To Repeat or Not To Repeat: Insights from Scaling LLM under Token-Crisis

Recent research has highlighted the importance of dataset size in scaling language models. However, large language models (LLMs) are notoriously token-hungry during pre-training, and high-quality text data on the web is approaching its scaling limit for LLMs. To further enhance LLMs, a straightforward approach is to repeat the pre-training data for additional epochs. In this study, we empirically investigate three key aspects under this approach. First, we explore the consequences of repeating pre-training data, revealing that the model is susceptible to overfitting, leading to multi-epoch degradation. Second, we examine the key factors contributing to multi-epoch degradation, finding that significant factors include dataset size, model parameters, and training objectives, while less influential factors consist of dataset quality and model FLOPs. Finally, we explore whether widely used regularization can alleviate multi-epoch degradation. Most regularization techniques do not yield significant improvements, except for dropout, which demonstrates remarkable effectiveness but requires careful tuning when scaling up the model size. Additionally, we discover that leveraging mixture-of-experts (MoE) enables cost-effective and efficient hyper-parameter tuning for computationally intensive dense LLMs with comparable trainable parameters, potentially impacting efficient LLM development on a broader scale.

Paper

References (43)

Scroll for more · 31 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 2hBw7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-01

Summary

This paper conducts an empirical study on the scaling of transformer models under limited training data, which they call a *token crisis*. They show that under token crisis, training T5 models for multiple epochs results in the degradation of pre-training and downstream task performance. They also show that the dataset quality is unimportant for this multi-epoch degradation. They reveal that using dropout can alleviate the multi-epoch degradation. They also observe that the behavior of Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) models can be used to predict the training behavior of dense models, and they use this observation to search for the best dropout rate for the dense model using MoE models.

Strengths

1. This paper is well-written, and the empirical takeaways are clear and useful 2. The *token crisis* is important and is expected to be more severe. It is good that someone studies this problem.

Weaknesses

1. This paper only uses a single task as the downstream task, so it is unclear if the result will hold for other datasets. 2. This paper only studies encoder-decoder models like T5, so it is unclear if the results will hold for other models. Specifically, decoder-only models (like GPT3, Chinchilla, and LLaMA) are more widely used and are the predominant architecture of current LLMs. Still, I think this paper has merits since for focusing on Enc-Dec models, and such a study is still valuable. 3. Some conclusions are too assertive and are not fully supported by the experiment results. - Section 3.1 Insight (3) attributes the performance difference between the two models to dataset size. However, the batch size is also different. I wonder if the key difference is the dataset size or the batch size. - Section 3.3: UL2 degrades more. There should be some statistical significance comparison or variance for the downstream performance based on multiple runs shown in Table 3.

Questions

- Q1. Line 249: balance between regularization and model performance. Doesn't regularization mean less overfitting, which leads to better model performance? What does the balance mean here? Should it be the balance between regularization and training efficiency? - Q2. Does Chinchilla scaling law really hold for Enc-Dec models like T5? Chinchilla law is based on Decoder only models. More extensive experiments (more than the experiments shown in Insight (1)) are needed to verify such a claim. - Q3. The sentence on Line 111 (`When a larger model outperforms a smaller model, it indicates that the smaller model has received sufficient tokens`) is unclear to me. I don't see why the prior situation indicates the latter conclusion. - Q4. Line 153: Why is C4 with cleaning still extremely low-quality? Presentation === Line 244: "We" should not be capitalized. Other suggestion === **The following comment does not influence my rating of the paper, and I know that the authors are not required to compare their work with the following concurrent work**. I am just listing it since I believe that when the paper under review is published, readers will be wondering the following questions. Another very recent work also studies token crisis, "Scaling Data-Constrained Language Models [1]". It will be beneficial to discuss the similarity and differences between that paper and the current paper under review. For example, why does the Chinchilla law need to be adjusted in [1] while the current paper claims that the Chinchilla law still holds?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The limitations are well-addressed.

Reviewer vyo83/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-03

Summary

The paper presents an empirical study on the effect of training on multiple epochs in the data limited regime. They show that Chinchilla's scaling laws holds for T5 style models. The authors show that repeated tokens result in degradation of accuracy. The also study some of the factors contributing to this degradation. Towards the end, they show that MoEs can used a proxy to tune the hyperparameters of the larger models.

Strengths

- a detailed empirical study - the results are carefully studied

Weaknesses

- Some of the conclusions are trivial. For example, larger models are more susceptible to overfitting. - MoE is presented as a way to tune hyperparameters of larger models but it is not clear to what extent. For example, shoiuld MoE always be iso-parameter with the base dense model?

Questions

- Have the authors considered the effect of learning rate in overfitting?

