Relative-Based Scaling Law for Neural Language Models

Scaling laws aim to accurately predict model performance across different scales. Existing scaling-law studies almost exclusively rely on cross-entropy as the evaluation metric. However, cross-entropy provides only a partial view of performance: it measures the absolute probability assigned to the correct token, but ignores the relative ordering between correct and incorrect tokens. Yet, relative ordering is crucial for language models, such as in greedy-sampling scenario. To address this limitation, we investigate scaling from the perspective of relative ordering. We first propose the Relative-Based Probability (RBP) metric, which quantifies the probability that the correct token is ranked among the top predictions. Building on this metric, we establish the Relative-Based Scaling Law, which characterizes how RBP improves with increasing model size. Through extensive experiments on four datasets and four model families spanning five orders of magnitude, we demonstrate the robustness and accuracy of this law. Finally, we illustrate the broad application of this law with two examples, namely providing a deeper explanation of emergence phenomena and facilitating finding fundamental theories of scaling laws. In summary, the Relative-Based Scaling Law complements the cross-entropy perspective and contributes to a more complete understanding of scaling large language models. Thus, it offers valuable insights for both practical development and theoretical exploration.

JuDGE: Benchmarking Judgment Document Generation for Chinese Legal System

This paper introduces JuDGE (Judgment Document Generation Evaluation), a novel benchmark for evaluating the performance of judgment document generation in the Chinese legal system. We define the task as generating a complete legal judgment document from the given factual description of the case. To facilitate this benchmark, we construct a comprehensive dataset consisting of factual descriptions from real legal cases, paired with their corresponding full judgment documents, which serve as the ground truth for evaluating the quality of generated documents. This dataset is further augmented by two external legal corpora that provide additional legal knowledge for the task: one comprising statutes and regulations, and the other consisting of a large collection of past judgment documents. In collaboration with legal professionals, we establish a comprehensive automated evaluation framework to assess the quality of generated judgment documents across various dimensions. We evaluate various baseline approaches, including few-shot in-context learning, fine-tuning, and a multi-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach, using both general and legal-domain LLMs. The experimental results demonstrate that, while RAG approaches can effectively improve performance in this task, there is still substantial room for further improvement. All the codes and datasets are available at: https://github.com/oneal2000/JuDGE.