Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 29 references

On the Effectiveness of Incremental Training of Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Incremental layer-wise training of large language models does not improve computational efficiency: at equal cumulative compute, staged models have higher loss and lower HellaSwag accuracy than full training, and closing the gap requires…

desk verdict A transparent but overgeneralized negative result: incremental layer-wise training loses on a 124M GPT-2 at equal compute, but the paper stretches that to all LLMs from one run. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18700 v1 pith:ST3TMZGL submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CL cs.AI

Miles Q. Li , Benjamin C. M. Fung , Shih-Chia Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords incrementallayer-wisetraininglargelanguagemodelscomputationalefficiencyprogressivestackingcontinualHellaSwagGPT-2FineWeb-edu
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether incremental layer-wise training—adding a transformer's layers in stages instead of optimizing all layers together from the start—can make large language model training cheaper. It reports that on a 124-million-parameter GPT-2 trained on 10 billion tokens of FineWeb-edu, the staged approach saves compute in the early stages but ultimately needs more total compute to reach the performance of ordinary full training. At equal cumulative compute, the incremental models have higher training and validation loss and lower HellaSwag accuracy than the baseline; the four-stage model only closes the gap after substantially extended continual training. The authors conclude that incremental layer-wise training is not a practical efficiency alternative for large language models.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the two-phase incremental schedule combined with a compute-cost identity. Each stage $i$ first trains only the $m$ newly added layers with all earlier layers frozen, then fine-tunes all $L_i = i m$ layers together. The cost model assigns one unit per layer per token to forward and backward passes, so baseline cost per token is $2L$; summing the staged costs and equating total compute with a baseline trained on $T$ tokens yields $T_{\mathrm{cont}} = \frac{5}{8}\left(1 - \frac{1}{S}\right)T$, the extra continual-training tokens needed merely to break even in compute for $S$ stages. This identity is what lets the paper compare incremental and baseline models at equal cumulative compute rather than equal steps.

What would settle it

Train a multi-billion-parameter transformer with the same staged schedules and compare with full training at equal cumulative compute. If any staged model matches or beats the baseline's validation loss and HellaSwag accuracy at the break-even steps (14,688 for 4 stages, 15,469 for 8 stages, 15,729 for 12 stages), or if the continual training needed is less than $T_{\mathrm{cont}} = \frac{5}{8}(1-\frac{1}{S})T$, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the intuitive premise behind layer-wise training—that lower layers should stabilize before higher layers are trained—does not pay off for transformer language models. Under the same architecture, data, and hyperparameters, full simultaneous training beats all three tested staged schedules (4, 8, and 12 stages) when compared at equal cumulative compute. The staged models make faster progress per step early because each step backpropagates through only the newly added layers, but that advantage reverses once cumulative compute is counted. At the step counts where the incremental regime has consumed the same compute as the 10,000-step baseline, its models still show higher loss and lower HellaSwag accuracy; matching the baseline requires extra continual training whose cost outweighs the early savings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the failure observed on one 124-million-parameter GPT-2 model trained on 10 billion tokens carries over to genuinely large language models; the paper does not test incremental training at frontier scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every tested staged schedule (4, 8, or 12 stages) underperforms full training on validation loss and HellaSwag accuracy at the same cumulative compute, so the early per-step savings of training only new layers do not yield an overall efficiency gain.
  • The break-even formula $T_{\mathrm{cont}} = \frac{5}{8}(1-\frac{1}{S})T$ gives the extra continual-training tokens needed for the incremental regime to consume the same compute as a baseline trained on $T$ tokens; at those step counts the staged models still lag the baseline.
  • The four-stage model eventually reaches baseline-level training and validation loss and HellaSwag accuracy, but only after substantially more training, meaning the total compute needed to match baseline quality is larger than the baseline's own compute.
  • The paper explicitly acknowledges that its cost analysis treats forward and backward passes as equal in cost, a simplification it argues does not change the conclusion because the continual-training phase alone consumes close to the baseline's compute budget.
  • The authors conclude that incremental layer-wise training is not a practical alternative for training large language models under ordinary full training.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The break-even formula can be read as a general screening test the authors do not spell out: if a staged scheme cannot reach near-baseline quality by the end of its staged phase, the continual phase will consume a large fraction of the baseline budget, leaving little room for net savings at any scale.
  • The paper's schedule freezes earlier layers while training new ones, so its negative result does not settle the neighbouring question of whether softer staged procedures, such as progressively growing context length or batch size alongside depth, could still help; the authors explicitly set that direction aside.
  • Because the cost model's break-even ratio is independent of layer count and model scale, a testable prediction beyond the paper is that the same ordering—staged models behind full training at equal compute—will persist at larger scales unless optimization dynamics change the loss landscape enough to change the ranking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper empirically evaluates incremental layer-wise training of large language models against standard full-layer training. A GPT-2 model with 124.4M parameters is trained on 10B tokens of FineWeb-edu over 10,000 steps, either end-to-end (baseline) or in S stages (S = 4, 8, 12); each incremental stage first trains only the newly added layers while the preceding layers are frozen, then fine-tunes all layers up to the current stage. The paper derives a closed-form expression, Tcont = (5/8)(1 - 1/S)T, for the number of continual-training tokens that brings the total incremental compute to the baseline's compute on T tokens, and it reports that at these equal-compute points the incremental models show higher training and validation loss and lower HellaSwag accuracy than the baseline, with the 4-stage model closing the gap only after substantially more compute. The paper concludes that incremental layer-wise training may not be a viable alternative for training large language models. The cost algebra in Section III-F is correct under its stated assumptions, and the comparison is well controlled, but the evidence for the paper's general conclusion rests on a single unseeded 124M-parameter run with qualitative result reporting.

