Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Sign up

Cross Dataset Comparison

Dave Graham edited this page Mar 24, 2026 · 11 revisions

Cross-Dataset Comparison — Deep Dive

Five datasets tested on the same hardware (Apple M5 Max, 64 GB) with autonomous LLM-driven optimization. All runs converge to AR=32 architecture. Three of five converge to the exact same hyperparameters — and both FineWeb-Edu variants diverge, proving that educational text genuinely needs different optimization, not just a different starting point.

Cross-Dataset Comparison

Results Summary

Climbmix (Mar 19) FineWeb-Edu (Mar 17) FineWeb-Edu-High (Mar 21) Cosmopedia-v2 (Mar 20) SlimPajama (Mar 20)
Best val_bpb 1.296 1.342 1.346 0.961 1.526
Baseline 1.297 (pre-optimized) 1.409 (defaults) 1.373 (pre-optimized) 0.964 (pre-optimized) 1.541 (pre-optimized)
Improvement −0.08% −4.7% −1.97% −0.35% −1.0%
Experiments 101 88 101 103 101
Keep rate 1.0% (1/101) 19.3% (17/88) 20.0% (20/101) 3.9% (4/103) 3.0% (3/101)
Crash rate 10.9% 2.3% 5.0% 1.9% 0.0%

Note on baselines: Climbmix, Cosmopedia-v2, SlimPajama, and FineWeb-Edu-High all started from pre-optimized baselines (AR=32, EMBEDDING_LR=0.4, SCALAR_LR=0.4 — carried from prior branch runs). Only the original FineWeb-Edu started from full defaults.

The key comparison: FineWeb-Edu-High started from the same pre-optimized baseline as the other three, yet still found 20 keeps and 1.97% improvement — proving the divergence is data-dependent.

Architecture Convergence

All five datasets converge to AR=32. This is the defining finding of the multi-dataset comparison.

Parameter Default Climbmix FineWeb-Edu FineWeb-Edu-High Cosmopedia-v2 SlimPajama
ASPECT_RATIO 64 32 32 32 32 32
Peak Memory 26.1 GB 15.5 GB 15.5 GB 13.7 GB 15.5 GB 13.7 GB
tok/sec ~30K ~58K ~58K ~57K ~59K ~54.6K
Training Steps ~288 ~530 ~530 ~525 ~543 ~501

At AR=32, the model drops from ~50M to ~25M parameters, halving memory and doubling throughput. The ×ばつ more gradient steps in the 5-minute budget more than compensate for reduced per-step capacity. This is a hardware-optimal configuration for the M5 Max at this model scale — not dataset-specific.

Why AR=32 Works

The autoresearch loop is time-budgeted (5 minutes). The tradeoff:

  • AR=64 (default): ~50M params, ~30K tok/sec, ~288 steps, 26.1 GB
  • AR=32 (optimal): ~25M params, ~58K tok/sec, ~530 steps, 15.5 GB

The narrower model runs ×ばつ more gradient updates. For all five data distributions — raw web crawl, educational text (two quality tiers), synthetic textbooks, and deduplicated web mix — the extra gradient steps outweigh the reduced model width. This finding is hardware-specific and would likely differ on GPUs with different compute/memory ratios.

Hyperparameter Convergence

The headline finding: two distinct clusters emerge. Three datasets converge to one configuration, and both FineWeb-Edu variants form a second cluster — confirming a genuine data-dependent split.

Parameter Default Climbmix Cosmopedia-v2 SlimPajama FineWeb-Edu FineWeb-Edu-High
MATRIX_LR 0.04 0.0435 0.0435 0.0435 0.053 0.047
EMBEDDING_LR 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.59 0.375
SCALAR_LR 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.39
UNEMBEDDING_LR 0.004 0.0041 0.0033 0.0033 0.003 0.0032
WEIGHT_DECAY 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.10
WARMDOWN_RATIO 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.47 0.48
ADAM_BETAS β1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8* 0.66
FINAL_LR_FRAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0* 0.085
MLP_RATIO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0* 4.25

Bold values highlight the dominant cluster. *Starred FineWeb-Edu values were not explored (the agent focused on other parameters from the defaults starting point).

Two Clusters, One Hardware

Cluster A — "General text" (Climbmix, Cosmopedia-v2, SlimPajama): These three datasets — despite being radically different (raw web crawl, synthetic textbooks, deduplicated web mix) — converge to nearly identical configs. The optimization landscape for general text is flat and hardware-determined.

Cluster B — "Educational text" (FineWeb-Edu, FineWeb-Edu-High): Both FineWeb-Edu variants diverge from the cluster in consistent directions: lower weight decay, lower warmdown ratio, and shifted learning rate ratios. FineWeb-Edu-High additionally found lower momentum (β1=0.66) and non-zero final LR (0.085) — parameters the original FineWeb-Edu run didn't explore due to its different optimization path.

The Path-Dependence Question — Answered

The original cross-dataset comparison raised this question:

Would FineWeb-Edu converge to the same config if re-run from the pre-optimized baseline?

