The Chinchilla scaling paper by Hoffmann et al. has been highly influential in the language modeling community. We tried to replicate a key part of their work and discovered discrepancies. Here's what we found. (1/9)
We reconstructed the data by extracting the SVG from the paper, parsing out the point locations & colors, mapping the coordinates to model size & FLOP, and mapping the colors to loss values. This let us closely approximate their original dataset from just the figure. (2/9)
When we fit their parametric scaling law, we get strikingly different estimates (Chi-squared p-value <1e-60!). The differences are significant for the data-scaling coefficient β and the irreducible loss E. (3/9)
Hoffmann et al.'s estimated scaling law fits the reconstructed data very poorly compared to ours. Their residuals are not centered at 0 at all! Our model achieves a lower loss on 98% of data points. Clearly, their model does not fit the data. (4/9)
Hoffmann et al. also report extremely narrow confidence intervals for some key parameters. We calculate that you’d need about 600,000 data points to nail it down that precisely. By contrast, they likely had ~400. (5/9)
Moreover, Hoffmann et al.'s estimates imply a scaling policy inconsistent with their other results and the token-to-parameter ratio used for Chinchilla. Our estimates align better with these and have more reasonable uncertainty. (6/9)
Hoffmann et al.’s paper has been highly influential in the language modeling community. Our analysis highlights some potential issues that warrant clarification. (7/9)
We have asked the authors for assistance, but we haven’t been able to get a response. (8/9)
Here is a short preprint that describes our findings in more detail: (9/9)
Worked on this togther with @EgeErdil2 , @MatthewJBar, and @justjoshinyou13.arxiv.org/abs/2404.10102
The idea is to define the ‘time horizon’ a human club player needs to match AI moves. Early AIs were easy to outplay quickly, but as you go up to 2400 ELO engines, you need more thinking time—and matching Stockfish might take years per move!
I used a simple scaling law, ELO = a + b·log(Time), to estimate how human thinking time must scale to keep up with AI performance. Fitting it to Chess. com data gives a very rough forecast.
1/6 We haven't communicated clearly enough about FrontierMath's relationship with OpenAI, and I want to own that. By not being transparent from the start, we caused confusion for contributors, researchers, and the public.
2/6 OpenAI commissioned Epoch AI to produce 300 math problems for FrontierMath. Because it was a commissioned project, OpenAI owns those problems. They have access to the statements and solutions—except for a 50-question holdout set we're finalizing.
3/6 Epoch AI is free to conduct and publish evaluations of any models using the benchmark, as we have done already. We retain this right to evaluate models independently.
I’m excited to announce the development of Tier 4, a new suite of math problems that go beyond the hardest problems in FrontierMath. o3 is remarkable, but there’s still a ways to go before any single AI system nears the collective prowess of the math community.
FrontierMath currently spans three broad tiers:
• T1 (25%) Advanced, near top-tier undergrad/IMO
• T2 (50%) Needs serious grad-level background
• T3 (25%) Research problems demanding relevant research experience
All can take hours—or days—for experts to solve.
Tier 4 aims to push the boundary even further. We want to assemble problems so challenging that solving them would demonstrate capabilities on par with an entire top mathematics department.
1/11 I’m genuinely impressed by OpenAI’s 25.2% Pass@1 performance on FrontierMath—this marks a major leap from prior results and arrives about a year ahead of my median expectations.
2/11 For context, FrontierMath is a brutally difficult benchmark with problems that would stump many mathematicians. The easier problems are as hard as IMO/Putnam; the hardest ones approach research-level complexity.
3/11 With earlier models like o1-preview, Pass@1 performance (solving on first attempt) was only around 2%. When allowing 8 attempts per problem (Pass@8) and counting problems solved at least once, we saw ~6% performance. o3's 25.2% at Pass@1 is substantially more impressive.
I’d like to acknowledge @OpenAI’s support in creating FrontierMath. They recently provided permission to publicly share this support.
Their feedback helped strengthen FrontierMath. OpenAI encouraged us to push for significantly greater difficulty, which I believe has made the benchmark more valuable.
I’m excited for us to continue conducting our own independent evaluations, which we expect will accurately reflect model capabilities across various labs.
A few weeks ago, we attempted to replicate the Chinchilla paper. We found that their estimated model fails to adequately fit the reconstructed data, that it implies inconsistent scaling policies, and that their confidence intervals are implausibly narrow.
The authors responded, clarifying that this was the result of their optimizer stopping early due to a bad loss scale choice. They plan to update their results and release the data. We appreciate @borgeaud_s and others' openness in addressing this issue.
This error is understandable. From experience, choosing the right optimizer and loss scale is often non-trivial, with no obvious error signs in case of poor convergence. I know at least another otherwise great paper that had a very similar issue.