Significance. If its conclusions held at scale, the paper would be a useful cautionary result against staged layer-wise training of transformers: the cost model in Section III-F is a parameter-free closed-form derivation whose algebra checks, the experimental comparison holds architecture, data, and hyperparameters fixed across regimes, and the 4/8/12-stage sweep brackets the granularity of layer addition. The equal-compute marks are falsifiable predictions, which is a genuine strength. However, the significance is presently bounded by the gap between a one-size experiment (124M parameters, one seed, one benchmark plus loss curves) and the universal claim about large language models; before the paper can support that claim, the results need to be quantified, the training protocol needs full disclosure, and the scope of the conclusion needs to be aligned with the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; IV.A; Conclusion] The Abstract and the Conclusion make a claim about large language models, namely that 'incremental layer-wise training may not be a viable alternative for training large language models,' but the only supporting experiment (Section IV.A) is a single, unseeded run of a 124.4M-parameter GPT-2 model. This is one to two orders of magnitude below current entry-level LLMs, the paper never states or tests the assumption that incremental training behaves the same way at larger scale, and its own related-work section cites scaling laws (refs [4]-[6]) according to which training dynamics and compute-to-performance trade-offs change with model size. Either the conclusion must be restricted to the tested regime, or additional model sizes and ideally a second architecture are needed to support the general claim; as written, the abstract's scope exceeds the evidence.
  2. [III.D; IV.A] The paper does not disclose the learning-rate schedule used for the baseline and incremental runs, whether the schedule is restarted for Phase 1, Phase 2, or the continual training phase, how newly added layers are initialized, or how LayerNorm parameters and residual connections are handled when layers are inserted. This is load-bearing for the comparison in Section III.D: if the schedule decays to near zero by step 10,000, then the continual-training phase that is supposed to let the incremental runs close the gap is ineffective by construction, and if inserted layers are randomly initialized at standard scale they can disrupt the trained residual stream irrespective of the incremental-training principle. The full training protocol (schedule, warmup, validation split, seeds) must be specified before the continual-training results can be interpreted.
  3. [IV.C] All results in Section IV.C are qualitative ('higher training and validation losses,' 'significantly lower accuracy'), with no loss values, no HellaSwag numbers, no tables, and no seed-to-seed variability. A negative claim of this strength requires showing that the gaps at the equal-compute marks exceed run-to-run noise, and it requires numbers so that the reader can judge effect sizes. In addition, the Abstract's statement that the incremental approach 'ultimately requires greater overall computational costs to reach comparable performance' is demonstrated only for the 4-stage configuration, and even there only by the phrase 'approximately much more than the baseline's computational budget' (Section IV.C.2); for the 8- and 12-stage runs the paper never reports whether or when the gap closes.
  4. [III.F; V.C] Section III.F derives Tcont = (5/8)(1 - 1/S)T under the assumption that forward and backward passes have equal per-layer cost, an assumption that Section V.C concedes is inaccurate. The sensitivity is easy to compute and the paper should do it: with a backward:forward cost ratio of beta = 2, Tcont = (2 + 3 beta)/(4(1 + beta)) (1 - 1/S)T is approximately (2/3)(1 - 1/S)T, which moves the equal-compute marks quoted in Section IV.A from 14,688 / 15,469 / 15,729 steps to roughly 15,000 / 15,833 / 16,111 steps. The correction gives the incremental runs slightly more compute headroom at the comparison point, so the paper's negative conclusion is preserved in direction, but the step counts and the marks in Figures 1-2 should be recomputed with the corrected formula rather than defended only in prose.
minor comments (7)
  1. [IV.C.1; IV.C.2] The in-text references to the figures contradict the captions: Section IV.C.1 ascribes the loss curves to 'Figure 2' and Section IV.C.2 ascribes the HellaSwag curves to 'Figure 1,' while the captions label Fig. 1 as 'Training and validation loss curves' and Fig. 2 as 'HellaSwag accuracy scores'; the references and captions should be reconciled.
