cs.AIJun 11, 2026

A Quantitative Experimental Repeated Measures Study of Training Dynamics in a Small Llama Style Language Model Under a Compute-Aware Token Budget

Authors: Joe Dwyer

Organizations: Department of Computer Information Science ECPI University Virginia Beach, VA 23462

Abstract

This study examines training dynamics in a small Llama-style language model trained under a fixed, compute-constrained token budget. Rather than evaluating efficiency solely through endpoint performance, the study uses a quantitative experimental repeated measures design to analyze how validation loss, validation perplexity, rolling volatility, backslide behavior, spike behavior, and between-seed variability change across token-based training intervals. Six independent training runs were conducted on a 4.26-million-parameter model using the TinyStories corpus, CPU-based full-precision training, and a target budget of approximately 20 million cumulative training tokens. Metrics were collected across 21 intervals, producing 126 seed-by-interval observations. Repeated measures ANOVA showed statistically significant interval effects for validation loss, validation perplexity, and rolling volatility. Descriptive trajectories revealed rapid early improvement followed by non-monotonic degradation during later training intervals. Mean validation loss decreased from 8.3552 at initialization to 2.7996 near 4 million tokens, but increased to 3.9010 by the final checkpoint. Validation perplexity followed the same pattern, falling sharply early in training before rising later. Derived telemetry further showed recurrent validation-loss backslides and no interval-summary evidence of a stable phase under the predefined criteria. These findings suggest that compute-aware language model evaluation should examine training trajectories rather than endpoint metrics alone. In constrained compute settings, additional token exposure may increase computational cost without producing proportional generalization gains, and interval-level telemetry can reveal instability, regression, and diminishing returns that final metrics may obscure.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 31, 2026cs.LG

When Data Is Scarce: Scaling Sparse Language Models with Repeated Training

Scaling laws for dense LLMs under infinite data are well explored, but how sparsity interacts with limited data is not. In this work, we study sparse training in data-constrained regimes where limited unique tokens require multi-epoch training. Our experiments span models up to 1.92B parameters in the fitting set, sparsity up to 93.75%, unique data budgets up to 2.6B tokens, and total training tokens up to 41.6B over 16 epochs; we further validate extrapolation on held-out dense-equivalent models up to 7.68B parameters. We find that: 1. Sparse scaling in data-limited settings: We introduce a scaling law that models loss as a function of active parameters, unique tokens, data repetition, and sparsity, accurately predicting performance across compute and data budgets. 2. Delayed data saturation: sparse training postpones diminishing returns from repeated data, making multi-epoch training more effective. 3. Resource trade-offs: With fixed data, loss-optimal sparsity is moderate ~ 50%, while compute-optimal sparsity is higher and grows with data scale. Overall, sparsity is not just a tool for efficiency, but a mechanism for improving scaling trade-offs under data scarcity. Our code is available at: https://github.com/boqian333/sparse-dc-scaling.
Boqian Wu, Qiao Xiao, Patrik Okanovic +6
Hours-Long Classifier Training PhaseScaling LawsData ScarcityLarge Language
AskPDF
Jun 23, 2026cs.LG

Internal Data Repetition Destroys Language Models

Language models are running out of high-quality training data, and even aggressively deduplicated corpora retain some amount of repetition. Earlier controlled studies predated Chinchilla-style scaling laws and could only measure the cost of repetition indirectly. We revisit repetition in the Chinchilla era, using a fitted no-repetition scaling law to report Compute-Equivalent Gain and Compute-Equivalent Loss. We show that under this modernized paradigm, repetition damage is systematic in three ways. First, holding compute allocated to repeated data constant, eval loss peaks at an intermediate repeat count \Rep\Rep; repeating a moderately sized subset a moderate number of times damages performance more than repeating a large subset a few times or a small subset many times. Second, the location of this peak is well-fit by a power law in model size; this scaling law reveals that the most damaging number of repeated data grows more quickly than compute. Finally, when repeated documents consume 10% of the FLOPs budget in a controlled exact-document repetition setting, the compute-equivalent loss can be large: on FineWeb-Edu-Dedup, the most damaging repeat count for a Qwen3-style 344M-parameter model at \OT=1\OT=1 matches the loss of a no-repetition run using 67% of the FLOPs. We demonstrate that these phenomena are not language-model-specific, and can be analytically understood in a simple statistical model: a misspecified linear regression with verbatim duplicates reproduces the same qualitative loss peak, quantifying how such peaks can arise from a statistical tradeoff between memorization and generalization. Our findings add precision to the study of duplication in language models, allowing practitioners to quantify the wasted compute incurred by the presence and repeat structure of duplicates in pretraining corpora.
Jessica Chudnovsky, Joshua Kazdan, Noam Levi +6
RepetitionHours-Long Classifier Training PhaseScaling LawsRecurrent Model
AskPDF
Jun 16, 2026cs.AI

How Inference Compute Shapes Frontier LLM Evaluation

AI evaluations are shifting toward harder tasks that benefit from longer trajectories involving tool use and iterative problem solving. As a result, performance is increasingly sensitive to the amount and allocation of compute available at test time ("inference compute"). Yet many evaluations still report performance at a single restrictive budget, meaning that low scores may reflect the evaluation setup rather than the model's underlying capability. To test this, we evaluate up to 12 frontier language models on seven challenging benchmarks spanning software engineering, mathematics, medicine, and cybersecurity. We use a controlled setup combining three simple inference-scaling interventions: larger token budgets, context compaction, and repeated submission attempts, guided either by the model itself or by minimal correctness feedback. We find three main results. First, larger token budgets substantially improve performance on benchmarks across multiple domains, including cybersecurity, FrontierMath, Humanity's Last Exam, and TerminalBench. Second, fixed-budget evaluations can increasingly understate frontier capability as models advance. Newer models reach higher performance at large budgets, where they unlock harder tasks and solve them more reliably. Third, benchmarks differ in which inference-scaling methods help most: repeated submission broadly improves performance, but the value of larger token budgets, external feedback, and parallel attempts varies by benchmark. Overall, our results show that benchmark scores are protocol-dependent. We therefore argue that evaluations should report capability as a function of inference-time compute, specify protocol choices explicitly, and compare model generations over a large shared compute range at matched budgets, especially in safety- or policy-relevant settings.
Jessica McFadyen, Ole Jorgensen, Harry Coppock +2
Topic pending
AskPDF