Anytime Pretraining: Horizon-Free Learning-Rate Schedules with Weight Averaging
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2510. 14717v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Increasing the batch size during training -- a ''batch ramp'' -- is a promising strategy to accelerate large language model pretraining.
arXiv:2607. 10959v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard learning rate schedules such as cosine annealing are tied to a fixed training horizon, limiting their ability to accommodate post hoc horizon extension.
arXiv:2606. 25086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many modern Language Model (LM) pipelines return an averaged model, such as an exponential moving average of the training iterates, rather than the final iterate itself.
The paper investigates how learning rate and batch size scale when pretraining dense large language models on English‑prevalent corpora, examining both jointly optimal and marginal evolutions across model capacity and data size. It explores the benefits of a Warmup‑Stable‑Decay learning‑rate schedule, assessing whether optimal hyperparameters transfer between stable and decay phases, and evaluates loss scaling forms that capture interactions between model capacity and dataset size. The study provides a baseline scaling procedure and releases the full set of pretraining runs for future OpenEuroLLM development.
arXiv:2606. 03938v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-epoch training is becoming the standard now that compute is growing faster than the supply of high-quality text.
The paper reviews data strategies for large language models, emphasizing that data strategy—selecting, weighting, and scheduling training data—determines model capabilities within a fixed data budget. It treats high‑quality data as having training‑dependent utility, varying with the target objective, model, and training state. The authors organize existing methods by decision granularity, model dependence, and temporal adaptivity, comparing their computational costs and empirical support, and note limited evidence for transfer across model scales and end‑to‑end cost parity.