  2. [Introduction] Reference [10] (Borgeaud et al., retrieval-augmented language models) does not support the Introduction's claim that incremental training strategies 'may not fully generalize when trained incrementally'; this citation should be replaced with a source on incremental training or the claim should be reconsidered.
  3. [References] Reference [5] is attributed to 'C. Clark, M. Jovanovic, and P. Voss' but arXiv:2203.15556 ('Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models') is by Hoffmann et al.; the author list should be corrected.
  4. [III.C; III.E; IV.A; V.B] There are several typos and awkward phrasings: 'Optinally' (Section III.C), 'a the traditional full-layer training' (Section III.E), 'incremnental' (Section IV.A), and 'there is no point in exploring on that direction further' (Section V.B).
  5. [III.F] The cost model in Section III.F counts only transformer layers and omits the embedding and unembedding computations and activation memory; these are identical across regimes, so the comparison is not biased, but the approximation should be acknowledged given that the formula is presented as exact.
  6. [IV.A] Section IV.A states that the dataset contains 10 billion tokens but the baseline consumes only 5.24 billion tokens in 10,000 steps; the paper should specify how the validation loss is computed and which tokens the continual-training phases draw on.
  7. [IV.A; Results] At the equal-compute marks the incremental runs have consumed substantially more tokens than the baseline (about 7.7 billion versus 5.2 billion for S = 4); since the comparison is at equal compute rather than equal tokens, the paper should state this explicitly, as it is an easily missed feature of how the comparison should be read.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equal-compute comparison is derived algebraically, and the central results are measured against an independent baseline.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: incremental layer-wise training underperforms traditional full-scale training at equal cumulative compute. The equal-compute points are obtained from a closed-form cost formula, Tcont = 5/8(1 - 1/S)T, derived algebraically from explicit assumptions about layer-wise forward and backward costs. This formula is not fitted to the loss or accuracy curves and does not encode the outcome; it only defines when cumulative token-layer cost matches the baseline. The actual losses and HellaSwag accuracies at those points are measured from independent training runs against a separately trained baseline. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, no target quantity is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' own prior work. The acknowledged simplifying assumption that forward and backward passes have equal cost is a modeling assumption, explicitly disclosed, and the authors argue the conclusion is robust to it; this is an accuracy limitation, not circularity. The generality concern about using a single 124M-parameter GPT-2 is an external-validity issue, not a circularity issue. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a 124M GPT-2 represents LLM training, plus a simplified FLOP-based cost model that the paper partially admits is inaccurate. No parameters are fitted; the cost formula is derived from declared constants.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-2 124M is representative of large language models
    Abstract and conclusion generalize to LLMs based on a 12-layer, 124M-parameter model; no scale sweep is performed.
  • domain assumption Computational cost per token is proportional to the number of active layers
    Section III-F1, used to derive equal-compute step counts; ignores constant overheads such as embedding, layernorm, data loading, and optimizer.
  • domain assumption Forward and backward passes have equal per-layer cost
    Section III-F1; the paper admits in Section V-C this is inaccurate. Using a realistic ratio changes break-even steps, for example for S=4 from 14,688 to about 15,000.
  • domain assumption 10,000 training steps is a sufficient comparison horizon
    Section IV-A anchors the comparison at a 10,000-step baseline; longer horizons might change conclusions about eventual catch-up.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Effectiveness of Incremental Training of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ST3TMZGL

