farmingvillein t1_jccqy2i wrote
Reply to comment by camp4climber in [D] Is there an expectation that epochs/learning rates should be kept the same between benchmark experiments? by TheWittyScreenName
> Generally it would be unfair to claim that you beat benchmark results if you train for 8x more epochs than other methods. Benchmarks exist to ensure that methods are on a somewhat level playing field. There's certainly some wiggle room depending on the task, but in this case I don't believe that a lower learning rate and more epochs is novel or interesting enough to warrant a full paper.
Although the Llama paper is a bit of a rejoinder here, since training longer is (arguably) their core contribution.
camp4climber t1_jccy0qa wrote
Yea that's a fair point. These kind of examples certainly exist and often come from large research labs at the very edge of state of the art where the interesting narrative point is scale. The context of specific benchmarks or applications certainly matters.
I still think my point stands in the general case. At least for most of us independent researchers. Ultimately research is about revealing novel insights. Train for longer is not that interesting. But an LLM that fits onto a single GPU, contains 13B parameters, and is capable of outperforming a 175B parameter model is certainly interesting.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments