Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09479v2
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 01:25:12 GMT
• Title: Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better
• Authors: Ian R. McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Michael Pieler, Alicia Parrish, Aaron Mueller, Ameya Prabhu, Euan McLean, Aaron Kirtland, Alexis Ross, Alisa Liu, Andrew Gritsevskiy, Daniel Wurgaft, Derik Kauffman, Gabriel Recchia, Jiacheng Liu, Joe Cavanagh, Max Weiss, Sicong Huang, The Floating Droid, Tom Tseng, Tomasz Korbak, Xudong Shen, Yuhui Zhang, Zhengping Zhou, Najoung Kim, Samuel R. Bowman, Ethan Perez,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale. We present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale.
• Score: 80.42834197416444
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• What Do Learning Dynamics Reveal About Generalization in LLM Reasoning? [83.83230167222852]
  We find that a model's generalization behavior can be effectively characterized by a training metric we call pre-memorization train accuracy. By connecting a model's learning behavior to its generalization, pre-memorization train accuracy can guide targeted improvements to training strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T09:52:40Z)
• U-shaped and Inverted-U Scaling behind Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models [1.14179290793997]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit emergent abilities in some downstream tasks. We observe U-shaped scaling for hard questions, and inverted-U scaling followed by steady improvement for easy questions. We propose a simple yet effective pipeline, called Slice-and-Sandwich, to predict both the emergence threshold and model performance beyond the threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T16:03:49Z)
• Scaling Laws For Dense Retrieval [22.76001461620846]
  We investigate whether the performance of dense retrieval models follows the scaling law as other neural models. Results indicate that, under our settings, the performance of dense retrieval models follows a precise power-law scaling related to the model size and the number of annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T15:27:36Z)
• Efficient Grammatical Error Correction Via Multi-Task Training and Optimized Training Schedule [55.08778142798106]
  We propose auxiliary tasks that exploit the alignment between the original and corrected sentences. We formulate each task as a sequence-to-sequence problem and perform multi-task training. We find that the order of datasets used for training and even individual instances within a dataset may have important effects on the final performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T14:50:12Z)
• Beyond Positive Scaling: How Negation Impacts Scaling Trends of Language Models [92.11542797811461]
  We introduce NeQA, a dataset consisting of questions with negation. We show that this task can exhibit inverse scaling, U-shaped scaling, or positive scaling. We find that task 1 has linear scaling, while task 2 has sigmoid-shaped scaling with an emergent transition point.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-27T00:07:17Z)
• Delving Deeper into Data Scaling in Masked Image Modeling [145.36501330782357]
  We conduct an empirical study on the scaling capability of masked image modeling (MIM) methods for visual recognition. Specifically, we utilize the web-collected Coyo-700M dataset. Our goal is to investigate how the performance changes on downstream tasks when scaling with different sizes of data and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T15:33:46Z)
• Inverse scaling can become U-shaped [126.64521446943155]
  Scaling up language models has been empirically shown to improve performance on a wide range of downstream tasks. This paper takes a closer look at these inverse scaling tasks. We evaluate models of up to 540B parameters, trained on five times more compute than those evaluated in the Inverse Scaling Prize.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-03T17:26:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.