Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the interaction between normalization layers (Dynamic Erf, Dynamic Tanh, RMSNorm) and optimizers (AdamW, Muon) in LLM training at the 1B parameter scale. It finds a significant negative interaction between Dynamic Erf and the Muon optimizer, where Dynamic Erf's performance degrades substantially compared to RMSNorm when used with Muon. The authors attribute this degradation to saturation and scale blindness of Dynamic Erf under Muon's faster spectral-norm growth, and propose EMA-blending and reducing Dynamic Erf's alpha as mitigation strategies.
Seemingly innocuous choices of normalization layers can tank your LLM's performance when paired with certain optimizers, incurring a 0.66-nat interaction penalty that's easily missed in short pilot runs.
In LLM training, normalization layers and optimizers are typically treated as independent design choices. In a 3x2 factorial at 1B parameters and 1000 training steps, we show this assumption can fail: Dynamic Erf (Derf; Chen&Liu, 2025) suffers a large negative interaction with Muon (Jordan, 2024), with its gap to RMSNorm growing from +0.31 nats under AdamW to +0.97 under Muon, approximately three times larger. Dynamic Tanh (DyT; Zhu et al., 2025), included as a bounded-normalizer control, shows no such penalty. Our evidence points to two failure modes of erf under Muon's faster spectral-norm growth: saturation (lossy compression) and scale blindness (discarding activation magnitude). An EMA-blend that reintroduces running scale estimates recovers ~84% of the gap. Separately, reducing Derf's alpha from its published default (0.5 to 0.3) recovers ~80% by keeping erf in its near-linear regime, where it approximately preserves relative scale; this setting is not the published default of Chen&Liu (2025). Using Derf's published default alpha with Muon incurs a 0.66-nat interaction penalty without producing NaNs or divergence, making the failure easy to miss in short pilot runs.