Through the River: Understanding the Benefit of Schedule-Free Methods for Language Model Training
Minhak Song, Beomhan Baek, Kwangjun Ahn, Chulhee Yun
Abstract
As both model and dataset sizes continue to scale rapidly, conventional pretraining strategies with fixed compute budgets-such as cosine learning rate schedules-are increasingly inadequate for large-scale training. Recent alternatives, including warmup-stable-decay (WSD) schedules and weight averaging, offer greater flexibility. However, WSD relies on explicit decay phases to track progress, while weight averaging addresses this limitation at the cost of additional memory. In search of a more principled and scalable alternative, we revisit the Schedule-Free (SF) method [Defazio et al., 2024], which has shown strong empirical performance across diverse settings. We show that SF-AdamW effectively navigates the "river" structure of the loss landscape without decay phases or auxiliary averaging, making it particularly suitable for continuously scaling training workloads. To understand this behavior, we conduct a theoretical and empirical analysis of SF dynamics, revealing that it implicitly performs weight averaging without memory overhead. Guided by this analysis, we propose a refined variant of SF that improves robustness to momentum and performs better under large batch sizes, addressing key limitations of the original method. Together, these results establish SF as a practical, scalable, and theoretically grounded approach for language model training.
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 f0b314ae-1314-474b-a5c8-51ac22884df4Cited by top-tier papers3
- WSM: Decay-Free Learning Rate Schedule via Checkpoint Merging for LLM Pre-trainingChangxin Tian, jiapeng wang, Qian Zhao, Kunlong Chen et al.ICLR 2026 · 20 citations
- Scaling with Collapse: Efficient and Predictable Training of LLM FamiliesShane Bergsma, Bin Claire Zhang, Nolan Simran Dey, Shaheer Muhammad et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Zeroth-Order Optimization at the Edge of StabilityMinhak Song, Liang Zhang, Bingcong Li, Niao He et al.ICML 2026
Builds on18
- Scaling Vision TransformersXiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, Neil Houlsby, Lucas BeyerCVPR 2022 · 767 citations
- The Road Less ScheduledAaron Defazio, Xingyu Yang, Ahmed Khaled, Konstantin Mishchenko et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 208 citations
- Scaling Laws and Compute-Optimal Training Beyond Fixed Training DurationsAlexander Hägele, Elie Bakouch, Atli Kosson, Loubna Ben Allal et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 168 citations
- Understanding Gradient Descent on the Edge of Stability in Deep LearningSanjeev Arora, Zhiyuan Li, Abhishek PanigrahiICML 2022 · 139 citations
- Analyzing Sharpness along GD Trajectory: Progressive Sharpening and Edge of StabilityZixuan Wang, Zhouzi Li, Jian LiNeurIPS 2022 · 71 citations
Related papers
- 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
- Pre-training LLM without Learning Rate Decay Enhances Supervised Fine-TuningKazuki Yano, Shun Kiyono, Sosuke Kobayashi, Sho Takase et al.ICLR 2026 · 13 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
- General framework for online-to-nonconvex conversion: Schedule-free SGD is also effective for nonconvex optimizationKwangjun Ahn, Gagik Magakyan, Ashok CutkoskyICML 2025
- Seesaw: Accelerating Training by Balancing Batch Size and Learning Rate SchedulingAlexandru Meterez, Depen Morwani, Jingfeng Wu, Costin-Andrei Oncescu et al.ICLR 2026 · 3 citations
