Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Reconciling Kaplan and Chinchilla Scaling Laws

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.12907 v3 pith:I2JE3Z4J submitted 2024-06-12 cs.LG cs.CL

Reconciling Kaplan and Chinchilla Scaling Laws

classification cs.LG cs.CL
keywords kaplanchinchillascalingcomputeparameterscoefficientslossoptimal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Kaplan et al. [2020] (`Kaplan') and Hoffmann et al. [2022] (`Chinchilla') studied the scaling behavior of transformers trained on next-token language prediction. These studies produced different estimates for how the number of parameters ($N$) and training tokens ($D$) should be set to achieve the lowest possible loss for a given compute budget ($C$). Kaplan: $N_\text{optimal} \propto C^{0.73}$, Chinchilla: $N_\text{optimal} \propto C^{0.50}$. This paper finds that much of this discrepancy can be attributed to Kaplan counting non-embedding rather than total parameters, combined with their analysis being performed at small scale. Simulating the Chinchilla study under these conditions produces biased scaling coefficients close to Kaplan's. Hence, this paper reaffirms Chinchilla's scaling coefficients, by explaining the primary cause of Kaplan's original overestimation. As a second contribution, the paper explains differences in the reported relationships between loss and compute. These findings lead us to recommend that future scaling studies use total parameters and compute.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. How Much Is a Dataset Worth? Scaling Laws, the Vendi Score, and Matrix Spectral Functions

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Vendi Score and scaling-law objectives belong to the class of matrix spectral functions, which are submodular, enabling efficient greedy selection of training data that outperforms random subsets in predicting held-ou...

  2. Tempus: A Temporally Scalable Resource-Invariant GEMM Streaming Framework for Versal AI Edge

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Tempus delivers 607 GOPS at 10.677 W using fixed 16 AIE cores on Versal AI Edge, with 211.2x better platform-aware utility than spatial SOTA ARIES and zero URAM/DSP utilization.

  3. Scaling Laws for Neural-Network Quantum States

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Transformer wave functions for the J1-J2 Heisenberg model exhibit size-independent power-law decay of V-score with compute, with the exponent decreasing as frustration increases.

  4. How Much Is a Dataset Worth? Scaling Laws, the Vendi Score, and Matrix Spectral Functions

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Facility location — a classic submodular coverage objective — predicts a training subset's held-out accuracy far better than the Vendi score, which becomes misleading at high values.

  5. From Zipf's Law to Neural Scaling through Heaps' Law and Hilberg's Hypothesis

    cs.IT 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Zipf's law, via differential Heaps and Hilberg laws, forces a power-law lower bound on the excess cross entropy of any entropy-bounded foundation model.

  6. Ling and Ring 2.6 Technical Report: Efficient and Instant Agentic Intelligence at Trillion-Parameter Scale

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Technical report announcing Ling-2.6 and Ring-2.6 models with hybrid linear attention, evolutionary CoT, and KPop RL for efficient agentic intelligence at scale.