Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the impact of delayed optimizer-state transport on short-horizon training decisions by analyzing the trajectories of the AdamW optimizer across various Transformer histories. By employing exposure-matched loss schedules and differentiating eight-step trajectories, the authors demonstrate that full transport significantly reduces token-disjoint loss in 10 out of 12 tested histories. The findings reveal that the interaction between optimizer state and near-future data can inform when to utilize finite-horizon interventions, enhancing training efficiency and decision-making processes.
Full optimizer-state transport can yield significant improvements in short-horizon decision-making, altering loss outcomes in most tested scenarios.
Adaptive optimizers retain gradient history in moment variables, allowing a local change in loss weighting to alter later updates. We examine whether this delayed transport is large enough to change prospective short-horizon decisions. On committed future-minibatch sequences, we differentiate eight-step AdamW trajectories through the complete model--optimizer state and select exposure-matched Math--Code loss schedules before independent evaluation. Across 12 unused 0.3M Transformer histories, full transport lowers token-disjoint loss relative to an optimizer-aware immediate derivative in 10/12 histories (mean benefit $4.71\times10^{-4}$; exact one-sided sign test, $p=0.0193$). The two controllers act equally often but select different schedules in 60/96 windows. Crossed checkpoint--future-path tests attribute this reordering to the interaction between optimizer state and near-future data, while an independent Ising--CNN experiment shows that deleting moment-state transport destroys accurate response prediction. Full-transport scores also concentrate exact-rollout winners in larger candidate libraries, focusing finite-amplitude evaluation on a shortlist. On these committed short paths, optimizer memory and near-future data order are therefore actionable components of the training state, providing a mechanism-based criterion for when finite-horizon rather than one-step intervention is required.
