Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures: How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling?
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:QVEE57SOrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
There have been a lot of interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models. However, not much has been done on the front of investigating the effect of scaling properties of different inductive biases and model architectures. Do model architectures scale differently? If so, how does inductive bias affect scaling behaviour? How does this influence upstream (pretraining) and downstream (transfer)? This paper conducts a systematic study of scaling behaviour of ten diverse model architectures such as Transformers, Switch Transformers, Universal Transformers, Dynamic convolutions, Performers, and recently proposed MLP-Mixers. Via extensive experiments, we show that (1) architecture is an indeed an important consideration when performing scaling and (2) the best performing model can fluctuate at different scales. We believe that the findings outlined in this work has significant implications to how model architectures are currently evaluated in the community.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 9 Pith papers
-
Ring Attention with Blockwise Transformers for Near-Infinite Context
Ring Attention uses blockwise computation and ring communication to let Transformers process sequences up to device-count times longer than prior memory-efficient methods.
-
Internal Data Repetition Destroys Language Models
Repetition of training data produces a systematic eval loss peak at intermediate repeat counts whose location scales with model size, quantifiable as large compute-equivalent loss even at modest repetition fractions.
-
Most Transformer Modifications Still Do Not Transfer at 1-3B: A 2020-2026 Update to Narang et al. (2021) with Downstream Evaluation and a Noise Floor
Empirical update to prior work shows most of 20 recent Transformer modifications do not transfer at 1-3B scales when measured with downstream CLIMB-12 tasks, multi-seed noise floor, and cross-scale stability.
-
LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling Laws
Pretraining data determines loss-to-loss scaling laws in LLMs, while model size, optimization, tokenizer, and architecture have limited impact.
-
Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models
Repeating training data up to 4 epochs yields negligible loss increase versus unique data for fixed compute, and a new scaling law accounts for the decaying value of repeated tokens and excess parameters.
-
BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance
BloombergGPT is a 50B parameter LLM trained on a 708B token mixed financial and general dataset that outperforms prior models on financial benchmarks while preserving general LLM performance.
-
Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them
Chain-of-thought prompting enables large language models to surpass average human performance on 17 of 23 challenging BIG-Bench tasks.
-
Galactica: A Large Language Model for Science
Galactica, a science-specialized LLM, reports higher scores than GPT-3, Chinchilla, and PaLM on LaTeX knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and medical QA benchmarks while outperforming general models on BIG-bench.
-
Step-Video-T2V Technical Report: The Practice, Challenges, and Future of Video Foundation Model
Step-Video-T2V describes a 30B-parameter text-to-video model with custom Video-VAE, 3D DiT, flow matching, and Video-DPO that claims state-of-the-art results on a new internal benchmark.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.