Rating

3: Reject: For instance, a paper with technical flaws, weak evaluation, inadequate reproducibility and incompletely addressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

2 fair

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

No

Reviewer kBHt6/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-05

Summary

The authors propose a concept called token-crisis, which means the growth rate of high-quality text data available is much slower than the growth rate of data required by LLMs. This paper is the first empirical study of the repeating pre-training data for the token-crisis problem. Some major findings are: larger models are more prone to overfitting and would affect downstream tasks; using dropout is an effective way to alleviate the multi-epoch degradation, and setting the dropout rate to 0.2 or 0.3 yields the optimal performance.

Strengths

1. The experiments are very comprehensive, and most of the conclusions are well-supported. 2. Many finds in the paper provide valuable insights to train better open-source LLMs in academia with limited resources. 3. The dropout mitigate token-crisis findings seem to be pretty useful.

Weaknesses

1. Why there are no experiments testing for a smaller number of data repetitions? The smallest number of repetitions in the paper is 2^8, which is very large. 2. The paper seems to not answer the question in the title: to repeat or not to repeat. If we have limited data, should we repeat or not in pre-training? There seems to be no experiment showing how many repetitions are optimal with the same set of data. 3. The dataset-quality-does-not-matter-much conclusion seems to be a bit not-well-supported. If the Wiki data is of higher quality than C4 data, why the downstream performance of Wiki pre-trained without repeating model does not outperform the C4 pre-trained model? Considering there is a recent paper [1] that claims that true high-quality data helps a lot in code generation, I'm a bit unsure about this conclusion. 4. Does model architecture matters? All experiments use T5, an encoder-decoder model. Do all conclusions hold when using a decoder-only model? [1] Gunasekar, S., Zhang, Y., Aneja, J., Mendes, C.C.T., Del Giorno, A., Gopi, S., Javaheripi, M., Kauffmann, P., de Rosa, G., Saarikivi, O. and Salim, A., 2023. Textbooks Are All You Need.

Questions

1. See Weaknesses. 2. Since most of the experiments are done on the C4 dataset, which is known to be low quality, I'm wondering if the conclusions would still hold when using high-quality data. I think there currently is a trend to utilize higher quality data (whether generated from GP4 or hand-crafted) to fine-tune or pre-train smaller LLMs, which seems to obtain very good results.

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The limitation section is pretty honest and actually echoes some of my concerns.

Reviewer m3sH8/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-10

Summary

This paper delves into the token-crisis issue in language models, a situation characterized by performance decline when the same pre-training data is used across multiple epochs. The authors scrutinize several methods of training language models with recurring tokens, encompassing regularization strategies and the use of mixture-of-experts for refined hyper-parameter tuning. Furthermore, they look into the possibilities of creating supplementary data utilizing existing language models and formulating more data-conservative model structures. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the token-crisis issue and its roots, as well as the efficacy of various strategies aimed at alleviating this problem.

Strengths

This paper has several strengths across different dimensions: - The paper focuses an important problem in language modeling, the token-crisis problem, which has not been extensively studied before and has big potential. The authors provide a thorough investigation of the problem and explore various approaches to mitigating it, including regularization techniques and mixture-of-experts for efficient hyper-parameter tuning. - The presented insights have the potential to improve the performance and efficiency of language model learning. The paper's contributions, including a thorough investigation of the token-crisis problem and its causes, as well as the effectiveness of various approaches to mitigating this issue, are significant for the field of natural language processing. - The paper is well-written and well-organized, with clear explanations of the problem and the proposed solutions. The authors provide a detailed analysis of the factors contributing to multi-epoch degradation and the effectiveness of various approaches to mitigating this issue. The experiments are well-designed and the results are presented clearly and comprehensively.

Weaknesses

The first weakness of this work is that all the experiments were conducted on the T5-style masked language modeling, which is opposite to the recently surging GPT-style (i.e., causal) language modeling. And it's unclear whether all the sights/findings are applicable or transferable to the CLMs. Meantime, the experiments were conducted on models with up to 3B parameters and did not explore the performance of the proposed approaches on larger models, such as the GPT3 or its equivalents. This limits the generalizability of the results to larger-scale models.

Questions

Refer to the weakness

Rating

8: Strong Accept: Technically strong paper, with novel ideas, excellent impact on at least one area, or high-to-excellent impact on multiple areas, with excellent evaluation, resources, and reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer SEVe4/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-24

Summary

Data is one of the most important factors for training a well-performed Large Language Model(LLM). There are not enough studies that are deep into the effect of data. This paper addresses this key problem and analyzes the effect from the important aspects including the effect of pre-training, the effect of downstream tasks, and so on.

Strengths

1. Data is very important for LLM. This work analyzes the impact of data from various aspects. 2. The experiments are rich and detailed. 3. The paper is well-written except some typos, for example missing ‘.’ in Line 74.

