PreprintCited by 331Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher

Open access
Rae, Jack W., Borgeaud, Sebastian, Cai, Trevor, Millican, Katie, Hoffmann, Jordan, Song, Francis, Aslanides, John, Henderson, Sarah +72 more·2021·arXiv

Abstract

Language modelling provides a step towards intelligent communication systems by harnessing large repositories of written human knowledge to better predict and understand the world. In this paper, we present an analysis of Transformer-based language model performance across a wide range of model scales -- from models with tens of millions of parameters up to a 280 billion parameter model called Gopher. These models are evaluated on 152 diverse tasks, achieving state-of-the-art performance across the majority. Gains from scale are largest in areas such as reading comprehension, fact-checking, and the identification of toxic language, but logical and mathematical reasoning see less benefit. We provide a holistic analysis of the training dataset and model's behaviour, covering the intersection of model scale with bias and toxicity. Finally we discuss the application of language models to AI safety and the mitigation of downstream harms.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2112.11446

Cites

0 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?

  • LLMs are particularly vulnerable to performance degradation from low-quality data containing spam, noise, and duplicates.

    “LLMs are particularly vulnerable to performance degradation from low-quality data containing spam, noise, and duplicates [61,62].”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

    Section A.3.2 (p. 45) reports that quality filtering dramatically improved downstream performance in 1.4B-parameter models and deduplication brought further substantial improvements. Section A.1.1 (p. 40) describes filtering low-quality, incoherent web text, including search-engine-optimisation content. The paper does not establish that LLMs are particularly vulnerable relative to other models, or separately measure the effects of spam and noise. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The context window of state-of-the-art large language models is limited to at most 2048 tokens.

    “This limitation stems from the context window of LLMs, which today is limited to at most 2048 tokens (i.e. about 1500 words) in state-of-the-art models [78,86].”

    From Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: Evaluation by Industry Professionals (2023) · cites this paper as [86]

    The Training section (p. 6) says the authors trained their models with a 2048-token context window. That does not establish a 2048-token maximum for all state-of-the-art LLMs; D.6 (p. 62) also reports extending Gopher’s context length at evaluation time beyond its training boundary. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chinchilla stored a higher-precision copy of the weights in the sharded optimiser state.

    “Chinchilla stored a higher-precision copy of the weights in the sharded optimiser state.”

    From Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as Rae et al. (2021)

    Section C.2 (pp. 53–54) describes storing a float32 copy of parameters in a partitioned optimiser state and using it for updates. But the passage reports tests on a 417M-parameter model and recommends the method to future groups; it does not establish that Chinchilla used it. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Given the Gopher compute budget of 5.76 × 10^23 FLOPs, Hoffmann et al.'s parametric loss function fitted on MassiveWeb predicts an optimal allocation of 40 billion parameters.

    “For example given the Gopher (Rae et al., 2021) compute budget of 5.76 × 10 23 FLOPs, their parametric loss function fitted on MassiveWeb predicts an optimal allocation of 40 billion parameters.”

    From Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Rae et al., 2021

    Section 3.1 (p. 5) identifies Gopher as the 280-billion-parameter model, and the compute table (p. 102) reports 6.31 × 10^23 training FLOPs, not the cited 5.76 × 10^23. Appendix F (p. 102) says its figure includes implementation overhead, so the two figures may use different accounting; our copy does not verify the exact budget cited. The sentence attributes the parametric-loss prediction to the citing authors’ function, not to Rae et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chinchilla, a 70B-parameter model trained on 1.4 trillion tokens, outperformed Gopher, GPT-3, and others across a broad benchmark suite under a matched compute budget.

    “Chinchilla outperformed the much larger Gopher [Rae et al., 2021], GPT-3 [Brown et al., 2020], and others [Smith et al., 2022] across a broad benchmark suite”

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]10. O.-M. Camburu, T. Rocktäschel, T. Lukasiewicz, and P. Blunsom. e-SNLI: Natural language inference with natural language explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01193, 2018. - Y. T. Cao and H. Daumé. Toward gender-inclusive coreference resolution: An analysis of gender and bias throughout the machine learning lifecyle. Computational Linguistics, pages 1-47, 2021. - N. Carlini, C. Liu, Ú. Erlingsson, J. Kos, and D. Song. The secret sharer: Evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19), pages 267-284, 2019. - N. Carlini, F. Tramer, E. Wallace, M. Jagielski, A. Herbert-Voss, K. Lee, A. Roberts, T. Brown, D. Song, U. Erlingsson, A. Oprea, and C. Raffel. Extracting training data from large language models, 2021. - N. Chater. The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(2):273-302, 1999. - H. Chen, X. Liu, D. Yin, and J. Tang. A survey on dialogue systems: Recent advances and new frontiers. Acm Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter, 19(2):25-35, 2017. - T. Chen, I. Goodfellow, and J. Shlens. Net2net: Accelerating learning via knowledge transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05641, 2015. - P. Christiano, B. Shlegeris, and D. Amodei. Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08575, 2018. - D. Coyle and A. Weller. 'Explaining' machine learning reveals policy challenges. Science, 368(6498): 1433-1434, 2020. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rae, J. W., Borgeaud, S., Cai, T., Millican, K., Hoffmann, J., Song, F., Aslanides, J., Henderson, S., Ring, R., Young, S., Rutherford, E., Hennigan, T., Menick, J., Cassirer, A., Powell, R., Driessche, G. V. D., Hendricks, L. A., Rauh, M., Huang, P.-S., Glaese, A., Welbl, J., Dathathri, S., Huang, S., Uesato, J., Mellor, J., Higgins, I., Creswell, A., McAleese, N., Wu, A., Elsen, E., Jayakumar, S., Buchatskaya, E., Budden, D., Sutherland, E., Simonyan, K., Paganini, M., Sifre, L., Martens, L., Li, X. L., Kuncoro, A., Nematzadeh, A., Gribovskaya, E., Donato, D., Lazaridou, A., Mensch, A., Lespiau, J.-B., Tsimpoukelli, M., Grigorev, N., Fritz, D., Sottiaux, T., Pajarskas, M., Pohlen, T., Gong, Z., Toyama, D., d'Autume, C. D. M., Li, Y., Terzi, T., Mikulik, V., Babuschkin, I., Clark, A., Casas, D. D. L., Guy, A., Jones, C., Bradbury, J., Johnson, M., Hechtman, B., Weidinger, L., Gabriel, I., Isaac, W., Lockhart, E., Osindero, S., Rimell, L., Dyer, C., Vinyals, O., Ayoub, K., Stanway, J., Bennett, L., Hassabis, D., Kavukcuoglu, K., & Irving, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4226146865
Cited by
235
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 39 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
gophers, large language models, model scaling, transformer models, reading comprehension, fact-checking, toxic language detection, bias in language models, AI safety, mathematical reasoning, training data analysis

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