Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

A Dynamical Model of Neural Scaling Laws

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.01092 v4 pith:DQCEZEBT submitted 2024-02-02 stat.ML cond-mat.dis-nncs.LG

classification stat.MLcond-mat.dis-nncs.LG
keywords modelscalingtrainingneuraltimeperformancesizecompute-optimal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

On a variety of tasks, the performance of neural networks predictably improves with training time, dataset size and model size across many orders of magnitude. This phenomenon is known as a neural scaling law. Of fundamental importance is the compute-optimal scaling law, which reports the performance as a function of units of compute when choosing model sizes optimally. We analyze a random feature model trained with gradient descent as a solvable model of network training and generalization. This reproduces many observations about neural scaling laws. First, our model makes a prediction about why the scaling of performance with training time and with model size have different power law exponents. Consequently, the theory predicts an asymmetric compute-optimal scaling rule where the number of training steps are increased faster than model parameters, consistent with recent empirical observations. Second, it has been observed that early in training, networks converge to their infinite-width dynamics at a rate $1/\textit{width}$ but at late time exhibit a rate $\textit{width}^{-c}$, where $c$ depends on the structure of the architecture and task. We show that our model exhibits this behavior. Lastly, our theory shows how the gap between training and test loss can gradually build up over time due to repeated reuse of data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Universal One-third Time Scaling in Learning Peaked Distributions

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Softmax + cross-entropy on peaked targets yields loss ∼ t^{−1/3}, giving an architecture-driven explanation for power-law LLM training time without power-law data.

  2. Scaling Collapse Reveals Universal Dynamics in Compute-Optimally Trained Neural Networks

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Compute-optimally trained networks of different sizes show loss curves that collapse onto one universal curve after normalization; with learning rate decay, the collapse is tighter than seed-to-seed noise, providing a...

  3. Scaling Laws and Spectra of Shallow Neural Networks in the Feature Learning Regime

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For diagonal and quadratic two-layer networks, training maps to LASSO and matrix compressed sensing, yielding a full phase diagram of excess-risk scaling exponents and a spectral characterization of the trained weights.

  4. Models of Heavy-Tailed Mechanistic Universality

    stat.ML 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new random matrix model with one structure parameter explains heavy-tailed spectra in trained networks, and yields scaling laws, optimizer-tail behavior, and a description of the five-plus-one phases of training.

  5. X-Factor: Quality Is a Dataset-Intrinsic Property

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Across 2,500 class-balanced MNIST subsets and 10 model architectures, test-error Z-scores correlate strongly across models (mean R2=0.82 excluding GNB), supporting dataset quality as an intrinsic property.

  6. Unifying Learning Dynamics and Generalization in Transformers Scaling Law

    cs.LG 2025-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Claims a two-stage transformer scaling law (exponential then C^{-1/6}) with matching bounds, but the lower bounds are missing, the exponent is inconsistent (-1/7 vs -1/6), and the law is an artifact of hand-set M = Θ(...

Pith tools