Pre-training LLM without Learning Rate Decay Enhances Supervised Fine-Tuning
Kazuki Yano, Shun Kiyono, Sosuke Kobayashi, Sho Takase, Jun Suzuki
Abstract
We investigate the role of learning rate scheduling in the large-scale pre-training of large language models, focusing on its influence on downstream performance after supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Decay-based learning rate schedulers are widely used to minimize pre-training loss. However, despite their widespread use, how these schedulers affect performance after SFT remains underexplored. In this paper, we examine Warmup-Stable-Only (WSO), which maintains a constant learning rate after warmup without any decay. Through experiments with 1B and 8B parameter models, we show that WSO consistently outperforms decay-based schedulers in terms of performance after SFT, even though decay-based schedulers may exhibit better performance after pre-training. The result also holds across different regimes with mid-training and over-training. Loss landscape analysis further reveals that decay-based schedulers lead models into sharper minima, whereas WSO preserves flatter minima that support adaptability. These findings indicate that applying LR decay to improve pre-training metrics may compromise downstream adaptability. Our work also provides practical guidance for training and model release strategies, highlighting that pre-training models with WSO enhances their adaptability for downstream tasks.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 6ed458b9-5f7a-41df-92c0-9483f072d3a6Builds on26
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
Related papers
- A Multi-Power Law for Loss Curve Prediction Across Learning Rate SchedulesKairong Luo, Haodong Wen, Shengding Hu, Zhenbo Sun et al.ICLR 2025
- Understanding Warmup-Stable-Decay Learning Rates: A River Valley Loss Landscape ViewKaiyue Wen, Zhiyuan Li, Jason S. Wang, David Leo Wright Hall et al.ICLR 2025
- Through the River: Understanding the Benefit of Schedule-Free Methods for Language Model TrainingMinhak Song, Beomhan Baek, Kwangjun Ahn, Chulhee YunNeurIPS 2025 · 9 citations
- Functional Scaling Laws in Kernel Regression: Loss Dynamics and Learning Rate SchedulesBinghui Li, Fengling Chen, Zixun Huang, Lean Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 15 citations
- Scaling and Transferability of Annealing Strategies in Large Language Model TrainingSiqi Wang, Zhengyu Chen, Teng Xiao, Zheqi Lv et al.AAAI 2026 · 1 citation