Weaknesses

1. The backbone of this paper is T5 1.1. And we know that GPT is one of the most important generative models. Hence, it is necessary to add GPT as the backbone. 2. Data is the key factor for LLM. The data volume used in the experiment could affect the conclusion seriously. In this work, the maximum amount of data is 2**35, about 34B data. It is so small data for training LLM that the experiment results may not be reliable enough. The figures of training loss over train tokens from LLAMA 1 and LLAMA 2 show that 300~400B data could display a stable trend (at least 200B). In other words, 2**27(0.13B) tokens repeated many times are different with 1TB tokens repeated the same times.

Questions

1. Please update the experiment results with more data, for example, 400B. 2. If possible, show the performance of GPT-3.

Rating

4: Borderline reject: Technically solid paper where reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation, outweigh reasons to accept, e.g., good evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

2 fair

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Please see the weakness.

Reviewer SEVe2023-08-14

I have read the rebuttal, thanks to the authors for their rebuttal. My score is unchanged, as most of my concerns remain: 1. Both encoder-decoder and decoder-only structures are needed. 2. From the loss figures of LLAMA2 (and LLAMA1), we could see clearly that 400B (at least 250B) tokens could show the tendency.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-14

Official Comment by Authors

Thank you so much for reading our rebuttal. **1. Encoder-Decoder vs. Decoder-Only Comparison:** As shown in the Rebuttal PDF file Figure 1, we have shown that the encoder-decoder is not that different from decoder-only. Also, the real difference is the training objective, as stated in the UL2 paper above. And we took a closer look at the training objective in our paper. **2. Scale of Experiments:** While we concur on the potential advantages of conducting larger-scale experiments, we respectfully maintain our perspective that a 400B scale is not an absolute requirement for acceptance of a transformer scaling paper. - **Learning Schedule Dependency:** The training loss trend greatly depends on the learning schedule. For instance, LLaMA 1 used 4M batch size for 250K steps with a cosine LR schedule but our model used 64K batch size for 500K steps with an inverse square root LR schedule. The large batch size and cosine learning schedule of LLaMA 1 make models achieve smaller learning rate until over 100B tokens, leading to later stable loss. But our model can achieve a smaller learning rate with much fewer tokens, so that, as shown in Figure 5 of this paper, models with enough tokens can achieve stable training loss much faster. - **Addressing Cost and Accessibility:** Second, training a Billion-level model at such a scale is indeed prohibitively expensive for most institutes. There is no doubt we should scale the experiments to a moderate size. We believe that the 3B model on over 30B tokens ablation studies in this paper has been not cheap for most institutes and definitely not trivial (One single run has been around 6 times more expensive than training BERT-Large from scratch and we actually run these experiments for many times in our ablation study.). Few institutes are as rich as the big techs. We sincerely hope our community can be inclusive to invite broader participation and a wider range of insights. We believe this would not only accelerates the pace of transformer scaling research but also nurtures a diverse pool of scaling researchers worldwide.

Reviewer 2hBw2023-08-15

Re: Rebuttal

Thank you for your detailed responses. I carefully read the responses, and most of my questions are answered. I appreciated the supplementary experiments, and I encourage the authors to add them to the final version should this paper be accepted. Still, I do not get the responses to question 7. Reading Section 2 Insight (1) again makes me unsure of what this paper is doing. Here, the paper tries to verify if Chinchilla scaling law applies to T5 when training on C4. However, the experiment here compares T5 of different sizes (6 different models) when training with different numbers of tokens (and I am not sure how the optimal number of tokens is calculated) and training at various computation budgets (according to Line 110). How can we fit the Chinchilla scaling law using the above experiment? In the Chinchilla paper, they either fix the model size and vary the number of training tokens or fix the computation budget (FLOPs) and vary the model size. Last, they use all those models to fit the Chinchilla law. However, it seems to me that all those factors vary in this paper, so it is unclear to me how the scaling law is verified here. Can the authors elaborate more on how they conduct the experiments, how they calculate the optimal number of tokens in Figure 2, and how this supports the claim that "Chinchilla law holds on T5"?

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-15

Re: Re: Rebuttal

We really appreciate your careful review! And Sorry for the confusing statements. We devote to checking "Encoder-Decoder models trained on the C4 dataset exhibit comparable data-hungry behavior as described in the Chinchilla scaling law." Chinchilla's paper figured out the specific scaling law in their paper, but what we want to do is checking a similar trend exists in our setting, and this is to make sure the following experiments are meaningful. Therefore, we used a simplified (cheaper) way: Since T5 models are trained by inverse square root LR schedule instead of the cosine LR schedule used in Chinchilla, to get different checkpoints with varied costs and fixed model size, we do not need to run the same model size many different times by setting the "max_cosine_schedule_steps" before training. Therefore, within a single training run, we can use different checkpoints during training as the models with the fixed model size and varied training tokens. For instance, a T5-Base trained with 5K steps is exactly the same as the T5-Base trained with 10K steps' checkpoint at 5K steps. And similarly, if we consider the case of "fix the computation budget (FLOPs) and vary the model size", we can use a smaller model checkpoint trained with more steps and a larger model checkpoint trained with fewer steps. These two checkpoints consumed the same FLOPs but have different model sizes. We will add this explanation to our submission. Hope this explanation solved your concern well. Thank you so much for your careful review and comments again. Your comments improved this draft a lot!