Answer: No. FineWeb-Edu-High started from the exact same baseline as Climbmix, Cosmopedia-v2, and SlimPajama — and moved every single parameter away from the cluster values. The 20% keep rate (vs 1–4% for cluster datasets) confirms the optimization landscape is genuinely different for educational text.

However, the specific values are partially path-dependent. The two FineWeb-Edu variants found different learning rate ratios (MATRIX_LR 0.053 vs 0.047, EMBEDDING_LR 0.59 vs 0.375), showing that different starting points lead to different local optima within the "educational text" basin.

What Makes Educational Text Different?

The consistent divergence patterns across both FineWeb-Edu runs reveal:

  1. Lower regularization (WEIGHT_DECAY 0.10–0.12 vs 0.15–0.2): Educational text is information-dense with diverse vocabulary. The model needs more freedom to fit complex patterns.

  2. Shorter warmdown (WARMDOWN_RATIO 0.47–0.48 vs 0.5): The model benefits from maintaining higher learning rates longer — educational content has diverse topics that benefit from continued exploration.

  3. Lower momentum (β1 0.66 vs 0.8, from FineWeb-Edu-High): Educational text produces more diverse gradients. Lower momentum prevents over-smoothing these signals.

  4. Non-zero final LR (FINAL_LR_FRAC 0.085, from FineWeb-Edu-High): Long-tail knowledge in educational content benefits from continued gradient updates at the end of training.

Improvement Dynamics

Metric Climbmix FineWeb-Edu FineWeb-Edu-High Cosmopedia-v2 SlimPajama
Starting point Pre-optimized Full defaults Pre-optimized Pre-optimized Pre-optimized
Total improvement −0.08% −4.7% −1.97% −0.35% −1.0%
Keep rate 1.0% 19.3% 20.0% 3.9% 3.0%
Biggest gain UNEMBED_LR ↑ AR 40→32 MATRIX_LR 0.0435→0.05 DEVICE_BATCH ↓ DEVICE_BATCH ↓
Late breakthrough? No Yes (exp34) Yes (exp67+) Yes (exp98–102) No
Agent focus Validation search Arch + fine-tune Systematic LR rebalancing MATRIX_LR obsession Exhaustive sweep
Crashes 11 (10.9%) 2 (2.3%) 5 (5.0%) 2 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)

FineWeb-Edu-High: The Decisive Experiment

Starting from the pre-optimized baseline, the agent systematically moved every parameter — MATRIX_LR up, then all other LRs down, then WEIGHT_DECAY down, then FINAL_LR_FRAC up, then ADAM_BETAS down, then WARMDOWN_RATIO down, then MLP_RATIO up. Each change was small and validated, producing 20 keeps across 5 optimization phases. This is the highest keep rate of any pre-optimized run — ×ばつ higher than the next (Cosmopedia at 3.9%).

FineWeb-Edu: The Fresh-Start Advantage

Starting from full defaults, FineWeb-Edu had the most room to improve. The agent found 17 keeps across three phases: optimization tuning → architecture breakthrough → fine-tuning. The AR 64→32 reduction at exp34 was the largest single improvement in any run (−0.036 val_bpb).

Cluster Datasets: Near-Optimal Baselines

Climbmix (1 keep), Cosmopedia-v2 (4 keeps), and SlimPajama (3 keeps) all started from pre-optimized baselines and confirmed they were already near-optimal. The low keep rates reflect the quality of the starting config, not easier optimization landscapes.

Dataset Compressibility

Dataset Type Best val_bpb Interpretation
Cosmopedia-v2 Synthetic textbooks 0.961 Highly compressible — consistent style, generated by single model
Climbmix Raw web crawl 1.296 Moderate — diverse sources, varied quality
FineWeb-Edu Educational web (score ≥ 3) 1.342 Hard — diverse topics filtered for quality
FineWeb-Edu-High Educational web (score ≥ 4) 1.346 Hard — stricter filter, similar difficulty
SlimPajama Deduplicated web mix 1.526 Hardest — diverse multi-source with dedup

FineWeb-Edu and FineWeb-Edu-High have nearly identical compressibility (1.342 vs 1.346) despite the higher quality threshold. The stricter filter (score ≥ 4 vs ≥ 3) selects for more information-dense text but doesn't fundamentally change the compression difficulty. Both are harder to compress than raw web crawl (Climbmix) — the quality filter selects information-dense documents with diverse vocabulary, while raw web crawl includes repetitive boilerplate that's easier to predict.

SlimPajama remains the hardest to compress. Despite being a cleaner, deduplicated subset of RedPajama, its source diversity (CommonCrawl, C4, GitHub, Wikipedia, Books, ArXiv, StackExchange) creates a broad distribution that's harder to model than any single-source dataset.

