arXiv — Machine Learning · · 4 min read

Adaptive Runge-Kutta Step Control Buys Training Loss, Not Generalization: An Honest Compute-Matched Study of RK-Adam Optimizers

Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2607.14516 (cs)
[Submitted on 16 Jul 2026]

Title:Adaptive Runge-Kutta Step Control Buys Training Loss, Not Generalization: An Honest Compute-Matched Study of RK-Adam Optimizers

View a PDF of the paper titled Adaptive Runge-Kutta Step Control Buys Training Loss, Not Generalization: An Honest Compute-Matched Study of RK-Adam Optimizers, by Akhilesh Gogikar
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Interpreting optimizers as gradient-flow discretizations has motivated applying higher-order Runge-Kutta (RK) integrators to neural networks. We build a representative Adam variant (Bogacki-Shampine 3(2) RK pair, FSAL reuse, local-error step control) and evaluate it under a strict compute-matched protocol giving every method the same gradient-evaluation budget - an accounting this literature rarely enforces. Under it the RK variant loses to plain Adam on training loss in both minibatch and full-batch (RK's best-case) training. Instrumenting it shows the "adaptivity" is illusory: normalized error stays far below tolerance, the step size pins at its growth cap from step one (98-100 percent of steps), and no rtol x hmax x h0 setting makes it act; tolerances spanning 100x give bit-identical trajectories. The method is exactly fixed-step Adam with an averaged gradient at 3-4x cost. Repairing it (true reject branch; error on the applied map) reverses the full-batch result - about 40x lower training loss than tuned Adam - and a fixed-step control isolates adaptivity (an emergent warmup-and-growth schedule) as the mechanism. But the gain is fragile to the initial step size and does not reach test accuracy. A pre-registered follow-up rules out the obvious explanations: deeper minimization does not overfit, and an explicit temperature knob only hurts - leaving a trajectory effect, the controller selecting a minimum generalizing 1.3-3.4 points below first-order descent at equal depth. An n=10 study confirms one secondary effect: gradient averaging is a genuine implicit regularizer, beating lr-matched Adam and AdamW on 10/10 seeds - yet RMSprop and NAdam match or beat it at a third the per-step cost. Higher-order adaptive integration buys deeper deterministic minimization and a small regularization effect, but nothing a cheaper, well-tuned first-order baseline does not already provide.
Comments: 10 pages, 4 figures. Code, logs, and result JSONs: this https URL
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
MSC classes: cs.LG, stat.ML, math.OC
ACM classes: G.1.7; I.2.6
Cite as: arXiv:2607.14516 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2607.14516v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.14516
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Akhilesh Gogikar [view email]
[v1] Thu, 16 Jul 2026 03:12:58 UTC (76 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Adaptive Runge-Kutta Step Control Buys Training Loss, Not Generalization: An Honest Compute-Matched Study of RK-Adam Optimizers, by Akhilesh Gogikar
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — Machine Learning