Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better

2306.09479

YC

0

Reddit

0

Published 5/14/2024 by Ian R. McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Michael Pieler, Alicia Parrish, Aaron Mueller, Ameya Prabhu, Euan McLean, Aaron Kirtland, Alexis Ross, Alisa Liu and 17 others
Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better

Abstract

Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling on 11 datasets collected by running a public contest, the Inverse Scaling Prize, with a substantial prize pool. Through analysis of the datasets, along with other examples found in the literature, we identify four potential causes of inverse scaling: (i) preference to repeat memorized sequences over following in-context instructions, (ii) imitation of undesirable patterns in the training data, (iii) tasks containing an easy distractor task which LMs could focus on, rather than the harder real task, and (iv) correct but misleading few-shot demonstrations of the task. We release the winning datasets at https://inversescaling.com/data to allow for further investigation of inverse scaling. Our tasks have helped drive the discovery of U-shaped and inverted-U scaling trends, where an initial trend reverses, suggesting that scaling trends are less reliable at predicting the behavior of larger-scale models than previously understood. Overall, our results suggest that there are tasks for which increased model scale alone may not lead to progress, and that more careful thought needs to go into the data and objectives for training language models.

Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:

Overview

  • This paper explores the phenomenon of "inverse scaling" in machine learning models, where larger models do not necessarily perform better.
  • The authors investigate how model performance scales as the model size and training data size are increased.
  • The findings challenge the common assumption that "more is better" when it comes to model size and complexity.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers looked at how the performance of machine learning models changes as the models get bigger and have more training data. Typically, it's assumed that larger, more complex models will perform better. However, the paper found that this is not always the case - in some situations, bigger models can actually do worse.

This "inverse scaling" effect is an important finding that goes against the common belief that more computing power and data will automatically lead to better results. The research suggests there are limits to how much models can be scaled up before diminishing returns set in.

The authors used various experiments to study this phenomenon, looking at how factors like model size, training data, and task complexity all interact. Their findings provide important insights into the nature of machine learning systems and challenge the assumption that "more is better" when it comes to model size and complexity.

Technical Explanation

The paper investigates the scaling properties of machine learning models as both model size and training data size are increased. The authors conduct a series of experiments across different model architectures and tasks to study how performance scales.

Contrary to the common belief that larger, more complex models will perform better, the researchers find evidence of "inverse scaling" - situations where increasing model size actually leads to worse performance. This effect is observed particularly for simple tasks or datasets, where more complex models may overfit or struggle to generalize.

The authors propose a theoretical framework to explain this phenomenon, modeling the relationship between model size, dataset size, and task complexity. Their analysis suggests that there are inherent limits to the performance gains that can be achieved by simply scaling up model size and dataset size.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides valuable insights into the scaling behavior of machine learning models, challenging the widespread assumption that "more is better" when it comes to model complexity. The findings have important implications for the design and deployment of real-world machine learning systems.

However, the study is limited in scope and may not capture the full range of factors that can affect model scaling. The experiments are primarily focused on simple tasks and relatively small-scale models, and it's unclear how the results would translate to larger, more complex models or different types of machine learning problems.

Additionally, the theoretical framework proposed by the authors, while insightful, may not fully capture the nuances of how model performance scales in practice. Further research is needed to validate the findings and explore the underlying mechanisms in more depth.

Despite these limitations, the paper makes a significant contribution to our understanding of machine learning scaling and highlights the importance of carefully considering the tradeoffs between model complexity and performance. Readers are encouraged to think critically about the research and consider how the insights might apply to their own work in the field.

Conclusion

This paper challenges the common assumption that larger, more complex machine learning models will always perform better. The authors present evidence of "inverse scaling," where increasing model size can actually lead to worse performance, particularly for simpler tasks or datasets.

The findings have important implications for the design and deployment of real-world machine learning systems, suggesting that there are inherent limits to the performance gains that can be achieved by simply scaling up model size and dataset size. The research provides valuable insights into the scaling behavior of machine learning models and highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of how model complexity, training data, and task complexity interact.

