59 and late_b59 the budget-59 pair.
cond.
LR
AdamW
seed 1
seed 2
seed 3
median
fixed
.012
3.0 e −4
−.0060
−.0049
−.0046
−.0049
fixed
.016
3.0 e −4
+.0005
−.0007
+.0033
+.0005
fixed
.024
3.0 e −4
+.0157
+.0141
+.0163
+.0157
prop.
.012
2.25 e −4
−.0056
−.0045
−.0044
−.0045
prop.
.016
3.0 e −4
+.0005
−.0007
+.0033
+.0005
prop.
.024
4.5 e −4
+.0204
+.0197
+.0181
+.0197
Appendix
Table 6: τ with the AdamW rate fixed at 3×10−4 versus scaled with the matrix rate (FineWeb, 350M, primary pair, three seeds). The two conditions coincide at .016 by construction.
scale
params
λ×
resampling range
seeds
64M
64.1M
.029393
[.029072,.029780]
6
124M
124.5M
.024049
[.023101,.024160]
2
350M
354.9M
.016560
—
3
350M †
.016433
[.016107,.016713]
2
695M
695.4M
.014327
[.013943,.014757]
2
929M
928.8M
.013196
[.013053,.013357]
2
Appendix
Table 7: Per-scale crossings. Ranges resample seeds within each cohort. † A second 350M cohort. ‡ Independent cohorts with four fresh seeds on local three-point grids, kept separate from the main estimates.
prediction
outcome
Single-interval drift tracks τ across the surface
runs opposite within the crossing corpora (FineWeb −0.80 , Pile-CC −0.60 )
Refresh content (data freshness) acts as a gain
refuted by an erasure test
τ reduces to Axlnx in factor age
fails on held-out cells
τ is a generalization effect
refuted: training and evaluation contrasts agree (corr 0.88 )
Appendix
Table 8: Earlier attempts to predict the boundary from curvature staleness.
system
what is refreshed
exposed timing control
K-FAC ( Martens and Grosse, 2015 )
factored curvature inverses
periodic recomputation interval
Shampoo ( Gupta et al., 2018 ; Anil et al., 2020 )
preconditioner roots
preconditioner update interval
SOAP ( Vyas et al., 2025 )
eigenbasis of the preconditioner
preconditioning frequency
EKFAC ( George et al., 2018 )
diagonal scalings inside a fixed eigenbasis
rebuild interval for the eigenbasis
adaptive-frequency methods ( Eschenhagen et al., 2025 ; Nam and Ahn, 2026 )
eigenbasis or roots, on a staleness trigger
adaptive update frequency (budget varies)
Muon ( Liu et al., 2025 )
(no curvature factorization)
—
Appendix
Table 9: Refresh control across Kronecker-preconditioned systems.
Optimizers play an important role in both pretraining and finetuning stages when training large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we present an observation that full finetuning with the same optimizer as in pretraining achieves a better learning-forgetting tradeoff, i.e., forgetting less while achieving the same or better performance on the new task, than other optimizers and, possibly surprisingly, LoRA, during the supervised finetuning (SFT) stage. We term this phenomenon optimizer-model consistency. To better understand it, through controlled experiments and theoretical analysis, we show that: 1) optimizers can shape the models by having regularization effects on the activations, leading to different landscapes around the pretrained checkpoints; 2) in response to this regularization effect, the weight update in SFT should follow some specific structures to lower forgetting of the knowledge learned in pretraining, which can be obtained by using the same optimizer. Moreover, we specifically compare Muon and AdamW when they are employed throughout the pretraining and SFT stages and find that Muon performs worse when finetuned for reasoning tasks. With a synthetic language modeling experiment, we demonstrate that this can come from Muon's strong tendency towards rote memorization, which may hurt pattern acquisition with a small amount of data, as for SFT.
Schedule-Free Learning has shown promise as a practical anytime training method for machine learning, showing success across dozens of standard benchmark problems. However, strong performance for LLM training has only been demonstrated at small scales. We identify a number of fixes necessary to scale up Schedule-Free Learning to larger batch sizes and model sizes, and present a learning-rate-free and schedule-free method (ScheduleFree+) for training large language models which greatly outperforms Warmup-Stable-Decay (WSD) schedules. We also demonstrate that Schedule-Free Learning is most effective for long duration training, and at 1000 tokens per parameter, it outperforms SOTA schedules by 31%. Schedule-Free Learning provides a theoretical foundation for the use of model averaging and checkpoint merging during pretraining.
Learning rate schedules are typically fixed before training begins, yet when fine-tuning large language models with low-rank adapters (LoRA), the appropriate scale varies substantially with the model, task, and adapter configuration. Practitioners re-tune a schedule for every new problem, yet a tuned schedule still cannot react to the training dynamics it encounters. We instead amortize learning rate selection across LoRA fine-tuning problems. We leave the base optimizer, Muon, untouched, so that its normalized update fixes the direction, and meta-learn only the global step size. Our method MuPACE is a small recurrent policy, meta-trained across a distribution of fine-tuning runs, that conditions on the observed trajectory and emits bounded adjustments to an interpretable analytic schedule. On 64 fine-tuning problems, MuPACE outperforms standard fixed schedules at a strong shared default on 64-78% of problems and is on par with the same schedules with per-task tuned peaks. Meta-trained only on models with up to 16 layers, MuPACE transfers one-shot to unseen tasks on models as deep as 64 layers, such as Qwen3-32B and Qwen3.8-27B, where a single run remains competitive with swept schedules.
Jan Kobiolka, Christian Frey, Josif Grabocka
Department of Computer Science, University of Technology Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany