REVIEW 2 cited by
Data Scaling Laws in NMT: The Effect of Noise and Architecture
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
read the original abstract
In this work, we study the effect of varying the architecture and training data quality on the data scaling properties of Neural Machine Translation (NMT). First, we establish that the test loss of encoder-decoder transformer models scales as a power law in the number of training samples, with a dependence on the model size. Then, we systematically vary aspects of the training setup to understand how they impact the data scaling laws. In particular, we change the following (1) Architecture and task setup: We compare to a transformer-LSTM hybrid, and a decoder-only transformer with a language modeling loss (2) Noise level in the training distribution: We experiment with filtering, and adding iid synthetic noise. In all the above cases, we find that the data scaling exponents are minimally impacted, suggesting that marginally worse architectures or training data can be compensated for by adding more data. Lastly, we find that using back-translated data instead of parallel data, can significantly degrade the scaling exponent.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Scaling Pre-training to One Hundred Billion Data for Vision Language Models
Scaling VLM pretraining from 10B to 100B image-text pairs yields saturation on standard benchmarks but large gains on cultural diversity, low-resource language retrieval, and subgroup disparity.
-
Recursive Inference Scaling: A Winning Path to Scalable Inference in Language and Multimodal Systems
Recursively applying the first half of a transformer before the second half (RINS) improves language modeling and vision-language accuracy under compute-matched comparisons.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.