Telescopic Language Models

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

One deployed language model must often serve many compute budgets, yet serving each budget still means a separate training or compression run per point. We train a Telescopic Language Model (TLM) to be that continuum: a nested-capacity Transformer supervised by stochastic prefix supervision with a full anchor. At every step, one randomly truncated prefix of the capacity axis is trained against the full next-token target, alongside one full-capacity pass, so the trained artifact is a valid language model at every depth. Two forward-backward passes per step, no architectural change, nothing extra at inference. Fixed-exit suites such as Matryoshka Language Model Suites (MLMS) occupy one point in this design space, and the point has a cost: supervising only a few fixed exits leaves the nested model at chance level everywhere else (perplexity 10^2-10^5 in our baselines). On a 200M proxy suite (20B FineWeb-Edu tokens, identical data stream for all methods), a single TLM run is a valid language model at every one of its twenty layer prefixes, in perplexity and on perplexity-sensitive downstream tasks, reducing the area under the quality-budget curve by 43-44% relative to the fixed-exit suites while matching them at full capacity, at ~12% lower GPU cost per run. The prefix sampling density is a dial: concentrating it on a few depths recovers fixed-exit quality there at the price of the continuum, so the operating points become a training-time choice rather than an architectural one. These results indicate that the training objective, not the nesting itself, is what makes a model elastic.

Sources & References

• Original source
• Full article (PDF)

Comments