Reviewer 2hBw2023-08-15

Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal

I highly appreciate the authors' clear explanations. They almost clarify all my questions. The last question is, it seems that this paper tries to say in Section 2 Insight (1) that "the larger the model requires more tokens to reach the optimal loss" and use this to support the claim that "Chinchilla scaling law applies to T5" (in the caption of Figure 2). Can you tell me how I can arrive at a similar conclusion using the Chinchilla law in the Chinchilla paper? And a less minor question is the caption of Table 7 is odd. I assume there is no MoE here?

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-15

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal

Thank you for the questions! Let's use this Chinchilla preprint: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.15556.pdf In Chinchilla paper's Fig 2 (left), we can see larger models require more FLOPs to surpass smaller models. And certainly, for larger models, more training FLOPs do not always mean more training tokens, so we should further take a look at Table 2 (maybe also Figure A3 and Table A3). These results show that the more training FLOPs used by larger models require more training steps (or tokens). In other words, if we do not increase the tokens (or training steps), larger models cannot achieve their optimal training FLOPs. This is "the larger the model requires more tokens to reach the optimal loss" insight in Chinchilla paper. The next question is how many extra training tokens we need. In our paper, we show a linear relationship in Table 2, which is very similar to Chinchilla's Figure A3. And this is used to support our claim "Encoder-Decoder models trained on the C4 dataset exhibit comparable data-hungry behavior as described in the Chinchilla scaling law." For Table 7's typo, yes, there is no MoE. Thanks for pointing it out! We will fix that. And thanks a million for spending time on our paper and even reaching the last page of our Appendix!

Reviewer 2hBw2023-08-15

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal

Thank you. It is excellent to interact with the authors, and I have learned a lot from the discussions. Your explanation clarifies my questions. I will not adjust my initial ratings since they are already quite strong. Last, I would like to point out that a paper does not need to conduct every possible experiment to get acceptance. Focusing on a good topic and conducting a detailed analysis deserve acceptance. **What I want to say is that I don't think the paper should be rejected because it studies the encoder-decoder model instead of the widely used encoder model.** Who knows if, one day, someone will discover that encoder-decoder models are more useful than decoder-only models? For example, I know that there is an ICML paper that says the encoder-decoder model with multitask tuning is better than decoder-only models with multitask fine-tuning. We'll never know. The experiments in this paper are valuable, and the empirical takeaways are clear and useful. And that's what I want to see in a 9-page paper.

Reviewer kBHt2023-08-19

Thank you for the rebuttal. I feel overall positive about the paper. I raised my score to 6. Below are some additional comments: 1. Table 2 seems to suggest that C4 and Wikipedia have the same number of tokens (2^27), which is not consistent with the author's rebuttal, which suggests that the two datasets are not of the same sizes. If that's the case, why not use a subset of C4 that has the same size as Wikipedia data to perform the data quality experiment? It doesn't seem to be able to reach any conclusion on data quality when the two datasets are different in size. 2. About the model architecture comment, I didn't mean that encoder-decoder models are not as good as decoder-only models. I'm just curious whether the model architecture plays a role in the multi-epoch training degradation. The authors could include some discussion on this in the paper.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-20

Re: Official Comment by Reviewer kBHt

We appreciate your reconsideration of the evaluation score! Sorry for the confusing statements in Table 2. Since Wikipedia has fewer tokens in total, even if we use the full dataset, the num of epochs should be larger than 1 from the start, which means the dataset size gap between full dataset training and subset training is smaller. For instance, we are actually comparing: C4($2^{35}$tokens $\times$ $2^{0}$ epoch) vs C4($2^{27}$tokens $\times$ $2^{8}$ epoch) Wiki($2^{34}$tokens $\times$ $2^{1}$ epoch) vs Wiki($2^{27}$tokens $\times$ $2^{8}$ epoch) The noteworthy observation from Table 2 is that despite Wikipedia having a smaller dataset size gap, it experiences a comparatively larger performance degradation. This insight strengthens our argument. Rather than rendering our conclusion incorrect, this observation further reinforces its validity. Sorry again for the confusing statements in the paper. We will add this explanation and the discussion about encoder-decoder vs decoder only in our paper. And thank you again for the great suggestions! Your suggestions significantly improved this draft.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC