ArXiv TLDR

Optimizer-Model Consistency: Full Finetuning with the Same Optimizer as Pretraining Forgets Less

🐦 Tweet
2605.06654

Yuxing Liu, Jianyu Wang, Tong Zhang

cs.LGcs.AImath.OC

TLDR

Using the same optimizer for LLM finetuning as pretraining significantly reduces forgetting while maintaining performance, a phenomenon called optimizer-model consistency.

Key contributions

  • Optimizer-model consistency: Finetuning with the pretraining optimizer forgets less.
  • Optimizers regularize activations, shaping the model's landscape around checkpoints.
  • Consistent optimizers enable weight updates that preserve pretrained knowledge.
  • Muon can perform worse than AdamW for reasoning tasks due to rote memorization.

Why it matters

This paper introduces "optimizer-model consistency," a crucial insight for finetuning LLMs. It provides a practical guideline to preserve valuable pretrained knowledge, improving the learning-forgetting tradeoff. Understanding how optimizers shape models and influence forgetting is vital for efficient and effective LLM development.

Original Abstract

Optimizers play an important role in both pretraining and finetuning stages when training large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we present an observation that full finetuning with the same optimizer as in pretraining achieves a better learning-forgetting tradeoff, i.e., forgetting less while achieving the same or better performance on the new task, than other optimizers and, possibly surprisingly, LoRA, during the supervised finetuning (SFT) stage. We term this phenomenon optimizer-model consistency. To better understand it, through controlled experiments and theoretical analysis, we show that: 1) optimizers can shape the models by having regularization effects on the activations, leading to different landscapes around the pretrained checkpoints; 2) in response to this regularization effect, the weight update in SFT should follow some specific structures to lower forgetting of the knowledge learned in pretraining, which can be obtained by using the same optimizer. Moreover, we specifically compare Muon and AdamW when they are employed throughout the pretraining and SFT stages and find that Muon performs worse when finetuned for reasoning tasks. With a synthetic language modeling experiment, we demonstrate that this can come from Muon's strong tendency towards rote memorization, which may hurt pattern acquisition with a small amount of data, as for SFT.

📬 Weekly AI Paper Digest

Get the top 10 AI/ML arXiv papers from the week — summarized, scored, and delivered to your inbox every Monday.