Language Model Scaling Laws

High-quality data is scarce in large language model (LLM) training, yet how to schedule its use jointly with training dynamics lacks theoretical guidance. We extend functional scaling laws by incorporating a data-quality dimension, and solve the joint data-quality and batch-size scheduling problem in asymptotic closed form. The solution reveals two regimes and a dual role of high-quality data. In the noise-limited regime, high-quality data should be used as a signal amplifier: lowering the batch size converts cleaner data into more signal without amplifying noise. In the signal-limited regime, it should be used as a noise suppressor: late placement reduces terminal noise without sacrificing signal accumulation. Existing curriculum-style pipelines primarily exploit the second role by placing cleaner data late, but miss the first role because conventional decay schedules reduce update intensity exactly when high-quality data becomes available. Guided by this, we propose Drop-Stable-Rampup for LLM midtraining: upon the quality transition, drop the batch size, hold it stable to accumulate signal, then ramp up to suppress terminal noise. On a 15B Mixture-of-Experts model midtrained on 108B tokens, Drop-Stable-Rampup improves average accuracy over Warmup-Stable-Decay (WSD) by +1.70 and over Cosine-decay by +2.98, with particularly large gains on mathematical reasoning benchmarks such as GSM8K (+4.23) and MATH (+2.80).

Existing scaling laws for Large Language Models (LLMs), predominantly monotonic power laws, fail to explain emerging non-monotonic phenomena such as catastrophic overtraining and quantization-induced degradation, where performance deteriorates despite increased compute. We propose the Shannon Scaling Law, a unified theoretical framework that models LLM training as information transmission over a noisy channel, grounded in the Shannon-Hartley theorem. By mapping model parameters to channel bandwidth and training tokens to signal power, our formulation explicitly captures the interaction between learning signal and intrinsic noise. This perspective reveals a fundamental Shannon capacity for LLMs: scaling model size or data without preserving a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) inevitably amplifies noise, inducing a transition from monotonic improvement to U-shaped performance degradation. We validate our theory through experiments on Pythia and OLMo2 under perturbations, including Gaussian noise, quantization and supervised fine-tuning on math, QA and code tasks. The Shannon Scaling Law consistently outperforms classical scaling laws and recent perturbation-aware laws, achieving strong $R^2$ scores and accurately capturing loss basins missed by prior approaches. It also extrapolates: fitted on $\leq$6.9B Pythia models with $\leq$180B tokens, it predicts the unseen 12B model up to 307B tokens at pooled $R^2{=}0.847$, while monotonic baselines collapse.

We document inverse scaling in LLMs on forecasting problems whose underlying time series exhibit superlinear growth and tail risk of regime change, a structure common in finance and epidemiology. On these tasks, more capable models produce worse distributional forecasts. The pattern appears on ForecastBench-Sim (FBSim), a contamination-free, simulated-world benchmark we release, in forecasting synthetic SIR epidemics with a matched linear control, and replicates in real-world datasets on COVID-19, measles, housing markets, and hyperinflation. A per-quantile decomposition shows the failure concentrates at the upper tail, which more capable models shift upward to track aggressive extrapolations of growth, while the lower tail stays put. A within-family study of Llama-3.1 shows that both model scale and post-training independently contribute to this effect. Domain knowledge does not reliably rescue calibration. This inverse scaling does not appear on single-threshold metrics common in LLM forecasting benchmarks, reversing the sign of the capability--accuracy relationship on identical outputs. Single-threshold scoring at conventional cutoffs misses the upper-tail cost; tail-inclusive scoring reverses the sign of the capability--accuracy relationship on the same outputs. We recommend that LLM forecasting evaluations use continuous (and unbounded) measures of accuracy alongside bounded binary threshold metrics.

