Scaling Laws in the Tiny Regime: How Small Models Change Their Mistakes

Scaling laws promised cost-effective experiments; six years later, they have yet to fully deliver. Instead, researchers have found them unreliable at small scales (starting at 4M parameters) and concluded that sizable models cannot be avoided. We show this is not the case: the confounding factor is hyperparameters. Small models are highly sensitive, but hyperparameter sensitivity fades with scale. This small-scale sensitivity makes scaling laws easy to miss because they only emerge on the fully tuned frontier, and reaching that frontier requires an extensive search far beyond what most ever run. By ablating the basic scaling law recipe, we show well-tuned hyperparameters matter more than any other ingredient. Further, we reveal why those hyperparameters become easier to find: as scale increases, the hyperparameter loss surface becomes lower dimensional. Nevertheless while scaling laws exist in small models, extrapolation hits statistical limitations. A holistic approach is required. Synthesizing our insights with the recent literature, we develop a new methodology for model-centric research and demonstrate it on a question that once took the field years to settle: where to place normalization layers in the transformer architecture. From small-scale experiments, we recover the large scale result: pre-normalization works better as models grow in size. With the right tools and a better understanding, small-scale experiments can deliver on scaling laws' long-awaited promise.

The scaling laws guiding modern model training were calibrated for a single regime: data-rich, single-epoch pretraining. The dominant such scaling law form, Chinchilla's $L = E + A/N^α+ B/D^β$, has three structural limitations outside that regime: it diverges as unique data shrinks instead of saturating at the uninformed baseline; it cannot represent overfitting when capacity exceeds the data; and it conflates total examples seen with unique examples available. We propose a closed-form extension, $L(N, D, T) = E + (L_0 - E)\,h/(1+h)$ with $h = a/N^α+ b/T^β+ c\,N^γ/D^δ$, that decomposes loss into undercapacity, undertraining, and overfitting terms. It saturates between the irreducible loss $E$ and an uninformed baseline $L_0$ fixed by the loss type, and reduces to Chinchilla in the data-rich, single-epoch limit. We validate it on four multi-epoch experiments spanning four architecture families (MLPs, ResNets, Fourier neural operators, and transformers) across vision, scientific ML, and language domains, and refit it to five published LLM scaling-law grids. Extrapolating to higher compute and larger unique data than seen at fit time, our form achieves state-of-the-art RMSE on every published LLM grid we evaluate and on most cells of our constructed experiments. Once calibrated, the form admits a cost-aware allocation that recovers Chinchilla's optimum when data is free and shifts toward smaller corpora and more epochs as data grows expensive.

Machine learning model performance improvements tend to arise from competition and application. For deployment, we consider prescriptive scaling laws: given a pre-training compute budget, what downstream accuracy is attainable with contemporary post-training practice, and how stable is that mapping as the field evolves? Using large-scale observational evaluations with 5k existing and 2k newly evaluated model checkpoints spanning 2022-2026 across six benchmarks, we estimate capability boundaries, high conditional quantiles of benchmark scores as a function of log pre-training FLOPs, via smoothed quantile regression with a monotone, saturating sigmoid parameterization. We validate temporal reliability by fitting on earlier model generations and evaluating on later releases: across four of six tasks, the out-of-distribution coverage error remains below 2%, while math reasoning exhibits a consistently advancing boundary over time. For instance, at a budget of 10^24 FLOPs, the estimated attainable accuracies are 0.83 on IFEval and 0.54 on MATH Lvl 5. We then extend our approach to analyze task-dependent saturation and to probe contamination-related shifts on math reasoning tasks. Finally, we introduce a balanced I-optimal sampling algorithm that recovers near-full-data frontiers using roughly 20% of the parameter-count-weighted evaluation budget, as low as 5% on some tasks, while maintaining comparable calibration. Together, our work releases Proteus-2k, the latest model performance evaluation dataset, and introduces a practical methodology for translating compute budgets into reliable performance expectations and for monitoring when capability boundaries shift across time.