Neural scaling law

Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empirically

Deep learning (DL) creates impactful advances following a virtuous recipe: model architecture search, creating large training data sets, and scaling computation. It is widely believed that growing training sets and models should improve accuracy and result in better products. As DL application domains grow, we would like a deeper understanding of the relationships between training set size, computational scale, and model accuracy improvements to advance the state-of-the-art. This paper presents a large scale empirical characterization of generalization error and model size growth as training sets grow. We introduce a methodology for this measurement and test four machine learning domains: machine translation, language modeling, image processing, and speech recognition. Our empirical results show power-law generalization error scaling across a breadth of factors, resulting in power-law exponents---the "steepness" of the learning curve---yet to be explained by theoretical work. Further, model improvements only shift the error but do not appear to affect the power-law exponent. We also show that model size scales sublinearly with data size. These scaling relationships have significant implications on deep learning research, practice, and systems. They can assist model debugging, setting accuracy targets, and decisions about data set growth. They can also guide computing system design and underscore the importance of continued computational scaling.

Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

We study empirical scaling laws for language model performance on the cross-entropy loss. The loss scales as a power-law with model size, dataset size, and the amount of compute used for training, with some trends spanning more than seven orders of magnitude. Other architectural details such as network width or depth have minimal effects within a wide range. Simple equations govern the dependence of overfitting on model/dataset size and the dependence of training speed on model size. These relationships allow us to determine the optimal allocation of a fixed compute budget. Larger models are significantly more sample-efficient, such that optimally compute-efficient training involves training very large models on a relatively modest amount of data and stopping significantly before convergence.

Scaling Laws Across Model Architectures: A Comparative Analysis of...

The scaling of large language models (LLMs) is a critical research area for the efficiency and effectiveness of model training and deployment. Our work investigates the transferability and...

Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning

Widely observed neural scaling laws, in which error falls off as a power of the training set size, model size, or both, have driven substantial performance improvements in deep learning. However, these improvements through scaling alone require considerable costs in compute and energy. Here we focus on the scaling of error with dataset size and show how in theory we can break beyond power law scaling and potentially even reduce it to exponential scaling instead if we have access to a high-quality data pruning metric that ranks the order in which training examples should be discarded to achieve any pruned dataset size. We then test this improved scaling prediction with pruned dataset size empirically, and indeed observe better than power law scaling in practice on ResNets trained on CIFAR-10, SVHN, and ImageNet. Next, given the importance of finding high-quality pruning metrics, we perform the first large-scale benchmarking study of ten different data pruning metrics on ImageNet. We find most existing high performing metrics scale poorly to ImageNet, while the best are computationally intensive and require labels for every image. We therefore developed a new simple, cheap and scalable self-supervised pruning metric that demonstrates comparable performance to the best supervised metrics. Overall, our work suggests that the discovery of good data-pruning metrics may provide a viable path forward to substantially improved neural scaling laws, thereby reducing the resource costs of modern deep learning.

How To Scale Your Model

Training LLMs often feels like alchemy, but understanding and optimizing the performance of your models doesn't have to. This book aims to demystify the science of scaling language models: how TPUs (and GPUs) work and how they communicate with each other, how LLMs run on real hardware, and how to parallelize your models during training and inference so they run efficiently at massive scale. If you've ever wondered “how expensive should this LLM be to train” or “how much memory do I need to serve this model myself” or “what's an AllGather”, we hope this will be useful to you.

alphaXiv on Twitter / X

"Small-Scale Experiments: Are We There Yet?"Scaling laws show up even in tiny 4M parameter models, but only when their hyperparameters are tuned well enough.This Meta paper found that small models are much more hyperparameter-sensitive. As scale increases, the hyperparameter… pic.twitter.com/vQfFS1TpMA— alphaXiv (@askalphaxiv) August 15, 2026

The Value of Getting Closer to the Work

Scaling The core problem of scaling a team is that not everyone can know everything. Scaling is the work of systematizing that – so that things are understandable, knowable. It’s turnin…

Hyperscale computing

In computing, hyperscale is the ability of an architecture to scale appropriately as increased demand is added to the system.

Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling

We identify empirical scaling laws for the cross-entropy loss in four domains: generative image modeling, video modeling, multimodal image$\leftrightarrow$text models, and mathematical problem solving. In all cases autoregressive Transformers smoothly improve in performance as model size and compute budgets increase, following a power-law plus constant scaling law. The optimal model size also depends on the compute budget through a power-law, with exponents that are nearly universal across all data domains. The cross-entropy loss has an information theoretic interpretation as $S($True$) + D_{\mathrm{KL}}($True$||$Model$)$, and the empirical scaling laws suggest a prediction for both the true data distribution's entropy and the KL divergence between the true and model distributions. With this interpretation, billion-parameter Transformers are nearly perfect models of the YFCC100M image distribution downsampled to an $8\times 8$ resolution, and we can forecast the model size needed to achieve any given reducible loss (ie $D_{\mathrm{KL}}$) in nats/image for other resolutions. We find a number of additional scaling laws in specific domains: (a) we identify a scaling relation for the mutual information between captions and images in multimodal models, and show how to answer the question "Is a picture worth a thousand words?"; (b) in the case of mathematical problem solving, we identify scaling laws for model performance when extrapolating beyond the training distribution; (c) we finetune generative image models for ImageNet classification and find smooth scaling of the classification loss and error rate, even as the generative loss levels off. Taken together, these results strengthen the case that scaling laws have important implications for neural network performance, including on downstream tasks.

Rescaled Influence Functions: Accurate Data Attribution in High Dimension

How does the training data affect a model's behavior? This is the question we seek to answer with *data attribution*. The leading practical approaches to data attribution are based on *influence functions* (IF). IFs utilize a first-order Taylor approximation to efficiently predict the effect of removing a set of samples from the training set without retraining the model, and are used in a wide variety of machine learning applications. However, especially in the high-dimensional regime (# params $\geq \Omega($# samples$)$), they are often imprecise and tend to underestimate the effect of sample removals, even for simple models such as logistic regression. We present *rescaled influence functions* (RIF) -- a tool for data attribution which can be used as a drop-in replacement for influence functions, with little computational overhead but significant improvement in accuracy. We compare IF and RIF on a range of real-world datasets, showing that RIFs offer significantly better predictions in practice, and present a theoretical analysis explaining this improvement. Finally, we present a simple class of data poisoning attacks that would fool IF-based detections but would be detected by RIF.

Does equivariance matter at scale?

Given large datasets and sufficient compute, is it beneficial to design neural architectures for the structure and symmetries of each problem? Or is it more efficient to learn them from data? We study empirically how equivariant and non-equivariant networks scale with compute and training samples. Focusing on a benchmark problem of rigid-body interactions and on general-purpose transformer architectures, we perform a series of experiments, varying the model size, training steps, and dataset size. We find evidence for three conclusions. First, equivariance improves data efficiency, but training non-equivariant models with data augmentation can close this gap given sufficient epochs. Second, scaling with compute follows a power law, with equivariant models outperforming non-equivariant ones at each tested compute budget. Finally, the optimal allocation of a compute budget onto model size and training duration differs between equivariant and non-equivariant models.

Neural Computer: A New Machine Form Is Emerging

A research essay on Neural Computer: how it differs from agents, world models, and conventional computers; what runtime and CNC would mean; what current prototypes already show; and how software and hardware might change.

Designing AI for Disruptive Science

Why scaling AI won’t automatically lead to paradigm shifts.

Position: Don't Just "Fix it in Post": A Science of AI Must Study Training Dynamics

What would it mean to have a scientific understanding of AI? Models are not static objects: they are snapshots of time-evolving processes shaped by data, objectives, architectures, and optimization dynamics. Yet much of AI research treats models as fixed artifacts, analyzing behaviors after training rather than asking why they emerge. This position paper argues that a science of AI must move beyond post-hoc fixes and study the training dynamics that produce model behavior. Such a science should support progressively stronger forms of understanding: predicting outcomes from early training signals, intervening when trajectories go wrong, and ultimately designing training procedures that more reliably produce desired properties. Scaling laws have made prediction routine for loss; the challenge is extending this success to capabilities, biases, robustness, and safety-relevant behaviors. We articulate requirements for such theories grounded in the history and philosophy of science, examine progress in mechanistic interpretability, fairness, memorization, and simplicity bias, and identify concrete open problems.