6 accepted papers
Data curriculums have become central to successful LLM training, yet principles governing optimal data placement remain unclear. We introduce the *training re-evaluation curve (TREC)*, a diagnostic that retrospectively evaluates training batches *using the final model weights*. The TREC characterize…
Effective LLM training relies on *consistency*, meaning that key quantities—such as final losses and optimal hyperparameters—scale predictably across model sizes. Qiu et al. (2025) recently showed that this consistency extends beyond scalars: whole training loss curves can *collapse* onto a universa…
We study compute efficiency of LLM training when using different parameterizations, i.e., rules for adjusting model and optimizer hyperparameters (HPs) as model size changes. Some parameterizations fail to transfer optimal base HPs (such as learning rate) across changes in model depth, requiring pra…
Efficient LLM pre-training requires well-tuned hyperparameters (HPs), including learning rate η and weight decay λ. We study scaling laws for HPs: formulas for how to scale HPs as we scale model size N, dataset size D, and batch size B. Recent work suggests the AdamW timescale, τ = B/(ηλD), should…
LLMs are commonly trained with a learning rate (LR) warmup, followed by cosine decay to 10% of the maximum (10x decay). In a large-scale empirical study, we show that under an optimal peak LR, a simple linear decay-to-zero (D2Z) schedule consistently outperforms other schedules when training at comp…
Several challenges make it difficult for sparse neural networks to compete with dense models. First, setting a large fraction of weights to zero impairs forward and gradient signal propagation. Second, sparse studies often need to test multiple sparsity levels, while also introducing new hyperparam…