Cited by 35Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

What Language Model to Train if You Have One Million GPU Hours?

Open access
Le Scao, Teven, Wang, Thomas, Hesslow, Daniel, Bekman, Stas, Bari, M Saiful, Biderman, Stella, Elsahar, Hady, Muennighoff, Niklas +10 more·2022·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022

Abstract

Teven Le Scao, Thomas Wang, Daniel Hesslow, Stas Bekman, M Saiful Bari, Stella Biderman, Hady Elsahar, Niklas Muennighoff, Jason Phang, Ofir Press, Colin Raffel, Victor Sanh, Sheng Shen, Lintang Sutawika, Jaesung Tae, Zheng Xin Yong, Julien Launay, Iz Beltagy. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022. 2022.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.54

Cites

70 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BloomZ's multiple preprints document data curation and finetuning in great detail; in contrast, Llama's single preprint offers fewer details and appears strategically vague on crucial details such as training datasets and instruction tuning.

    “BloomZ's multiple preprints document data curation and finetuning [50, 61] in great detail; in contrast, Llama's single preprint offers fewer details and appears strategically vague on crucial details (for instance, training datasets and instruction tuning).”

    From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A typical LLM usually consists of no less than several billion and up to trillions of model parameters, orders larger than before.

    “For one thing, although there are no specific criteria for the minimum number, a typical LLM usually consists of no less than several billion and up to trillions of model parameters, which are orders larger than before [33].”

    From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Introduction describes large language models as growing through scale, and Table 7 lists state-of-the-art models with 137–530 billion parameters. The paper does not establish that a typical LLM has at least several billion parameters, give a trillion-parameter example, or quantify the claimed increase over earlier models. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Finetuning a transformer on relatively small-scale target datasets can result in restricted generalizability and stability.

    “finetuning a transformer on relatively small-scale target datasets can result in restricted generalizability [9, 10] and stability [24]”

    From Multimodal Prompting with Missing Modalities for Visual Recognition (2023) · cites this paper as [9]

    Citation [24] is attached to the stability claim. Section 4.3 discusses instability when training models above 100 billion parameters, while Sections 2.3 and 6.1 say the study does not rely on or assess fine-tuning. Our copy does not address whether fine-tuning transformers on relatively small target datasets restricts stability; searches for small-dataset fine-tuning and stability found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. BigScience Workshop. 2022. Bloom (revision 4ab0472). · DOI
  2. Andrew Gordon, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Melissa Roem- mele. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 7: Choice of plau- sible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Seman- tics -Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Eval- uation (SemEval 2012), pages 394-398, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Ahmad Lashgar, Amirali Baniasadi, and Ahmad Khon- sari. 2013. Warp size impact in gpus: large or small? In GPGPU@ASPLOS.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le Scao, T., Wang, T., Hesslow, D., Bekman, S., Bari, M. S., Biderman, S., Elsahar, H., Muennighoff, N., Phang, J., Press, O., Raffel, C., Sanh, V., Shen, S., Sutawika, L., Tae, J., Yong, Z. X., Launay, J., & Beltagy, I.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Laboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure (FR)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022
Published
2022
Pages
765-782
OpenAlex
W4385574005
Cited by
33
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13
FWCI
4.42
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Grand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
language model training, training efficiency, training costs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review