Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (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 2502.17578 v1 pith:JYTTSXB5 submitted 2025-02-24 cs.AI cs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords powerscalinglanguagesuccessaggregateattemptsmultimodalproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Recent research across mathematical problem solving, proof assistant programming and multimodal jailbreaking documents a striking finding: when (multimodal) language model tackle a suite of tasks with multiple attempts per task -- succeeding if any attempt is correct -- then the negative log of the average success rate scales a power law in the number of attempts. In this work, we identify an apparent puzzle: a simple mathematical calculation predicts that on each problem, the failure rate should fall exponentially with the number of attempts. We confirm this prediction empirically, raising a question: from where does aggregate polynomial scaling emerge? We then answer this question by demonstrating per-problem exponential scaling can be made consistent with aggregate polynomial scaling if the distribution of single-attempt success probabilities is heavy tailed such that a small fraction of tasks with extremely low success probabilities collectively warp the aggregate success trend into a power law - even as each problem scales exponentially on its own. We further demonstrate that this distributional perspective explains previously observed deviations from power law scaling, and provides a simple method for forecasting the power law exponent with an order of magnitude lower relative error, or equivalently, ${\sim}2-4$ orders of magnitude less inference compute. Overall, our work contributes to a better understanding of how neural language model performance improves with scaling inference compute and the development of scaling-predictable evaluations of (multimodal) language models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Min-p, Max Exaggeration: A Critical Analysis of Min-p Sampling in Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A comprehensive reanalysis finds that min-p sampling does not outperform top-p, top-k, or basic sampling once the original data are re-tested and hyperparameter budgets are equalized.

  2. Position: Machine Learning Conferences Should Establish a "Refutations and Critiques" Track

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ML conferences should create an official peer-reviewed track dedicated to refuting and critiquing previously published work.

Pith tools