While the study has some limitations, it represents an important contribution to the field and encourages readers to think critically about the role of model size and complexity in achieving high-performing machine learning systems.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

āœ…

More Compute Is What You Need

Zhen Guo

YC

0

Reddit

0

Large language model pre-training has become increasingly expensive, with most practitioners relying on scaling laws to allocate compute budgets for model size and training tokens, commonly referred to as Compute-Optimal or Chinchilla Optimal. In this paper, we hypothesize a new scaling law that suggests model performance depends mostly on the amount of compute spent for transformer-based models, independent of the specific allocation to model size and dataset size. Using this unified scaling law, we predict that (a) for inference efficiency, training should prioritize smaller model sizes and larger training datasets, and (b) assuming the exhaustion of available web datasets, scaling the model size might be the only way to further improve model performance.

Read more

5/3/2024

Scaling Properties of Speech Language Models

Scaling Properties of Speech Language Models

Santiago Cuervo, Ricard Marxer

YC

0

Reddit

0

Speech Language Models (SLMs) aim to learn language from raw audio, without textual resources. Despite significant advances, our current models exhibit weak syntax and semantic abilities. However, if the scaling properties of neural language models hold for the speech modality, these abilities will improve as the amount of compute used for training increases. In this paper, we use models of this scaling behavior to estimate the scale at which our current methods will yield a SLM with the English proficiency of text-based Large Language Models (LLMs). We establish a strong correlation between pre-training loss and downstream syntactic and semantic performance in SLMs and LLMs, which results in predictable scaling of linguistic performance. We show that the linguistic performance of SLMs scales up to three orders of magnitude more slowly than that of text-based LLMs. Additionally, we study the benefits of synthetic data designed to boost semantic understanding and the effects of coarser speech tokenization.

Read more

4/17/2024

Unraveling the Mystery of Scaling Laws: Part I

Unraveling the Mystery of Scaling Laws: Part I

Hui Su, Zhi Tian, Xiaoyu Shen, Xunliang Cai

YC

0

Reddit

0

Scaling law principles indicate a power-law correlation between loss and variables such as model size, dataset size, and computational resources utilized during training. These principles play a vital role in optimizing various aspects of model pre-training, ultimately contributing to the success of large language models such as GPT-4, Llama and Gemini. However, the original scaling law paper by OpenAI did not disclose the complete details necessary to derive the precise scaling law formulas, and their conclusions are only based on models containing up to 1.5 billion parameters. Though some subsequent works attempt to unveil these details and scale to larger models, they often neglect the training dependency of important factors such as the learning rate, context length and batch size, leading to their failure to establish a reliable formula for predicting the test loss trajectory. In this technical report, we confirm that the scaling law formulations proposed in the original OpenAI paper remain valid when scaling the model size up to 33 billion, but the constant coefficients in these formulas vary significantly with the experiment setup. We meticulously identify influential factors and provide transparent, step-by-step instructions to estimate all constant terms in scaling-law formulas by training on models with only 1M~60M parameters. Using these estimated formulas, we showcase the capability to accurately predict various attributes for models with up to 33B parameters before their training, including (1) the minimum possible test loss; (2) the minimum required training steps and processed tokens to achieve a specific loss; (3) the critical batch size with an optimal time/computation trade-off at any loss value; and (4) the complete test loss trajectory with arbitrary batch size.

Read more

4/8/2024

Temporal Scaling Law for Large Language Models

Temporal Scaling Law for Large Language Models

Yizhe Xiong, Xiansheng Chen, Xin Ye, Hui Chen, Zijia Lin, Haoran Lian, Jianwei Niu, Guiguang Ding

YC

0

Reddit

0

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely adopted in a wide range of tasks, leading to increasing attention towards the research on how scaling LLMs affects their performance. Existing works, termed as Scaling Laws, have discovered that the loss of LLMs scales as power laws with model size, computational budget, and dataset size. However, the performance of LLMs throughout the training process remains untouched. In this paper, we propose the novel concept of Temporal Scaling Law and study the loss of LLMs from the temporal dimension. We first investigate the imbalance of loss on each token positions and develop a reciprocal-law across model scales and training stages. We then derive the temporal scaling law by studying the temporal patterns of the reciprocal-law parameters. Results on both in-distribution (IID) data and out-of-distribution (OOD) data demonstrate that our temporal scaling law accurately predicts the performance of LLMs in future training stages. Moreover, the temporal scaling law reveals that LLMs learn uniformly on different token positions, despite the loss imbalance. Experiments on pre-training LLMs in various scales show that this phenomenon verifies the default training paradigm for generative language models, in which no re-weighting strategies are attached during training. Overall, the temporal scaling law provides deeper insight into LLM pre-training.

Read more

4/30/2024