<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Initialization of Large Language Models via Reparameterization to Mitigate Loss Spikes · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.05052/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.05052/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Initialization of Large Language Models via Reparameterization to Mitigate Loss Spikes — mentioned by fxtentacle</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43458570</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2410.05052:43458570</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:22:26 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Absolutely not! LLM training quite easily gets stuck. People call it &amp;quot;divergence&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;loss spike&amp;quot;. See for example: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3524938.3525354 &amp;quot;Gradient optimization with attention layers can be notoriously difficult requiring tricks such as learning rate warmup to prevent divergence.“ &amp;quot;we then propose a new weight initialization scheme with theoretical justification, that enables training without warmup&amp;quot; Or &amp;quot;Initialization of Large Language Models via Reparameterization to Mitigate Loss Spikes&amp;quot; https://arxiv.org/html/2410.05052v1 If all local minima were similar, then…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.05052/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
