PreprintCited by 23Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Cerebras-GPT: Open Compute-Optimal Language Models Trained on the Cerebras Wafer-Scale Cluster

Open access
Dey, Nolan, Gosal, Gurpreet, Zhiming, Chen, Khachane, Hemant, Marshall, William, Pathria, Ribhu, Tom, Marvin +1 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

We study recent research advances that improve large language models through efficient pre-training and scaling, and open datasets and tools. We combine these advances to introduce Cerebras-GPT, a family of open compute-optimal language models scaled from 111M to 13B parameters. We train Cerebras-GPT models on the Eleuther Pile dataset following DeepMind Chinchilla scaling rules for efficient pre-training (highest accuracy for a given compute budget). We characterize the predictable power-law scaling and compare Cerebras-GPT with other publicly-available models to show all Cerebras-GPT models have state-of-the-art training efficiency on both pre-training and downstream objectives. We describe our learnings including how Maximal Update Parameterization ($μ$P) can further improve large model scaling, improving accuracy and hyperparameter predictability at scale. We release our pre-trained models and code, making this paper the first open and reproducible work comparing compute-optimal model scaling to models trained on fixed dataset sizes. Cerebras-GPT models are available on HuggingFace: https://huggingface.co/cerebras.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.03208

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For dense transformers, training data size should scale roughly with the square root of training compute.

    “consistent with neural scaling laws for dense transformers which suggest that training data size should scale roughly with the square root of training compute (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Dey et al., 2023; Fetterman et al., 2023).”

    From Will we run out of data? Limits of LLM scaling based on human-generated data (2022) · cites this paper as Dey et al., 2023

Cites

  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

    Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “Scaling law studies show predictable and significant improvements in model performance by increasing model and dataset size (Hestness et al., 2017; Kaplan et al., 2020).”
    Background

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dey, N., Gosal, G., Zhiming, Chen, Khachane, H., Marshall, W., Pathria, R., Tom, M., & Hestness, J.
Affiliations
Charles
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362707004
Cited by
23
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • 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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
large language models, power-law scaling

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