Abstract:Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling on 11 datasets collected by running a public contest, the Inverse Scaling Prize, with a substantial prize pool. Through analysis of the datasets, along with other examples found in the literature, we identify four potential causes of inverse scaling: (i) preference to repeat memorized sequences over following in-context instructions, (ii) imitation of undesirable patterns in the training data, (iii) tasks containing an easy distractor task which LMs could focus on, rather than the harder real task, and (iv) correct but misleading few-shot demonstrations of the task. We release the winning datasets at <a class="link-external link-https" href="https://inversescaling.com/data" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a> to allow for further investigation of inverse scaling. Our tasks have helped drive the discovery of U-shaped and inverted-U scaling trends, where an initial trend reverses, suggesting that scaling trends are less reliable at predicting the behavior of larger-scale models than previously understood. Overall, our results suggest that there are tasks for which increased model scale alone may not lead to progress, and that more careful thought needs to go into the data and objectives for training language models.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### The Problem the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper attempts to explore and verify whether the performance of large-scale language models (LMs) on certain tasks deteriorates as the model size increases, a phenomenon known as "inverse scaling." Specifically, the paper demonstrates this phenomenon by collecting 11 datasets, showing that larger models perform worse on these tasks. The authors analyze the reasons behind these phenomena and propose four possible causes of inverse scaling: 1. **Strong Prior**: - The model tends to repeat sequences from memory rather than following instructions in the context. - For example, the model might correct spelling errors in the input instead of repeating it as requested. 2. **Unwanted Imitation**: - The model imitates undesirable patterns from the training data. - For instance, in logical reasoning tasks, the model might incorrectly infer that a proposition is false. 3. **Distractor Task**: - The task includes a simple "distractor" subtask, which the model might mistakenly consider the main task. - For example, the model might focus on a simple pattern matching task and ignore the more complex actual task. 4. **Spurious Few-Shot**: - Correctly labeled but misleading few-shot examples lead to worse performance on new tasks. - For instance, the model might incorrectly assess the value of a bet based on a few misleading examples. ### Research Background Large-scale language models (such as GPT-3, BERT, etc.) have shown outstanding performance on many natural language processing tasks, primarily due to scaling laws, which state that model performance improves with an increase in the number of parameters, training data, and computational resources. However, the authors found that this trend does not always hold, and on certain tasks, larger models perform worse. This phenomenon is significant for understanding model behavior and developing more effective training strategies. ### Main Contributions 1. **Discovery of Inverse Scaling Cases**: - Through an open competition, the authors discovered 11 tasks that exhibit inverse scaling. 2. **Identification of Inverse Scaling Causes**: - By systematically analyzing these tasks, the authors categorized the inverse scaling phenomena into the four possible causes mentioned above. 3. **Instances of Inverse Scaling in Literature**: - The authors collected and analyzed other instances of inverse scaling from the literature, further validating their explanations. ### Conclusion Overall, this paper emphasizes the existence of the inverse scaling phenomenon and points out that merely increasing the model size does not guarantee performance improvement on all tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the design of training data and objective functions more carefully to avoid the negative impacts of inverse scaling. This research helps to deepen the understanding of language model behavior and provides new directions for future model optimization.

Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better

Inverse scaling can become U-shaped

Language models scale reliably with over-training and on downstream tasks

Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

Revisiting Neural Scaling Laws in Language and Vision

Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance

Establishing Task Scaling Laws via Compute-Efficient Model Ladders

Scaling Laws for Downstream Task Performance of Large Language Models

Scaling Laws Under the Microscope: Predicting Transformer Performance from Small Scale Experiments

Scaling Laws for Multilingual Language Models

Scaling Laws Do Not Scale

Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher

Larger and more instructable language models become less reliable

Effects of Scale on Language Model Robustness

U-shaped and Inverted-U Scaling behind Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models

Resolving Discrepancies in Compute-Optimal Scaling of Language Models

Scaling Laws with Vocabulary: Larger Models Deserve Larger Vocabularies

Scaling Laws for Precision

Beyond Chinchilla-Optimal: Accounting for Inference in Language Model Scaling Laws

A Hitchhiker's Guide to Scaling Law Estimation