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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Validation loss after 5,000 steps: unweighted mean over 20 subsets (one run per method; seed 48). GS: GradientStabilizer. The vertical axis is truncated. Full comparison: Table 1 .
Figure 2: CAST adds historical scaling (HS) and output feedback around SSC (Algorithm 1 ). AdamW uses restored Gout ; its V becomes the next Vold , bias-corrected within S . The EMA hold tracks the estimated ∥Zout∥2 . Dashed histories advance only after a successful update.
Figure 3: The soft map and CAST’s threshold choice. (a) Hard and soft clipping at τ=1 , following the functional view of SSC in Jiang et al. (2026) . (b) The same soft map at τ=1.3h for three illustrative values of the previous output history h . These analytical curves describe the active branch in standardized coordinates; the bypass gate and finite Newton–Schulz approximation are separate steps in Algorithm 1 .
Method
Train loss ↓
Validation loss ↓
CAST lower
CAST
1.6516
1.8738
—
GlobalGC
1.6718
1.8962
19/20
AdaGC
1.6625
1.8872
20/20
SSC-constant
1.6638
1.8864
20/20
SSC-cosine
1.6700
1.8947
19/20
GradientStabilizer
1.6828
1.9034
18/20
Table 1: Pretraining at 5,000 steps (83.89B nominal tokens). Train: mean over steps 4801–5000. Validation: unweighted mean over 20 subsets at step 5000. The final column counts subsets where CAST has lower loss. All runs use seed 48.
Figure 4: Quality trajectories for all ten primary conditions. Training curves show trailing 100-step means from iteration 2000 onward; validation curves average the same 20 subsets at each complete checkpoint. Appendix E includes the training trajectory from initialization.
Condition
Train loss
Validation loss
Gate fraction
CAST
1.6516
1.8738
0.884
w/o HS
1.6541
1.8747
0.403
w/ τ=0.1
1.6937
1.9215
1.000
w/ cosine τ
1.6767
1.9034
1.000
Table 2: CAST component study (HS: historical scaling). Loss windows follow Table 1 ; bold marks the lowest values. Gate fraction is the mean share of eligible matrices entering SSC over steps 4801–5000.
Figure 5: Training trajectories for CAST and its three component variants (HS: historical scaling). Curves show trailing 100-step means from iteration 2000 onward; Table 2 reports their final training and validation losses.
Figure 6: Raw input-gradient norms over iterations 501–5000 for ten primary conditions and three CAST ablations. The final row removes HS (historical scaling) or replaces the spectral EMA with fixed or cosine thresholds. All panels share a logarithmic vertical scale. Titles report relative spike counts; the dashed line marks norm 1. Table 3 gives the statistics.
Method
Median norm
P99 norm
Maximum norm
Steps with norm >1
Relative spikes
CAST
0.1510
0.3702
0.5476
0
1
GlobalGC
0.1541
0.4574
15.1610
10
38
AdaGC
0.1343
0.3485
1.0541
1
6
SSC-constant
0.1591
0.4723
1.1829
1
22
SSC-cosine
0.1653
0.4996
1.1922
2
21
GradientStabilizer
0.1701
0.6413
4.1736
5
31
Table 3: Input-gradient norms before clipping, steps 501–5000. P99: 99th percentile. Relative spikes exceed twice the preceding 100-step median, counting consecutive steps. Bold/underline: lowest/second-lowest counts, including ties. Last three rows: CAST ablations (HS: historical scaling).
Measure
CAST
SSC-constant
ClipByValue
Mean (s)
44.408
43.533
43.580
Median (s)
44.206
43.329
43.375
P95 (s)
44.876
43.960
44.119
Tokens/s/ device
5903
6022
6015
Table 4: Iteration times over steps 4801–5000 (200 steps per method, 64 devices). Mean is the arithmetic average; Median and P95 are the 50th and 95th percentiles. Throughput is 2048×8192/(64tˉ) , where tˉ is the mean iteration time in seconds. Timings include execution and logging.
Figure 7: Final 500 steps for CAST and nine baselines (100-step means). CAST reaches AdaGC’s final loss (dashed) at step 4,639. Colors follow Figure 9 .
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Controller setting
Value
Selected spectral space
Full matrix
Newton–Schulz iterations
5
Output power iterations
3
Multiplier λ
1.3
History decay βh
0.95
Calibration updates / cap
40 / 1
Appendix
Table 5: Main-method controller settings. The training seed is separately fixed at 48.
Parameter component
Count across the model
20 MLA modules, including low-rank normalization
114,698,240
20 dense SwiGLU modules
283,115,520
Learned experts
18,119,393,280
MoE input/output projections
47,185,920
Routers
13,762,560
Block and MoE normalization
76,800
Appendix
Table 6: Parameter counts from the recorded architecture and model source. Replicated parameters are counted once. The activated backbone uses the target of 32 learned experts per MoE module; the actual count varies across tokens. Selecting 48 learned experts per MoE module gives an upper bound of approximately 0.742B activated backbone parameters.
Figure 8: Every baseline-minus-CAST validation loss difference. Positive values favor CAST; outlined negative cells favor the baseline. Subsets correspond to Table 7 .
Figure 9: Training from the first complete 100-step averaging window through iteration 5000. All ten primary conditions and three CAST ablations (HS: historical scaling) use trailing 100-step means. The main plot uses a logarithmic vertical axis; the box and connected inset show the final 500 steps on a linear scale.
Label
CAST
GlobalGC
AdaGC
SSC-constant
SSC-cosine
01 Academic / vocational
2.2466
2.2718
2.2569
2.2601
2.2693
02 Clinical / health
1.9951
2.0179
2.0054
2.0078
2.0168
03 Consumer / leisure
2.1824
2.2031
2.1924
2.1935
2.2026
04 Economy / services
2.0175
2.0434
2.0310
2.0309
2.0399
05 IT / programming
1.8519
1.8727
1.8631
1.8646
1.8713
06 Periodicals
2.7619
2.7855
2.7760
2.7744
2.7822
Appendix
Table 7: Token LM losses on all 20 validation subsets at iteration 5000. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best values across all ten conditions, spanning both panels. GS is GradientStabilizer; Value is ClipByValue.
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.
Xiaowen Jiang, Andrei Semenov, Sebastian U. Stich
CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, Saarbrücken, Germany · Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany · EPFL
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
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