Scaling laws have made language-model performance predictable from model size, data, and compute, but they typically treat the optimizer as a fixed training detail. We show that this assumption misses a fundamental axis of representation scaling: how effectively the optimizer converts added FFN width into utilized spectral capacity. Using eigenspectra of feed-forward network representations, measured through soft and hard spectral-ranks, we find that \emph{the same Transformer architecture realizes markedly different spectral scaling laws when trained with different optimizers}. Holding architecture and width schedule fixed, AdamW exhibits weak hard-rank scaling ($β$=0.44) on rare-token (TAIL) representations where learning is known to be hardest, whereas Muon achieves linear scaling ($β$=1.02) in the same regimes, a $2.3\times$ increase in the scaling exponent. This difference is not reducible to validation loss: AdamW configurations can match low-rank Dion variants in perplexity, under extended training, while exhibiting sharply different spectral geometry, demonstrating that matched loss does not imply matched representation structure. Hard--soft rank asymmetry further reveals that optimizers differ not only in how much capacity is realized, but also in how that capacity is structured across eigenmodes. To disentangle optimizer effects from architectural ones, we compare against architectural interventions (e.g., attention rank and positional encoding), and find that optimizer-induced spectral shifts often exceed the architectural effects. These results suggest optimization as a first-class axis of representation scaling, motivating optimizer--architecture co-design.

Hyperparameter transfer allows extrapolating optimal optimization hyperparameters from small to large scales, making it critical for training large language models (LLMs). This is done either by fitting a scaling law to the hyperparameters or by a judicious choice of parameterization, such as Maximal Update ($μ$P), that renders optimal hyperparameters approximately scale invariant. In this paper, we first develop a framework to quantify hyperparameter transfer through three metrics: (1) the quality of the scaling law fit, (2) the robustness to extrapolation errors, and (3) the asymptotic loss penalty due to choice of parameterization. Next, we investigate through a comprehensive series of ablations why $μ$P appears to offer high-quality learning rate transfer relative to standard parameterization (SP), as existing theory is inadequate. We find that the overwhelming benefit of $μ$P relative to SP when training with AdamW arises simply from maximizing the learning rate of the embedding layer. In SP, the embedding layer learning rate acts as a bottleneck that induces training instabilities; increasing it by a factor of width to match $μ$P dramatically smooths out training while improving hyperparameter transfer. We also find that weight decay improves the scaling law fits, while, in the fixed token-per-parameter setting, it hurts the robustness of the extrapolation.

While scaling laws govern aggregate large language model performance, no scaling law has linked factual recall to both model size and training-data composition. We evaluated 38 models on over 8,900 scholarly references evaluated by an automated reference verification system. Recall quality follows a sigmoid in the log-linear combination of model parameter count and topic representation in training data. These two variables alone explain 60% of the variance across 16 dense models from four families, rising to 74-94% within individual families. The form matches a superposition-inspired account in which recall is gated by a signal-to-noise ratio: signal strength scales with concept frequency and the noise floor with model capacity.

While diffusion has drawn considerable recent attention from the language modeling community, continuous diffusion has appeared less scalable than discrete approaches. To challenge this belief we revisit Plaid, a likelihood-based continuous diffusion language model (DLM), and construct RePlaid by aligning the architecture of Plaid with modern discrete DLMs. In this unified setting, we establish the first scaling law for continuous DLMs that rivals discrete DLMs: RePlaid exhibits a compute gap of only $20\times$ compared to autoregressive models, outperforms Duo while using fewer parameters, and outperforms MDLM in the over-trained regime. We benchmark RePlaid against recent continuous DLMs: on OpenWebText, RePlaid achieves a new state-of-the-art PPL bound of $22.1$ among continuous DLMs and superior generation quality. These results suggest that continuous diffusion, when trained via likelihood, is a highly competitive and scalable alternative to discrete DLMs. Moreover, we offer theoretical insights to understand the advantage of likelihood-based training. We show that optimizing the noise schedule to minimize the ELBO's variance naturally yields linear cross-entropy (information loss) over time. This evenly distributes denoising difficulty without any case-specific time reparameterization. In addition, we find that optimizing embeddings via likelihood creates structured geometries and drives the most significant likelihood gain.

