Resolving Discrepancies in Compute-Optimal Scaling of Language Models
Tomer Porian, Mitchell Wortsman, Jenia Jitsev, Ludwig Schmidt, Yair Carmon
Abstract
Kaplan et al. and Hoffmann et al. developed influential scaling laws for the optimal model size as a function of the compute budget, but these laws yield substantially different predictions. We explain the discrepancy by reproducing the Kaplan scaling law on two datasets (OpenWebText2 and RefinedWeb) and identifying three factors causing the difference: last layer computational cost, warmup duration, and scale-dependent optimizer tuning. With these factors corrected, we obtain excellent agreement with the Hoffmann et al. (i.e.,"Chinchilla") scaling law. Counter to a hypothesis of Hoffmann et al., we find that careful learning rate decay is not essential for the validity of their scaling law. As a secondary result, we derive scaling laws for the optimal learning rate and batch size, finding that tuning the AdamW parameter is essential at lower batch sizes.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext df6c75d3-ee56-40c4-aedd-72c6c2d5eff6Cited by top-tier papers42
- Scaling Laws and Compute-Optimal Training Beyond Fixed Training DurationsAlexander Hägele, Elie Bakouch, Atli Kosson, Loubna Ben Allal et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 168 citations
- Beyond Chinchilla-Optimal: Accounting for Inference in Language Model Scaling LawsNikhil Sardana, Jacob P. Portes, Sasha Doubov, Jonathan FrankleICML 2024 · 144 citations
- The Art of Scaling Reinforcement Learning Compute for LLMsDevvrit Khatri, Lovish Madaan, Rishabh Tiwari, Rachit Bansal et al.ICLR 2026 · 95 citations
- Don't be lazy: CompleteP enables compute-efficient deep transformersNolan Dey, Bin Claire Zhang, Lorenzo Noci, Mufan Bill Li et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 77 citations
- Small Batch Size Training for Language Models: When Vanilla SGD Works, and Why Gradient Accumulation is WastefulMartin Marek, Sanae Lotfi, Aditya Somasundaram, Andrew Gordon Wilson et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 46 citations
Builds on21
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Scaling Vision Transformers to 22 Billion ParametersMostafa Dehghani, Josip Djolonga, Basil Mustafa, Piotr Padlewski et al.ICML 2023 · 848 citations
- Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, Sanmi KoyejoNeurIPS 2023 · 796 citations
- Scaling Vision TransformersXiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, Neil Houlsby, Lucas BeyerCVPR 2022 · 767 citations
- An empirical analysis of compute-optimal large language model trainingJordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 566 citations
Related papers
- Power Lines: Scaling laws for weight decay and batch size in LLM pre-trainingShane Bergsma, Nolan Dey, Gurpreet Gosal, Gavia Gray et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 44 citations
- Predicting Large Model Test Losses with a Noisy Quadratic SystemChuning Li, Chris MaddisonICML 2026
- Language models scale reliably with over-training and on downstream tasksSamir Yitzhak Gadre, Georgios Smyrnis, Vaishaal Shankar, Suchin Gururangan et al.ICLR 2025 · 3 citations
- Straight to Zero: Why Linearly Decaying the Learning Rate to Zero Works Best for LLMsShane Bergsma, Nolan Simran Dey, Gurpreet Gosal, Gavia Gray et al.ICLR 2025 · 1 citation
- Scaling Inference-Efficient Language ModelsSong Bian, Minghao Yan, Shivaram VenkataramanICML 2025
