Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

gzip Predicts Data-dependent Scaling Laws (2405.16684v1)

Published 26 May 2024 in cs.CL and cs.LG

Abstract: Past work has established scaling laws that predict the performance of a neural LLM (LM) as a function of its parameter count and the number of tokens it's trained on, enabling optimal allocation of a fixed compute budget. Are these scaling laws agnostic to training data as some prior work suggests? We generate training datasets of varying complexities by modulating the syntactic properties of a PCFG, finding that 1) scaling laws are sensitive to differences in data complexity and that 2) gzip, a compression algorithm, is an effective predictor of how data complexity impacts scaling properties. We propose a new data-dependent scaling law for LM's that accounts for the training data's gzip-compressibility; its compute-optimal frontier increases in dataset size preference (over parameter count preference) as training data becomes harder to compress.

The Influence of Data Complexity on Scaling Laws for LLMs

Introduction

The research explores the sensitivity of scaling laws for neural LLMs (LMs) to the complexity of training data. Traditionally, scaling laws have provided a framework for predicting the performance of LMs based on the model's parameter count and the number of training tokens. These laws guide optimal resource allocation within a fixed compute budget. However, the prevalent assumption has been that these scaling laws are largely agnostic to the specifics of the training data distribution. This paper challenges that assumption and introduces gzip-compressibility as a quantifiable metric of data complexity that influences scaling behavior.

Methodology

To interrogate the relationship between data complexity and scaling laws, the paper employs Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars (PCFGs) to generate datasets with varying syntactic complexities. Six distinct datasets are created, each modulated by different syntactic properties such as the number of production rules and non-terminals. These datasets facilitate a controlled environment where the complexity of the data is systematically adjustable. The complexity is measured using gzip, a compression algorithm, thus providing a proxy for data entropy.

LLMs of six different sizes, ranging from 4.4 million to 1.4 billion parameters, are trained on these datasets. Training steps vary across multiple magnitudes, enabling the researchers to fit scaling laws to the performance results for each dataset, exploring how these laws shift with increased data complexity.

Numerical Results

One of the pivotal findings is that as training data becomes less compressible (i.e., more complex), the optimal compute frontier shifts to favor dataset size over model parameter count. This is contrary to the traditional equal scaling of parameters and data tokens, as recommended by Chinchilla scaling laws. Specifically, the paper notes that for high-complexity data, achieving similar performance requires a relatively larger dataset and fewer parameters. This nuanced allocation can lead to significant computational savings, illustrated by the estimation that an adjusted compute allocation could save $278,000 in GPU hours when training a model like StarCoder.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The theoretical implications point toward a broader principle where data complexity, quantified through gzip-compressibility, should inform scaling laws. This raises critical questions about the underlying mechanisms that cause different scaling behaviors across datasets of varying complexity. Practically, these findings are highly consequential for domains such as code generation, where datasets exhibit significantly different compressibility profiles compared to natural language.

For instance, code datasets generally have lower gzip-compressibility, necessitating different scaling strategies—favoring parameters over data. This insight has practical ramifications for optimizing resource allocation in training LMs, rendering the training of large models more efficient and cost-effective.

Future Directions

Future work could delve into theoretical explanations for why scaling laws are sensitive to data complexity. Investigations could leverage linguistics and information theory to demystify the relationship between entropy, syntactic complexity, and LM performance. Empirical validation on real-world datasets beyond PCFGs would further bolster the generalizability of these findings. Additionally, extending this approach to other modalities, such as images or audio, could reveal if and how these principles apply more broadly across AI domains.

Exploring alternative complexity metrics or compression algorithms might yield even finer adjustments to scaling laws for more effective training regimen design. Real-world applications could involve dynamic compute resource allocation based on real-time data complexity assessments, enhancing both training efficiency and model performance.

Conclusion

The paper makes a significant contribution by demonstrating that the prevailing assumption of data-agnostic scaling laws is insufficient. It positions gzip-compressibility as a viable measure to adjust these laws based on data complexity, potentially leading to more optimal and cost-effective training regimes, particularly in specialized contexts like code generation. This paradigm shift urges the AI research community to reconsider how we design and allocate compute resources for training large-scale LLMs.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (44)
  1. Scaling laws for generative mixed-modal language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 265–279. PMLR, 2023.
  2. Estimating the entropy of linguistic distributions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 175–195, 2022.
  3. Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02954, 2024.
  4. NLTK: The natural language toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pages 214–217, Barcelona, Spain, July 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/P04-3031.
  5. Thomas Breydo. thomasbreydo/pcfg. 8 2021. URL https://github.com/thomasbreydo/pcfg.
  6. Broken neural scaling laws. In ICLR 2023 Workshop on Mathematical and Empirical Understanding of Foundation Models, 2023.
  7. Toward the logical description of languages in their phonemic aspect. Language, pages 34–46, 1953.
  8. Zhiyi Chi. Statistical properties of probabilistic context-free grammars. Computational Linguistics, 25(1):131–160, 1999. URL https://aclanthology.org/J99-1004.
  9. Noam Chomsky. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on information theory, 2(3):113–124, 1956.
  10. Probabilistic context-free grammars estimated from infinite distributions. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 29(8):1379–1393, 2007.
  11. Learning curves: Asymptotic values and rate of convergence. Advances in neural information processing systems, 6, 1993.
  12. Are all languages equally hard to language-model? In Marilyn Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 536–541, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-2085. URL https://aclanthology.org/N18-2085.
  13. Language modeling is compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10668, 2023.
  14. Peter Deutsch. Deflate compressed data format specification version 1.3. Technical report, 1996.
  15. Gnu gzip. GNU Operating System, 1992.
  16. Ulf Grenander. Syntax-controlled probabilities. Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 1967.
  17. Textbooks are all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11644, 2023.
  18. Zellig Harris. A theory of language and information: a mathematical approach. Oxford University Press, 1991.
  19. Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00409, 2017.
  20. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022.
  21. Compression represents intelligence linearly. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09937, 2024.
  22. David A Huffman. A method for the construction of minimum-redundancy codes. Proceedings of the IRE, 40(9):1098–1101, 1952.
  23. “low-resource” text classification: A parameter-free classification method with compressors. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 6810–6828, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.426. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.426.
  24. Andy L Jones. Scaling scaling laws with board games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03113, 2021.
  25. Mission: Impossible language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06416, 2024.
  26. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020.
  27. Starcoder: may the source be with you! arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06161, 2023.
  28. A neural scaling law from lottery ticket ensembling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02258, 2023.
  29. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983, 2016.
  30. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017.
  31. Scaling data-constrained language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023.
  32. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  33. The refinedweb dataset for falcon llm: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116, 2023.
  34. Fineweb, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceFW/fineweb.
  35. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9):3526–3529, 2011.
  36. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446, 2021.
  37. A constructive prediction of the generalization error across scales. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12673, 2019.
  38. On the derivational entropy of left-to-right probabilistic finite-state automata and hidden Markov models. Computational Linguistics, 44(1):17–37, April 2018. doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00306. URL https://aclanthology.org/J18-1002.
  39. Claude E Shannon. Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell system technical journal, 30(1):50–64, 1951.
  40. Claude Elwood Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379–423, 1948.
  41. Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:19523–19536, 2022.
  42. Doremi: Optimizing data mixtures speeds up language model pretraining. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  43. Pytorch fsdp: experiences on scaling fully sharded data parallel. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11277, 2023.
  44. A universal algorithm for sequential data compression. IEEE Transactions on information theory, 23(3):337–343, 1977.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (1)
  1. Rohan Pandey (13 papers)
Citations (8)

HackerNews