We study group decision-making in artificial societies where the rules of play are themselves subject to collective amendment. Using the self-amending game Nomic, we compare multiple scales across two LLM families and find that collective adaptation does not improve monotonically with model size. Instead, both families exhibit a narrow mid-scale regime that supports sustained rule adoption, diverse amendments, and balanced consensus. Smaller models tend to remain rule-inert, whereas larger models often converge on restrictive voting patterns, and heterogeneous mixed-size groups collapse into veto-driven gridlock. These cross-scale contrasts persist under temperature perturbations and under a shift from unanimity to majority voting, although latent-state structure varies by family and scale. Hidden-state divergence alone does not explain collective performance: high representational divergence can coincide with poor behavioural outcomes. Linear probes reveal regime-selective coupling between latent vote-predictive signals and collective behaviour, but decodability is necessary rather than sufficient for adaptive play. Overall, the recurring regularity is non-monotonicity, not the particular scale at which the optimum appears. Self-amending games therefore provide a controlled testbed for studying collective adaptation in artificial societies beyond raw model scale.

As agent systems scale, skills accumulate into large reusable libraries, yet their scaling laws remain poorly understood. Across 15 frontier LLMs, 1,141 real-world skills, and over 3M routing or execution decisions, we identify two coupled laws. Routing law: single-step routing accuracy decays logarithmically with library size ($R^2{>}0.97$ for all models), with errors progressing from local skill competition to cross-family drift and capture by overly general "black-hole skills". Execution law: before state realization, joint routing is approximately multiplicative, whereas correct execution can improve difficult downstream decisions by about $4{\times}$. A single parameter, the routing logarithmic decay slope $b$, couples the two laws: routing-side fits predict execution-side rescue across models, showing that the same library property controls both pre-execution collapse and downstream recoverability. The laws are actionable: law-guided optimization raises held-out routing accuracy from 71.3% to 91.7%, reduces hijack from 22.4% to 4.1%, and transfers directionally to downstream ClawBench and ClawMark execution settings, improving mean pass rate from 49.3% to 61.6% on ClawBench and from 28.4% to 34.5% on ClawMark. These results show that agent performance depends not only on model capability, but also on the structure, granularity, and exposure policy of the skill library.

We introduce a family of synthetic languages with hierarchical structure -- generated by a broadcast process on trees -- for which the role of context length and reasoning in autoregressive generation can be analyzed precisely. At the heart of our analytic approach is an \emph{exact $k$-gram ansatz} in place of transformers with context length $k$, a substitution we then validate empirically. Using this ansatz we derive explicit asymptotic predictions for distributional statistics of the sequences produced by a trained model, instantiated in two settings. For the \emph{Ising broadcast process} (a soft-constrained language), we prove that the variance of the generated sum scales log-linearly in the context depth and its kurtosis converges to that of a Gaussian -- both deviating from the true language for any sublinear context. For the \emph{coloring broadcast process} (a hard-constrained language) in the freezing regime, bounded-context autoregression produces sequences that, with high probability, are inconsistent with \emph{any} valid coloring of the underlying tree. Together these results imply an $Ω(n)$ lower bound on the context length required to faithfully sample length-$n$ sequences. In contrast, we prove that an autoregressive \emph{reasoning} model with only $Θ(\log n)$ working memory can sample exactly from the true language -- an exponential improvement. We confirm both the lower-bound predictions and the reasoning-based upper bound empirically with transformers trained on the synthetic language; the trained models track our asymptotic predictions quantitatively across a wide range of context sizes.

Model growth from a given checkpoint aims to accelerate training of a larger model, offering potential resource savings. Despite recent interest, warmstarting has seen limited practical adoption in large-scale training. We attribute this to two underexplored factors: (1) an overemphasis on preserving the smaller model's performance at initialization, which constrains operator design for new architectures, and (2) insufficient analysis of how growth interacts with hyperparameters and scaling behavior, compounded by inconsistent growth factors across the literature. We show that preserving the base model's initial post-growth performance is not necessary for strong final performance, and that simple, architecture-agnostic growth strategies can outperform more complex warmstarting operators. Crucially, we empirically identify an upper bound on the growth factor $g$ beyond which training from scratch is more efficient. We observe this across multiple ablation setups. Notably, this limit is also present, but unreported, in prior published results. Across our experiments on dense MLPs and dense language models, we find that a $2\times$ growth factor is the most reliable in yielding convergence speedups, with gains most pronounced under 20 tokens/parameter budgets and diminishing as budget increases. We fit scaling laws over these observations to provide predictive guidance for practitioners deciding when and how much to grow. Together, our analysis provides practical guidelines and empirical limits for model growth.

