Does Step Law Transfer to Small-Scale Language Models? An Empirical Recalibration Below 59M Parameters
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2609.37745v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Neural scaling, in which loss falls as a power law with training, is central to large language models, and one recent proposal is that a $1/3$ exponent...
arXiv:2606. 29158v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Learning-rate transfer can reduce the cost of training large language models: instead of sweeping learning rates at target scale, practitioners extrapolate from smaller runs.
arXiv:2608.23573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A trained transformer's weight magnitudes can be summarized by a two-parameter Weibull distribution whose shape $k \approx 1.2$ is stable across layers...
The paper introduces a new closed‑form scaling law that extends Chinchilla’s original formula to handle data‑constrained regimes. It decomposes loss into undercapacity, undertraining, and overfitting components, saturating between an irreducible loss and an uninformed baseline. The authors validate the model on diverse architectures and domains, achieving state‑of‑the‑art RMSE across multiple LLM scaling‑law grids and enabling cost‑aware training allocations.
arXiv:2606. 29139v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study how the next-token prediction of an autoregressive Transformer language model changes under small perturbations of earlier input token embeddings.
The paper presents empirical scaling laws for autoregressive language models, linking prediction loss to model size, data size, and compute, and investigates their theoretical basis using a teacher–student linear RNN framework. In this tractable setting, a stable latent linear RNN generates trajectories while a sketched linear recurrent student is trained via full‑batch WSD gradient descent on next‑token prediction. The study derives explicit approximation, optimization, and statistical scaling laws that depend on the sketch dimension, number of trajectories, and trajectory length, revealing how different power‑law exponents for innovation and initialization covariances affect the rates and crossovers between regimes.