Neural Scaling Universality: If Exponents Are Fixed, Time to Understand Coefficients

We present a functional form (that we refer to as a Unified Neural Scaling Law (UNSL)) that accurately models and extrapolates the scaling behaviors of deep neural networks as multiple dimensions all vary simultaneously (i.e. how the evaluation metric of interest varies as one simultaneously varies the number of model parameters, training dataset size, number of training steps, number of inference steps, amount of compute, and various hyperparameters) for various architectures and for each of various tasks within a varied set of upstream and downstream tasks. This set includes large-scale vision, language, math, and reinforcement learning. When compared to other functional forms for neural scaling, this functional form yields extrapolations of scaling behavior that are considerably more accurate on this set.

The scaling exponent $α$ in neural scaling laws $L(N) \propto N^{-α}$ is commonly treated as a fixed constant set by architecture and data. We present evidence that $α$ depends systematically on the optimizer. In controlled random-feature regression experiments -- the canonical theoretical framework for neural scaling -- we measure $α$ across five optimizer variants and six spectral conditions. Preconditioned optimizers consistently yield steeper scaling (larger $α$), with the $α$-shift increasing across most of the tested spectral range, peaking near $s = 1.5$, and remaining large at $s = 2.0$. At $s \approx 1.0$ (characteristic of natural language), the full natural gradient achieves $α\approx 0.31$ versus $α\approx 0.12$ for gradient descent -- a $2.6\times$ larger fitted exponent that, within the random-feature model, compounds with each model-size doubling. Whether and how this exponent shift transfers to large-scale LLM training -- where recent evidence suggests the advantage may attenuate with scale -- remains an important open question. Our results imply that scaling-law forecasts should account for optimizer choice, and we provide a spectral diagnostic predicting when advanced optimizers will pay off.

Neural scaling laws approximate a language model's loss as a power-law function of parameter count $N$ and token count $D$. Following Chinchilla-style compute-optimal training, many studies fit scaling laws from runs performed under a fixed tokens-per-parameter (TPP) ratio $k$ and set $D = kN$. We show that this collinear design, combined with the empirically common near-equality of the exponents governing $N$ and $D$, induces an inherent ill-conditioning in the Gauss-Newton least-squares problem: the condition number of the design grows as the inverse square of the gap between the $N$ and $D$-exponents. The scale coefficients become practically unidentifiable, with confidence intervals inflating by an order of magnitude or more, yielding a ``sloppy'' model whose extrapolations degrade sharply off the training ray. We prove this for four scaling-law formalisms and derive a closed-form TPP-diversity threshold that is necessary and sufficient for well-conditioned estimation. Empirically, non-collinear designs outperform collinear ones on held-out splits with a 97.3% win rate across four laws, five corpora, multiple floating point precision modes. We further show the degeneracy is rooted in Jacobian geometry and is not an artifact of the loss function: any smooth estimation objective whose curvature involves the Jacobian inherits the same ill-conditioning.