Scaling laws predict loss from compute but not how capabilities interact. We measure the coupling between reasoning and truthfulness across 63 base models from 16 families and find a regime change invisible to loss curves: below a family-dependent critical scale N_c, capabilities anticorrelate (r = -0.989, p = 4 x 10^{-5} nonparametric permutation test); above it, they cooperate. N_c ~ 3.5B parameters [2.9B, 13.4B] (bootstrap 95% CI), but model size is not the only variable that determines phase. Architecture, data curation, and training recipe each shift N_c independently: curated training eliminated the coupling dip between Qwen generations (0.025 to 0.830 at matched scale), Gemma-4 at 4B achieves coupling 0.871, characteristic of 13B+ standard-trained models, through distillation and architectural innovation, and Phi at 1B matches web-trained coupling at 10B through data curation alone. Width normalization eliminates the anticorrelation across all tested families, supporting an output-projection bottleneck. Internally, 38 of 40 models show zero competing attention heads. A sparse-regression ODE cross-predicts held-out Llama-2 at 5.6% error. The diagnostic requires no model internals -- only public benchmark scores across a model family. The cooperative regime extends to the frontier (r = +0.72, 34 models, 10 labs). A proof-of-concept intervention confirms the bottleneck is exploitable: adding a single truth-direction vector at the identified layer corrects 60% of misaligned outputs in the tax phase with zero retraining -- a surgical, per-inference correction that requires no weight modification. Code, data, an open-source steering CLI for any open-weight model, and an interactive dashboard for phase diagnosis are released: https://zehenlabs.com/cape/.

Modern language models have historically relied on two dominant design choices: subword tokenization and autoregressive (AR) ordering. These design decisions bake in priors that dictate a model's learning. Recently, two alternative paradigms have challenged this: byte-level modeling, which bypasses static statistically-derived token vocabularies, and masked diffusion modeling (MDM), which conducts parallel, non-sequential generation. Their intersection represents a fully end-to-end modality-agnostic generative prototype; however, removing these structural priors incurs a significant computational cost. In this work, we investigate this cost through a compute-matched scaling study. Our results reveal that the performance penalty of byte modeling is not uniform; across scale, the scaling overhead of byte modeling is worse for MDM than for AR. We hypothesize that this disparity stems from context fragility: while AR's stable causal history allows models to naturally rediscover subword patterns, the MDM objective destroys the local contiguity required to efficiently resolve semantics from raw bytes. Our findings from controlled permutation experiments suggest that future modality-agnostic designs must incorporate alternative structural biases to maintain viable scaling trajectories in the byte regime.

As language models scale, the amount of data they require grows -- yet many target data sources, such as low-resource languages or specialized domains, are inherently limited in size. A common strategy is to mix this scarce but valuable target data with abundant generic data, which presents a fundamental trade-off: too little target data in the mixture underexposes the model to the target domain, while too much target data repeats the same examples excessively, yielding diminishing returns and eventual overfitting. We study this trade-off across more than 2,000 language-model training runs spanning multiple model and target dataset sizes, as well as several data types, including multilingual, domain-specific, and quality-filtered mixtures. Across all settings, we find that repetition is a central driver of target-domain performance, and that mixture training tolerates much higher repetition than single-source training: scarce target corpora can be reused 15-20 times, with the optimal number of repetitions depending on the target data size, compute budget, and model scale. Next, we introduce a repetition-aware mixture scaling law that accounts for the decreasing value of repeated target tokens and the regularizing role of generic data. Optimizing the scaling law provides a principled way to compute effective mixture configurations, yielding practical mixture recommendations for pretraining under data constraints.

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.

We introduce a predictive model that estimates the pre-training loss of large models from model size (N), batch size (B) and number of weight updates (K). This is the first loss prediction model that can handle changing batch size. The model outperforms Chinchilla's loss model, a model of the test loss using the batch size and number of tokens, in terms of projecting the loss at extrapolated compute budgets (up to 1000 folds). A natural use of the model is to find optimal N, B, K configurations under explicit and compound resource constraints like time, memory and compute. In our experiments, the model-selected configurations are close to ground-truth optimal. Our work advocates for loss prediction as a better alternative to heuristic-based laws, which are growing in complexity. The implementation is available on https://github.com/chuningxdy/Noisy-Quadratic-System.

