Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Neural scaling, in which loss falls as a power law with training, is central to large language models, and one recent proposal is that a $1/3$ exponent emerges from learning peaked distributions. That account describes SGD, but models in practice are trained with adaptive optimizers. Here we separate two exponents the $1/3$ account does not distinguish: how fast the loss falls with training steps along a single run, and how fast the optimally tuned loss falls with dataset size $D$. We show that the first, a dynamic exponent, is optimizer-specific while the second, an optimal data exponent, converges to $1/3$ across optimizers. In an online teacher-student model we decompose the loss into norm growth (radial) and alignment toward the teacher direction (tangential), each decaying as a power law with dynamic exponents $α_{r}$ and $α_{t}$. Under SGD, both are close to $1/3$, so the data exponent is also $1/3$ across different learning rates. Under Adam the two separate: $α_{r} \simeq 0.48$ but $α_{t} \simeq 0.08$. Since the total loss is minimized when these two parts are balanced, the optimal learning rate is optimizer-dependent: $D$-independent for SGD but falls with $D$ for Adam. Yet tuned to that optimum, the loss returns to $D^{-1/3}$ for both. A stochastic-dynamics analysis explains why: the optimizers can trade decay speed between the two channels, but they all fall on a single dynamic exponent relation, $2α_{r}+ α_{t} = 1$, which fixes the optimal data exponent at $1/3$. Across seven optimizers, including Muon, the measured exponents are consistent with this relation, and the optimal-loss envelopes agree with $D^{-1/3}$ across them. The optimizer sets how fast a model learns per step; tuned optimally, it changes the prefactor but not the rate at which loss falls per sample.