mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Hyperfitting Phenomenon: Sharpening and Stabilizing LLMs for Open-Ended Text Generation

arXiv 2412.04318 ↗First posted 5 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper introduces the counter-intuitive generalization results of overfitting pre-trained large language models (LLMs) on very small datasets. In the setting of open-ended text generation, it is well-documented that LLMs tend to generate repetitive and dull sequences, a phenomenon that is especially apparent when generating using greedy decoding. This issue persists even with state-of-the-art LLMs containing billions of parameters, trained via next-token prediction on large datasets. We find that by further fine-tuning these models to achieve a near-zero training loss on a small set of samples -- a process we refer to as hyperfitting -- the long-sequence generative capabilities are greatly enhanced. Greedy decoding with these Hyperfitted models even outperform Top-P sampling over long-sequences, both in terms of diversity and human preferences. This phenomenon extends to LLMs of various sizes, different domains, and even autoregressive image generation. We further find this phenomena to be distinctly different from that of Grokking and double descent. Surprisingly, our experiments indicate that hyperfitted models rarely fall into repeating sequences they were trained on, and even explicitly blocking these sequences results in high-quality output. All hyperfitted models produce extremely low-entropy predictions, often allocating nearly all probability to a single token.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Dec 2024.

Builds on

23 of 27 references.

References · 23

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  4. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
  5. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,096
  6. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  7. 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,592
  8. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
  9. 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,965
  10. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
  11. 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,181
  12. 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 927
11 more
  1. 2019CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generationcited by 762
  2. 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 672
  3. 2024DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermismcited by 642
  4. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
  5. 2024TinyLlama: An Open-Source Small Language Modelcited by 618
  6. 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 503
  7. 2024The pitfalls of next-token predictioncited by 160
  8. 2022Learning to Break the Loop: Analyzing and Mitigating Repetitions for Neural Text Generationcited by 94
  9. 2020A Theoretical Analysis of the Repetition Problem in Text Generationcited by 83
  10. 2021Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexitycited by 78
  11. 2023LatestEval: Addressing Data Contamination in Language Model Evaluation through Dynamic and Time-Sensitive Test Constructioncited by 58

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 5.

9 papers.