Larger language models consistently outperform smaller ones on reasoning benchmarks, yet the reasoning differences underlying this gap remain underexplored. Across benchmarks in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and programming, we observe stable performance gaps: averaged over datasets, Qwen3-32B outperforms Qwen3-8B by 6.43%, while GPT-OSS-120B exceeds GPT-OSS-20B by 7.38%. To study the reasoning differences behind these gains, we develop AdvCluster, an automated framework that identifies questions where the larger model shows a stable advantage, extracts fine-grained advantage descriptions from paired reasoning traces produced by larger and smaller models, and organizes them through semantic clustering with quantitative evaluation and selection guided by a reviewer model. Our analysis yields a systematic taxonomy of larger model reasoning advantages, spanning both common advantages that recur across domains and specialized advantages associated with particular domains. Across these patterns, a recurring theme is Constraint-Guided Reasoning: larger models are better at identifying explicit and implicit constraints, organizing them into structured reasoning, and using them to rule out infeasible paths and verify intermediate steps.

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.

Neural scaling laws establish a predictable relationship between model performance and data or compute, offering crucial guidance for resource allocation in new domains and tasks. Yet such laws are most needed precisely where they are hardest to obtain: fitting one for a new model task pair demands expensive sweeps that typically exhaust the very compute budget the law is meant to economize. This paper poses the research question of how to develop generalizable scaling laws: laws fit once on a well-resourced source domain and reliably transported to new domains where running a full sweep is infeasible, which requires a fundamental understanding of when and why scaling properties change. We address this by identifying the right invariants: scaling laws are preserved under bijective (information-preserving) transformations of the data and modified in predictable, information-theoretically grounded ways under non-bijective transformations that lower its information resolution $ρ$: a single axis along which a law fit in one domain can be transported to another. We validate this across language, vision, and speech, and demonstrate two cross-domain applications: predicting scaling for language models trained on electronic health records from laws fit on general text, and predicting time-series classification scaling under varying levels of noise injection, recovering the data-scaling exponents to within $3\%$ error.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained and evaluated as though perfect reliability is achievable for any task given sufficient scale. We show that this assumption is information-theoretically unjustified. Every generative task has a reliability ceiling that no model can exceed, determined by how much output uncertainty is resolvable from observable context. The gap decomposes into a resolvable component closable with additional context and a subjective component inherent to task ambiguity. Autoregressive generation further degrades this ceiling at a rate governed by the task's dependency kernel, which quantifies inter-token correlations in the output. From these two primitives, we derive a first-principles scaling law where LLM performance is bottlenecked by the scarcer resource: training data or model capacity. This law recovers the Chinchilla scaling law as a special case and provides a structural account of when scaling improves reliability. Beyond scaling, our framework unifies diverse practical phenomena, such as the benefits of retrieval-augmentation and the spectral mechanics of catastrophic forgetting. Our work formalizes the resource-complexity tradeoffs that govern model performance across domains, offering a unified theory of performance limits in generative language models.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has been applied to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning, yet the systematic study of how training scales with task difficulty has been hampered by the lack of controlled, scalable environments. Observed LLM shortcomings in long-horizon reasoning have raised the prospect that they are fundamental to the autoregressive transformer architecture. To address this, we introduce ScaleLogic, a synthetic logical reasoning framework that offers independent control over two axes of difficulty: the depth of the required proof planning (i.e., the horizon) and the expressiveness of the underlying logic. Our proposed framework supports a wide range of logics: from simple implication-only logic ("if-then") towards more expressive first-order reasoning with conjunction ("and"), disjunction ("or"), negation ("not"), and universal quantification ("for all"). Using this framework, we show that the RL training compute $T$ follows a power law with respect to reasoning depth $D$ ($T \propto D^γ$, $R^{2} > 0.99$), and that the scaling exponent $γ$ increases monotonically with logical expressiveness, from $1.04$ to $2.60$. On downstream mathematics and general reasoning benchmarks, more expressive training settings yield both larger performance gains (up to $+10.66$ points) and more compute-efficient transfer compared to less expressive settings, demonstrating that what a model is trained on, not just how much it is trained, shapes downstream transfer. We further show that the power-law relationship holds across multiple RL methods, and curriculum-based training substantially improves scaling efficiency. More broadly, our results demonstrate that LLM shortcomings in long-horizon reasoning are not fundamental to the underlying architecture, and can be addressed by improved training methodology and data.

