Language models scale reliably with over-training and on downstream tasks

Scaling laws are useful guides for developing language models, but there are still gaps between current scaling studies and how language models are ultimately trained and evaluated. For instance, scaling is usually studied in the compute-optimal training regime (i.e., "Chinchilla optimal" regime); however, in practice, models are often over-trained to reduce inference costs. Moreover, scaling laws mostly predict loss on next-token prediction, but ultimately models are compared based on downstream task performance. In this paper, we address both shortcomings. To do so, we create a testbed of 104 models with 0.011B to 6.9B parameters trained with various numbers of tokens on three data distributions. First, we investigate scaling in the over-trained regime. We fit scaling laws that extrapolate in both the number of model parameters and the ratio of training tokens to parameters. This enables us to predict the validation loss of a 1.4B parameter, 900B token run (i.e., 32$\times$ over-trained) and a 6.9B parameter, 138B token run$\unicode{x2014}$each from experiments that take 300$\times$ less compute. Second, we relate the perplexity of a language model to its downstream task performance via a power law. We use this law to predict top-1 error averaged over downstream tasks for the two aforementioned models using experiments that take 20$\times$ less compute. Our experiments are available at https://github.com/mlfoundations/scaling.

A Critical Evaluation of AI Feedback for Aligning Large Language Models

Reinforcement learning with AI feedback (RLAIF) is a popular paradigm for improving the instruction-following abilities of powerful pre-trained language models. RLAIF first performs supervised fine-tuning (SFT) using demonstrations from a teacher model and then further fine-tunes the model with reinforcement learning (RL), using feedback from a critic model. While recent popular open-source models have demonstrated substantial improvements in performance from the RL step, in this paper we question whether the complexity of this RL step is truly warranted for AI feedback. We show that the improvements of the RL step are virtually entirely due to the widespread practice of using a weaker teacher model (e.g. GPT-3.5) for SFT data collection than the critic (e.g., GPT-4) used for AI feedback generation. Specifically, we show that simple supervised fine-tuning with GPT-4 as the teacher outperforms existing RLAIF pipelines. More generally, we find that the gains from RLAIF vary substantially across base model families, test-time evaluation protocols, and critic models. Finally, we provide a mechanistic explanation for when SFT may outperform the full two-step RLAIF pipeline as well as suggestions for making RLAIF maximally useful in practice.

Asking More Informative Questions for Grounded Retrieval

When a model is trying to gather information in an interactive setting, it benefits from asking informative questions. However, in the case of a grounded multi-turn image identification task, previous studies have been constrained to polar yes/no questions, limiting how much information the model can gain in a single turn. We present an approach that formulates more informative, open-ended questions. In doing so, we discover that off-the-shelf visual question answering (VQA) models often make presupposition errors, which standard information gain question selection methods fail to account for. To address this issue, we propose a method that can incorporate presupposition handling into both question selection and belief updates. Specifically, we use a two-stage process, where the model first filters out images which are irrelevant to a given question, then updates its beliefs about which image the user intends. Through self-play and human evaluations, we show that our method is successful in asking informative open-ended questions, increasing accuracy over the past state-of-the-art by 14%, while resulting in 48% more efficient games in human evaluations.