arXiv subjects

Lngel Kyo

Publications and source records attributed to Lngel Kyo.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

A Self-Generated Floor on Adam's $\varepsilon$: Evidence from Power-Law Matrix Sensing

In nonconvex Burer--Monteiro low-rank matrix sensing of $U^\ast \in \mathbb{R}^{V \times D}$ under power-law covariance $Σ= \mathrm{diag}(j^{-s})_{j=1}^V$, the precision-wall approximation predicts that Adam stalls when the smallest non-gauge Hessian eigenvalue drops below its denominator floor, giving $s^\ast(V,D) = [\log(1/\varepsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}) - \log V]/\log(VD) + δ_{\mathrm{Adam}}$. If $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{eff}}$ were set by $\varepsilon_0$, lowering $\varepsilon_0$ from $10^{-10}$ to $10^{-12}$ would raise $s^\ast$ by $0.95\text{--}1.33$. Instead, across six values of $\varepsilon_0$ two decades apart, $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-12}$, the boundary follows the $\varepsilon_0$ slope down to $10^{-6}$, bends near $10^{-8}$, and is flat below $10^{-8}$, while warm-started L-BFGS and Gauss--Newton reach machine precision on stalled instances. We trace this saturation to a self-generated dynamical floor $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{dyn}} \propto α$: high-curvature modes oscillate persistently near the adaptive edge of stability with amplitude $\propto α(1-β_1)/(1+β_1)$ and leak gradient fluctuations of scale $κα$ into rare modes via measurement coupling, pinning $\sqrt{\hat{v}_V} \approx κα\gg \varepsilon_0$. Fitting a single threshold-crossing wall parameter $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{dyn}} = 4.76\times 10^{-9}$ (with the detection lag frozen at its companion calibration) predicts the saturated failure boundary for $D \ge 4$ across five $(V,D)$ scales to RMS $0.098$ (breaking down at $D = 2$), while shrinking $\varepsilon_0$ below $10^{-8}$ is ineffective and lowering the step size $α$ reduces the floor directly.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Precision Wall: An Optimizer-Dependent Boundary for Optimization under Power-Law Measurement Spectra

In low-rank matrix sensing of a rank-$D$ factor $U^\ast \in \mathbb{R}^{V \times D}$, replacing isotropic Gaussian designs with power-law measurement covariance $Σ= \mathrm{diag}(j^{-s})_{j=1}^V$ leaves the Burer--Monteiro landscape free of spurious local minima, yet division-normalised first-order optimizers stall above a critical exponent $s^\ast$. We trace this failure to a numerical precision wall. At the ground truth, the smallest non-gauge expected Hessian eigenvalue scales at leading order as $V^{-(s+1)}D^{-s}$. When this curvature drops below the effective denominator floor $ε_O$ of optimizer $O$, normalisation noise overwhelms rare-direction gradients, yielding the leading-order boundary $s^\ast_O(V, D) = [\log(1/ε_O) - \log V]/\log(VD) + δ_O$, where $δ_O$ is a metric-dependent detection lag. With $δ_{\mathrm{Adam}}$ calibrated on four configurations and frozen, this formula predicts Adam's onset within $0.45$ across all 16 cells of a held-out grid ($V \in \{64,128,256,512\} \times D \in \{4,8,16,32\}$), separates fixed-$VD$ pairs, and distinguishes denominator-precision walls from conditioning and sign-quantisation walls. The approximation fails at $D = 2$, reflects a finite-$D$ spectral crossover, and saturates below $\varepsilon_0 = 10^{-8}$ at a dynamical floor.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Replaying the Same Gradients at a Different $\varepsilon$: A Registered Test of the Fixed-Trajectory Account of Adam's $\varepsilon$ for One Rare Row

Adam divides every update by the square root of a running average of squared gradients plus a small constant, epsilon. For an output-embedding row whose token is rare, which we call the probe row, raising epsilon can be read as shrinking that row's steps by arithmetic alone. We test that reading directly. While a training run proceeds, we also divide the probe row's update by a different epsilon, using the run's own moment estimates; this replay is exact arithmetic on the gradients the run actually saw, so it holds the run's trajectory fixed. A rule for when the replay counts as wrong was written down before the runs. We train a small causal transformer in a standard configuration. When epsilon rises by four orders of magnitude, the replay counts as wrong on each of the three seeds registered for the test: the probe row keeps 8.9--11.4 times more of its displacement than predicted with the main, sampled-negative head, and 5.0--7.7 times more with a full-softmax head scored as a second instrument. At three orders of magnitude, tested with the main head only, it does not, by narrow margins; a further two seeds, registered after this result had been committed and scored on their own, follow the same pattern. In separate real runs, raising epsilon on the probe row alone is enough to reproduce the row's change and raising it on every other parameter alone also moves the row part of the way --- readings about the runs that do not rescue the replay; scaling the row's learning rate instead, with the denominator untouched, is mispredicted by the replay in the same direction. This is one embedding row of one model family on one corpus; we make no claim about rates, about rows in general (other rows were read only as a panel on one trajectory) or about how the effect changes with model size.

cs.LG↗