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

Upweighting high-quality data in LLM pretraining often improves performance, but in datalimited regimes, especially under overtraining, stronger upweighting increases repetition and can degrade performance. However, standard scaling laws do not reliably extrapolate across mixture recipes or under repetitions, making the selection for optimal data recipes at scaling underdetermined. To solve this, we introduce InfoLaw (Information Scaling Laws), a data-aware scaling framework that predicts loss from consumed tokens, model size, data mixture weights, and repetition. The key idea is to model pretraining as information accumulation, where quality controls information density and repetition induces scaledependent diminishing returns. We first collect the model performance after training on datasets that vary in scale, quality distribution, and repetition level. Then we build up the modeling for information so that information accurately predicts those model performance. InfoLaw predicts performance on unseen data recipes and larger scale runs (up to 7B, 425B tokens) with 0.15% mean and 0.96% max absolute error in loss, and it extrapolates reliably across overtraining levels, enabling efficient data-recipe selection under varying compute budgets.

We introduce a finite-size gradient-transport framework for real language-model training, based on five observables $(D,z,β,δ,v_{\mathrm{rel}})$ that separate cascade size, duration, absolute transport, and intensive transport efficiency. We analyze direct raw-gradient measurements from Pico-LM across four scales and 125 aligned steps, together with a five-scale Pythia companion dataset built from 153 aligned checkpoint-difference update fields. The same algebraic closure holds in both families, and both share a near-unity cascade-size backbone, but they occupy distinct transport regimes: Pico-LM shows positive duration scaling and negative intensive-efficiency scaling, whereas Pythia remains near the $D=1$ baseline with only weak positive efficiency scale dependence. Randomized-field controls give nearly matched null floors in the intensive and duration channels, indicating that the contrast reflects different real departures from a shared null skeleton rather than different null calibrations. The families also differ in stepwise power-law compressibility: Pico-LM retains clean duration and efficiency power laws, whereas Pythia preserves the size backbone but shows weaker one-slope compressibility in those channels. External performance associations are correspondingly channel-level, carried mainly by $v_{\mathrm{rel}}$ and normalized cascade duration, while $D(t)$ acts as a shared size backbone without a significant exponent-level performance association. These results support a reusable transport measurement framework without claiming a universal fixed point or a first-principles derivation of neural scaling laws.

Training compute is increasingly outpacing the availability of high-quality data. This shifts the central challenge from optimal compute allocation to extracting maximum value from limited data. The widely adopted Chinchilla scaling law assumes every training token is unique. This limits its ability to guide pretraining decisions in data-constrained regimes. We model the excess loss under repetition with a simple additive overfitting penalty and find that it accurately describes model behavior. Our scaling law yields qualitatively new compute-optimal allocation advice. Beyond a point, further repetition is counterproductive and compute is better spent on model capacity. We show that following our law's recommended configuration improves performance in data-constrained regimes. Finally, because our one-parameter form isolates overfitting in a single coefficient, it enables direct comparison across training configurations. As a case study, we show that strong weight decay ($λ=1.0$) reduces this coefficient by approximately 70%, providing a scaling-law explanation for recent findings that optimal weight decay in data-constrained regimes is an order of magnitude larger than standard practice.

Scaling laws enable the optimal selection of data amount and language model size, yet the impact of the data unit, the token, on this relationship remains underexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate how the information granularity of tokens, controlled by the compression rate (i.e., average bytes of text per token), affects scaling trends. We train 988 latent tokenized models (BLT) ranging from 50M to 7B parameters that enable setting the desired compression rate. This flexibility allows us to study the role of compression rate well beyond 4.57 bytes per token obtained with a popular BPE tokenizer. Our experiments reveal that in compute-optimal configurations, model parameter counts scale proportionally to data size measured in bytes, not in tokens as commonly perceived (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2022). Furthermore, we discover that the optimal compression rate differs from the one obtained with BPE and decreases with compute. These findings generalize to both latent and subword tokenization, as well as to languages other than English, guiding language model developers on tokenization scheme selection for maximal compute efficiency.

