3.3AIDec 16, 2025
Dynamic Learning Rate Scheduling based on Loss Changes Leads to Faster ConvergenceShreyas Subramanian, Bala Krishnamoorthy, Pranav Murthy
Despite significant advances in optimizers for training, most research works use common scheduler choices like Cosine or exponential decay. In this paper, we study \emph{GreedyLR}, a novel scheduler that adaptively adjusts the learning rate during training based on the current loss. To validate the effectiveness of our proposed scheduler, we conduct experiments on several NLP, CV, and LLM tasks with up to $7B$ parameters, including both fine-tuning and pre-training experiments. The results show that our approach outperforms several state-of-the-art schedulers in terms of accuracy, speed, and convergence. We also provide a theoretical analysis of the GreedyLR algorithm, including a proof of convergence and derivation of the optimal scaling factor $F$ that maximizes the convergence rate, along with experiments to show robustness of the algorithm to realistic noisy landscapes. Our scheduler is easy to implement, computationally efficient, and could be considered a good default scheduler for training.
7.6LGJul 9
Super Weights in LLMs and the Failure of Selective TrainingShreyas Subramanian, Adewale Akinfaderin, Akarsha Sehwag
Recent work identified Super Weights, individual parameters whose removal degrades model performance by orders of magnitude. We show that this degradation due to pruning Super Weights does not universally apply to all LLMs. Furthermore, if these parameters are so important, Super Weight-aware training should be effective. We show the opposite. Training Super Weights in isolation (100 to 8,192 parameters) drops accuracy to random-guessing levels on both OLMo-1B and OLMo-7B, and expanding to local neighborhoods of up to 36K parameters provides no improvement. The failure is specific to Super Weight coordinates: training an equal number of randomly chosen positions in the same down_proj layers instead improves over the baseline, so the collapse comes from targeting Super Weights, not from sparsity itself. Vanilla LoRA, updating every position in attention weight matrices through low-rank structure, succeeds with only 0.16% of parameters, and applying the same low-rank update to down_proj succeeds as well. A 10-seed ablation confirms that constraining LoRA updates at positions corresponding to Super Weight coordinates yields statistically indistinguishable results. These findings establish that parameter importance does not imply parameter trainability in isolation, and that effective fine-tuning relies on structured decompositions over entire layers rather than targeting individually important weights.