Characterization and Mitigation of Training Instabilities in Microscaling Formats

Training large language models is an expensive, compute-bound process that must be repeated as models scale, algorithms improve, and new data is collected. To address this, next-generation hardware accelerators increasingly support lower-precision arithmetic formats, such as the Microscaling (MX) formats introduced in NVIDIA's Blackwell architecture. These formats use a shared scale within blocks of parameters to extend representable range and perform forward/backward GEMM operations in reduced precision for efficiency gains. In this work, we investigate the challenges and viability of block-scaled precision formats during model training. Across nearly one thousand language models trained from scratch -- spanning compute budgets from $2 \times 10^{17}$ to $4.8 \times 10^{19}$ FLOPs and sweeping over a broad range of weight-activation precision combinations -- we consistently observe that training in MX formats exhibits sharp, stochastic instabilities in the loss, particularly at larger compute scales. To explain this phenomenon, we conduct controlled experiments and ablations on a smaller proxy model that exhibits similar behavior as the language model, sweeping across architectural settings, hyperparameters, and precision formats. These experiments motivate a simple model in which multiplicative gradient bias introduced by the quantization of layer-norm affine parameters and a small fraction of activations can trigger runaway divergence. Through \emph{in situ} intervention experiments on our proxy model, we demonstrate that instabilities can be averted or delayed by modifying precision schemes mid-training. Guided by these findings, we evaluate stabilization strategies in the LLM setting and show that certain hybrid configurations recover performance competitive with full-precision training. We release our code at https://github.com/Hither1/systems-scaling.

Decomposing Elements of Problem Solving: What "Math" Does RL Teach?

Mathematical reasoning tasks have become prominent benchmarks for assessing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, especially with reinforcement learning (RL) methods such as GRPO showing significant performance gains. However, accuracy metrics alone do not support fine-grained assessment of capabilities and fail to reveal which problem-solving skills have been internalized. To better understand these capabilities, we propose to decompose problem solving into fundamental capabilities: Plan (mapping questions to sequences of steps), Execute (correctly performing solution steps), and Verify (identifying the correctness of a solution). Empirically, we find that GRPO mainly enhances the execution skill-improving execution robustness on problems the model already knows how to solve-a phenomenon we call temperature distillation. More importantly, we show that RL-trained models struggle with fundamentally new problems, hitting a 'coverage wall' due to insufficient planning skills. To explore RL's impact more deeply, we construct a minimal, synthetic solution-tree navigation task as an analogy for mathematical problem-solving. This controlled setup replicates our empirical findings, confirming RL primarily boosts execution robustness. Importantly, in this setting, we identify conditions under which RL can potentially overcome the coverage wall through improved exploration and generalization to new solution paths. Our findings provide insights into the role of RL in enhancing LLM reasoning, expose key limitations, and suggest a path toward overcoming these barriers. Code is available at https://github.com/cfpark00/RL-Wall.