Speech-only spoken language models (SLMs) lag behind text and text-speech models in performance, with recent discrete autoregressive (AR) SLMs indicating significant computational and data demands to match text models. Since discretizing continuous speech for AR creates bottlenecks, we explore whether continuous diffusion (CD) SLM is more viable. To quantify the SLMs linguistic quality, we introduce the phoneme Jensen-Shannon divergence (pJSD) metric. Our analysis reveals CD SLMs, mirroring AR behavior, exhibit scaling laws for validation loss and pJSD, and show optimal token-to-parameter ratios decreasing as compute scales. However, for the latter, loss becomes insensitive to choice of data and model sizes, showing potential for fast inference. Scaling CD SLMs to 16B parameters with tens of millions of hours of conversational data enables generation of emotive, prosodic, multi-speaker, multilingual speech, though achieving long-form coherence remains a significant challenge.

We measure how much one recurrence is worth to a looped (depth-recurrent) transformer, in equivalent unique parameters. From an iso-depth pretraining sweep across recurrence counts $r \in \{1, 2, 4, 8\}$ spanning ${\sim}50\times$ in training compute, we fit a joint scaling law $L = E + A\,(N_\text{once} + r^{\varphi} N_\text{rec})^{-α} + B\,D^{-β}$ and measure a recurrence-equivalence exponent $\varphi = 0.46$. Intuitively, $\varphi$ tells us whether looping a block $r$ times is equivalent in validation loss to $r$ unique blocks of a non-looped model (full equivalence, $\varphi{=}1$) or to a single block run repeatedly with no capacity gain ($\varphi{=}0$). Our $\varphi = 0.46$ sits in between, so replacing unique blocks with shared recurrences increases validation loss at matched training compute. For example, at $r{=}4$ a 410M looped model performs on par with a 580M non-looped model, but incurs the training cost of a 1B non-looped one. We demonstrate the utility of $\varphi$ as a diagnostic tool on two case studies: commonly used truncated backpropagation lowers $\varphi$ to $0.38$, indicating that the loop mechanism is poorly trained under truncation, even though validation loss decreases. Conversely, hyperconnections raise $\varphi$ to $0.65$, a genuine capacity gain. Our method separates true loop improvements from training-side gains, a distinction raw validation loss cannot make.

Scaling Transformers typically necessitates training larger models from scratch, as standard architectures struggle to expand without discarding learned representations. We identify the primary bottleneck in the attention mechanism's linear projections, which strictly confine feature extraction to fixed-dimensional subspaces, limiting both expressivity and incremental capacity. To address this, we introduce Nexusformer, which replaces linear $Q/K/V$ projections with a Nexus-Rank layer, a three-stage nonlinear mapping driven by dual activations in progressively higher dimensional spaces. This design overcomes the linearity constraint and enables lossless structured growth: new capacity can be injected along two axes via zero-initialized blocks that preserve pretrained knowledge. Experiments on language modeling and reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that Nexusformer matches Tokenformer's perplexity using up to 41.5% less training compute during progressive scaling (240M to 440M). Furthermore, our analysis of growth dynamics reveals that zero initialization induces a stable convergence trajectory, allowing us to derive a geometric scaling law that accurately predicts performance across expansion scales.

Foundation models have achieved remarkable success, yet their growing parameter counts pose significant computational and memory challenges. Low-rank factorization offers a promising route to reduce training and inference costs, but the community lacks a stable recipe for training models from scratch using exclusively low-rank weights while matching the performance of the dense model. We demonstrate that Large Language Models (LLMs) can be trained from scratch using exclusively low-rank factorized weights for all non-embedding matrices without auxiliary "full-rank" guidance required by prior methods. While native low-rank training often suffers from instability and loss spikes, we identify uncontrolled growth in the spectral norm (largest singular value) of the weight matrix update as the dominant factor. To address this, we introduce Spectron: Spectral renormalization with orthogonalization, which dynamically bounds the resultant weight updates based on the current spectral norms of the factors. Our method enables stable, end-to-end factorized training with negligible overhead. Finally, we establish compute-optimal scaling laws for natively low-rank transformers, demonstrating predictable power-law behavior and improved inference efficiency relative to dense models.