arXiv:2602. 05970v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Neural scaling laws relate loss to model size in large language models (LLMs), yet depth and width may contribute to performance differently, requiring more detailed studies.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 25008v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Neural scaling laws describe how pre-training loss decays as power laws with training time, model size, and compute.
The paper investigates the often-overlooked scale vectors in large language models, showing that despite their tiny size they are crucial for pre‑training performance. The authors provide theoretical insights that scale vectors mainly aid optimization rather than expressivity, and they analyze how weight decay affects different normalization layers. Building on these findings, they propose lightweight improvements—branch‑specific heterogeneity, better placement, and magnitude‑direction reparameterization—that consistently reduce loss across a range of model sizes and training settings.
arXiv:2606. 16112v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Residual architectures are ubiquitous in deep learning, but they suffer from a subtle structural limitation: the norm of the residual stream can grow rapidly with depth.
arXiv:2410. 13077v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) traditionally rely on final-layer loss for finetuning and final-layer representations for predictions, potentially overlooking the predictive power embedded in late layers.
arXiv:2403.04545v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scaling factors in residual branches have emerged as a prevalent method for boosting neural network performance, especially in normalization-free a...
The paper critiques the common practice of evaluating depth usage in depth‑recurrent language models by truncating depth during inference and measuring performance decline. It argues that this method conflates three distinct effects—fewer block applications, reduced computation, and an out‑of‑distribution readout—yet is usually interpreted as measuring only the second. To address this, the authors introduce the Depth Control Protocol (DCP), a suite of positive and negative controls that isolate each factor, along with a training intervention to confirm causality, specifically tailored for depth‑wise weight‑sharing architectures.