@misc{pith2026241118700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Effectiveness of Incremental Training of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ST3TMZGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18700}
}
read the original abstract

Training large language models is a computationally intensive process that often requires substantial resources to achieve state-of-the-art results. Incremental layer-wise training has been proposed as a potential strategy to optimize the training process by progressively introducing layers, with the expectation that this approach would lead to faster convergence and more efficient use of computational resources. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of incremental training for LLMs, dividing the training process into multiple stages where layers are added progressively. Our experimental results indicate that while the incremental approach initially demonstrates some computational efficiency, it ultimately requires greater overall computational costs to reach comparable performance to traditional full-scale training. Although the incremental training process can eventually close the performance gap with the baseline, it does so only after significantly extended continual training. These findings suggest that incremental layer-wise training may not be a viable alternative for training large language models, highlighting its limitations and providing valuable insights into the inefficiencies of this approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18700 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Training and validation loss curves comparing incremental layer-wise training (with 4, 8, and 12 stages) and baseline training. The large solid circles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HellaSwag accuracy scores comparing incremental layer-wise training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Scaling laws for neural language models,

    J. Kaplan, S. McCandlish, T. Henighan, T. Brown, B. Chess, R. Child, S. Gray, A. Radford, J. Wu, and D. Amodei, “Scaling laws for neural language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361 , 2020

    arXiv 2001

  2. [6]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Yang, A. Fan et al. , “The llama 3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, “Language models are few-shot learners,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020

    arXiv 2005

  4. [2]

    Bert rediscovers the classical nlp pipeline,

    I. Tenney, “Bert rediscovers the classical nlp pipeline,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05950, 2019

    arXiv 1905

  5. [3]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,

    Y . Liu, “Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, vol. 364, 2019

    arXiv 1907

  6. [5]

    Training compute-optimal large language models,

    C. Clark, M. Jovanovic, and P. V oss, “Training compute-optimal large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets,

    G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y .-W. Teh, “A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets,” Neural computation , vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1527–1554, 2006

    2006

  8. [8]

    Greedy layer- wise training of deep networks,

    Y . Bengio, P. Lamblin, D. Popovici, and H. Larochelle, “Greedy layer- wise training of deep networks,” Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, vol. 19, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    The cascade-correlation learning architec- ture,

    S. Fahlman and C. Lebiere, “The cascade-correlation learning architec- ture,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 2, 1989

    1989

  2. [10]

    Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens,

    S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, J. Hoffmann, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, K. Mil- lican, G. van den Driessche, J.-B. Lespiau, B. Damoc, A. Clark et al., “Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04426 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Analyzing hidden representations in end- to-end automatic speech recognition systems,

    Y . Belinkov and J. Glass, “Analyzing hidden representations in end- to-end automatic speech recognition systems,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    The bottom-up evolution of representations in the transformer: A study with machine translation and language modeling objectives,

    E. V oita, R. Sennrich, and I. Titov, “The bottom-up evolution of representations in the transformer: A study with machine translation and language modeling objectives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01380 , 2019

    1909 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories,

    M. Geva, R. Schuster, J. Berant, and O. Levy, “Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14913, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Svcca: Singular vector canonical correlation analysis for deep learning dynamics and interpretability,

    M. Raghu, J. Gilmer, J. Yosinski, and J. Sohl-Dickstein, “Svcca: Singular vector canonical correlation analysis for deep learning dynamics and interpretability,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks,

    M. Zeiler, “Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks,” in European conference on computer vision/arXiv , vol. 1311, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Qwen2 technical report,

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Zhou, C. Li, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang et al. , “Qwen2 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Why does unsuper- vised pre-training help deep learning?

    D. Erhan, A. Courville, Y . Bengio, and P. Vincent, “Why does unsuper- vised pre-training help deep learning?” in Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics . JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 201–208

    2010

  10. [18]

    The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks,

    J. Frankle and M. Carbin, “The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.03635 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,

    G. Hinton, “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mixed precision training,

    P. Micikevicius, S. Narang, J. Alben, G. Diamos, E. Elsen, D. Garcia, B. Ginsburg, M. Houston, O. Kuchaiev, G. Venkatesh et al. , “Mixed precision training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.03740 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification,

    J. Howard and S. Ruder, “Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.06146 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Progressive neural networks,

    A. A. Rusu, N. C. Rabinowitz, G. Desjardins, H. Soyer, J. Kirkpatrick, K. Kavukcuoglu, R. Pascanu, and R. Hadsell, “Progressive neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04671 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks,

    I. J. Goodfellow, M. Mirza, D. Xiao, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6211 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    How transferable are features in deep neural networks?

    J. Yosinski, J. Clune, Y . Bengio, and H. Lipson, “How transferable are features in deep neural networks?” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,

    S. Ioffe, “Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fineweb- edu,

    A. Lozhkov, L. Ben Allal, L. von Werra, and T. Wolf, “Fineweb- edu,” May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu

    2024

  19. [27]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 , 2019

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hel- laswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence?

    R. Zellers, A. Holtzman, Y . Bisk, A. Farhadi, and Y . Choi, “Hel- laswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence?” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Deep feedforward net- works,

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, “Deep feedforward net- works,” Deep learning, no. 1, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.