Tokens-per-Parameter Coverage Is Critical for Robust LLM Scaling Law Extrapolation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural scaling laws approximate a language model's loss as a power-law function of parameter count N and token count D. Following Chinchilla-style compute-optimal training, many studies fit scaling laws from runs performed under a fixed tokens-per-parameter (TPP) ratio k and set D = kN. We show that this collinear design, combined with the empirically common near-equality of the exponents governing N and D, induces an inherent ill-conditioning in the Gauss-Newton least-squares problem: the condition number of the design grows as the inverse square of the gap between the N and D-exponents. The scale coefficients become practically unidentifiable, with confidence intervals inflating by an order of magnitude or more, yielding a ``sloppy'' model whose extrapolations degrade sharply off the training ray. We prove this for four scaling-law formalisms and derive a closed-form TPP-diversity threshold that is necessary and sufficient for well-conditioned estimation. Empirically, non-collinear designs outperform collinear ones on held-out splits with a 97.3% win rate across four laws, five corpora, multiple floating point precision modes. We further show the degeneracy is rooted in Jacobian geometry and is not an artifact of the loss function: any smooth estimation objective whose curvature involves the Jacobian inherits the same ill-conditioning.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.
Builds on
32 of 47 references.
References · 32
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 582
- 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 522
- 2023Scaling Data-Constrained Language Modelscited by 403
- 2019A Constructive Prediction of the Generalization Error Across Scalescited by 210
- 2022Will we run out of data? Limits of LLM scaling based on human-generated datacited by 195
- 2024RedPajama: an Open Dataset for Training Large Language Modelscited by 182
- 2023Beyond Chinchilla-Optimal: Accounting for Inference in Language Model Scaling Lawscited by 159
- 2022Revisiting Neural Scaling Laws in Language and Visioncited by 132
- 2024Language models scale reliably with over-training and on downstream taskscited by 113
20 more
- 2022Broken Neural Scaling Lawscited by 109
- 2023Cerebras-GPT: Open Compute-Optimal Language Models Trained on the Cerebras Wafer-Scale Clustercited by 109
- 2024Resolving Discrepancies in Compute-Optimal Scaling of Language Modelscited by 88
- 2024Chinchilla Scaling: A replication attemptcited by 72
- 2025Scaling Laws for Optimal Data Mixturescited by 52
- 2025Power Lines: Scaling Laws for Weight Decay and Batch Size in LLM Pre-trainingcited by 43
- 2025DataDecide: How to Predict Best Pretraining Data with Small Experimentscited by 40
- 2024Establishing Task Scaling Laws via Compute-Efficient Model Ladderscited by 35
- 2024Towards Neural Scaling Laws for Time Series Foundation Modelscited by 33
- 2025Pre-training under infinite computecited by 29
- 2024A Hitchhiker's Guide to Scaling Law Estimationcited by 27
- 2025(Mis)Fitting: A Survey of Scaling Lawscited by 26
- 2021Scaling Laws for Acoustic Modelscited by 21
- 2024Scaling-laws for Large Time-series Modelscited by 18
- 2025Predictable Scale: Part II, Farseer: A Refined Scaling Law in Large Language Modelscited by 6
- 2026Towards Robust Scaling Laws for Optimizerscited by 6
- 2025Pretraining Scaling Laws for Generative Evaluations of Language Modelscited by 5
- 2026Neural Neural Scaling Lawscited by 2
- 2025Relative-Based Scaling Law for Neural Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026Prescriptive Scaling Reveals the Evolution of Language Model Capabilitiescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.