{"ID":6497738,"CreatedAt":"2026-07-13T01:19:40.13847098Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-07-14T01:36:59.12045529Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09266","arxiv_id":"2607.09266","title":"LionVote: Per-Layer Learning Rate Adaptation for Lion","abstract":"Per-layer diagnostics reveal that, at the prescribed learning rate, Lion's effective scale is 2.6-2.8x too high for attention and MLP parameters and ~2x too high for normalization layers on ViT-Tiny/CIFAR-100; this 32% cross-layer-type disparity cannot be reproduced by a single global rate. The measurement comes from LionVote, a per-layer learning rate mechanism in which each parameter tensor maintains a compound level, a persistent integer updated every c epochs by two diagnostics (gradient direction stability and momentum health) resolved by a validation loss tiebreaker. Voting thresholds derive from geometric identities, the EMA time constant, and a noise-floor estimate; cadence is bounded structurally and selected by ablation. On ViT-Tiny/CIFAR-100, LionVote achieves 69.7% top-1 accuracy vs. Lion's 69.0% (p \u003c 0.02, Welch's t-test) and AdamW's 68.8%. Per-layer adaptation value depends on both architectural heterogeneity and task; on uniform CNN architectures tuned SGD with cosine annealing remains dominant, and on ViT architectures gains are task-dependent.","short_abstract":"Per-layer diagnostics reveal that, at the prescribed learning rate, Lion's effective scale is 2.6-2.8x too high for attention and MLP parameters and ~2x too high for normalization layers on ViT-Tiny/CIFAR-100; this 32% cross-layer-type disparity cannot be reproduced by a single global rate. The measurement comes from L...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09266","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.09266v1","authors":"[\"Kris Atallah\"]","published":"2026-07-10T10:30:46Z","proceeding":"cs.LG","tasks":"[\"cs.LG\"]","methods":"[\"Convolutional Neural Network\"]","has_code":false}