mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Note on Selection Bias in Observational Estimates of Algorithmic Progress

arXiv 2508.11033 ↗First posted 14 Aug 2025econ.GN cs.AI q-fin.ECcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ho et. al (2024) attempts to estimate the degree of algorithmic progress from language models. They collect observational data on language models' loss and compute over time, and argue that as time has passed, language models' algorithmic efficiency has been rising. That is, the loss achieved for fixed compute has been dropping over time. In this note, I raise one potential methodological problem with the estimation strategy. Intuitively, if part of algorithmic quality is latent, and compute choices are endogenous to algorithmic quality, then resulting estimates of algorithmic quality will be contaminated by selection bias.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 3 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2025.

Builds on

3 of 3 references.

References · 3

  1. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
  2. 2024Chinchilla Scaling: A replication attemptcited by 72
  3. 2024Algorithmic progress in language modelscited by 31

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.