Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 2, 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.
Scaled weight decay for Muon (Muon-SW) has been reported to train language models more efficiently than constant decoupled weight decay, but such comparisons usually reuse one learning-rate (LR) and weight-decay (WD) setting for both methods. We re-run the comparison under the MAI-Base-2 protocol: LR and WD are tuned jointly through their product for each method, on a source-scaled mixture-of-experts (MoE) scaling ladder (1.9M to 15M active parameters) that holds tokens per active parameter and data repetition fixed across sizes. We find: (1) Most of the gain is a tuning gap. At the shared setting Muon-SW wins by 0.035 bits per byte (BPB), a 1.52x compute saving; after both methods are tuned, the gap is 0.0026 BPB (95% CI [0.0018, 0.0034]), a 1.03x saving, so about 90% of the advantage disappears. (2) The small advantage that remains is real: at the smallest size, all four paired seeds favour Muon-SW at the tuned settings. (3) That advantage grows with model size: across an 8x range of active parameters, the tuned gap rises from 0.0036 to 0.0051 BPB while the untuned gap shrinks from 0.035 to 0.024, so the surviving share rises from about 10% to 21%. (4) The best weight decay moves with scale: the optimal LRWD product grows for both methods, faster for Muon-SW (ratio 1.40 to 1.91), and a law fitted on the two smallest sizes overshoots the third by 1.3-1.5x, costing up to 0.002 BPB. The whole study runs on one NVIDIA T4 GPU; we release the code and all run results.