Best Configurations Side-by-Side

Cluster A — General Text

Climbmix

ASPECT_RATIO = 32, MATRIX_LR = 0.0435, EMBEDDING_LR = 0.4
UNEMBEDDING_LR = 0.0041, SCALAR_LR = 0.4, WEIGHT_DECAY = 0.2
WARMDOWN_RATIO = 0.5 # mem: 15.5 GB | steps: 530 | MFU: 17.9%

Cosmopedia-v2

ASPECT_RATIO = 32, MATRIX_LR = 0.0435, EMBEDDING_LR = 0.4
UNEMBEDDING_LR = 0.0033, SCALAR_LR = 0.4, WEIGHT_DECAY = 0.15
WARMDOWN_RATIO = 0.5 # mem: 15.5 GB | steps: 543 | MFU: 18.3%

SlimPajama

ASPECT_RATIO = 32, MATRIX_LR = 0.0435, EMBEDDING_LR = 0.4
UNEMBEDDING_LR = 0.0033, SCALAR_LR = 0.4, WEIGHT_DECAY = 0.15
WARMDOWN_RATIO = 0.5 # mem: 13.7 GB | steps: 501 | MFU: 16.9%

Cluster B — Educational Text

FineWeb-Edu (from defaults)

ASPECT_RATIO = 32, MATRIX_LR = 0.053, EMBEDDING_LR = 0.59
UNEMBEDDING_LR = 0.003, SCALAR_LR = 0.3, WEIGHT_DECAY = 0.12
WARMDOWN_RATIO = 0.47 # mem: 15.5 GB | steps: ~530 | MFU: ~18%

FineWeb-Edu-High (from pre-optimized)

ASPECT_RATIO = 32, MATRIX_LR = 0.047, EMBEDDING_LR = 0.375
UNEMBEDDING_LR = 0.0032, SCALAR_LR = 0.39, WEIGHT_DECAY = 0.10
WARMDOWN_RATIO = 0.48, FINAL_LR_FRAC = 0.085, ADAM_BETAS = (0.66, 0.95)
MLP_RATIO = 4.25 # mem: 13.7 GB | steps: 525 | MFU: 17.7%

Note: Cosmopedia-v2 and SlimPajama have identical optimal hyperparameters despite being fundamentally different data sources (synthetic textbooks vs. deduplicated web mix). Both FineWeb-Edu variants diverge from the cluster but also from each other — indicating multiple local optima within the "educational text" optimization basin.

Implications

  1. Architecture is hardware-determined. AR=32 is optimal across all five datasets on M5 Max. This finding is robust across general text, educational text, synthetic text, and code-adjacent content.

  2. Most optimization hyperparameters are hardware-determined for general text. MATRIX_LR, EMBEDDING_LR, SCALAR_LR, and WARMDOWN_RATIO converge to identical values across 3/5 datasets (the non-educational ones).

  3. Educational text is genuinely different. Both FineWeb-Edu variants diverge from the cluster — the original from defaults and the high-quality variant from pre-optimized baselines. The divergence direction is consistent: lower regularization, lower momentum, non-zero final LR, shifted learning rate ratios.

  4. The path-dependence question is resolved. FineWeb-Edu's divergence is data-dependent (educational text needs different HPs), but the specific values are partially path-dependent (the two variants found different learning rate ratios). The direction of divergence is real; the exact magnitude depends on starting point.

  5. FineWeb-Edu-High discovered new parameters. ADAM_BETAS β1 (0.66), FINAL_LR_FRAC (0.085), and MLP_RATIO (4.25) were not explored by other runs. These parameters may represent additional optimization opportunities for educational text — or for all datasets if tested.

  6. Keep rate is a signal of optimization landscape. Educational text: 19–20% keep rate. General text: 1–4% keep rate. The educational text optimization landscape has more meaningful gradients from the cluster starting point, confirming it occupies a different basin.

  7. Dataset compressibility is independent of optimal hyperparameters. val_bpb ranges from 0.961 to 1.526 across datasets, but three of five converge to the same config. The model adapts to data difficulty through learned weights, not training hyperparameters — except for educational text, which requires a fundamentally different training regime.


Cross-Generation LLM Comparison

These results were all generated by Claude Sonnet 4.0. A parallel series using Claude Sonnet 4.6 has completed four of five datasets (score: Sonnet 4.6 leads 2-1-1):

  • ClimbMix: Sonnet 4.0 wins on absolute val_bpb (had pre-optimized baseline advantage).
  • FineWeb-Edu: Sonnet 4.6 wins marginally (1.3416 vs 1.3424) via completely different configuration.
  • Cosmopedia-v2: Sonnet 4.6 wins decisively — found ASPECT_RATIO=21 (vs AR=32), 0.9549 vs 0.9606, 16 keeps vs 4. Challenges the universal AR=32 consensus.
  • SlimPajama: Sonnet 4.0 wins (1.5259 vs 1.5267). Both models barely improve — the optimization landscape is flat.

One dataset remaining: FineWeb-Edu-High — the tiebreaker.

Read the full Cross-LLM Comparison →


See individual run pages: Sonnet 4.6 SlimPajama (Mar 24) | Sonnet 4.6 Cosmopedia-v2 (Mar 24) | Sonnet 4.6 FineWeb-Edu (Mar 22) | Sonnet 4.6 ClimbMix (Mar 22) | FineWeb-Edu-High (Mar 21) | SlimPajama (Mar 20) | Cosmopedia-v2 (Mar 20) | Climbmix (Mar 19) | FineWeb-Edu (Mar 17) | Climbmix (Mar 16, legacy)

Clone this wiki locally

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /