Scaling laws guide large language model training by relating compute to cross-entropy loss, and recent work further extends them to predict downstream benchmark performance. However, prior approaches face generalization limitations from two aspects: focusing on benchmark-level performance introduces scenario-specific artifacts, while relying on IID validation loss fails to track capability improvements when training distributions vary. In this work, we argue that downstream scaling should be studied at the capability level, which captures shared skill factors across related tasks while abstracting away benchmark-specific noise. We propose SuperValid, a framework that synthesizes OOD (out-of-distribution), capability-aligned validation data by distilling core concepts from benchmarks within a capability domain and expanding them into diverse, knowledge-rich texts. Extensive experiments spanning 16 benchmarks grouped into 6 capability domains show that SuperValid loss exhibits strong and stable correlation with downstream performance across models of different architectures, scales, and training data distributions. As a training-free metric computable during training without benchmark evaluation, SuperValid enables effective model selection, early stopping, and scaling decisions.

This paper presents a novel extension of neural scaling laws to Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models, focusing on the optimal allocation of compute between expert and attention sub-layers. As MoE architectures have emerged as an efficient method for scaling model capacity without proportionally increasing computation, determining the optimal expert-attention compute ratio becomes critical. We define the ratio r as the fraction of total FLOPs per token dedicated to the expert layers versus the attention layers, and explore how this ratio interacts with the overall compute budget and model sparsity. Through extensive experiments with GPT-style MoE Transformers, we empirically find that the optimal ratio r\* follows a power-law relationship with total compute and varies with sparsity. Our analysis leads to an explicit formula for r\*, enabling precise control over the expert-attention compute allocation. We generalize the Chinchilla scaling law by incorporating this architectural parameter, providing a new framework for tuning MoE models beyond size and data. Our findings offer practical guidelines for designing efficient MoE models, optimizing performance while respecting fixed compute budgets.

This paper poses two critical issues in evaluating base models (without post-training): (1) Unstable evaluation during training: in the early stages of pre-training, the models lack the capability to answer questions as required, leading to unstable evaluation results. This instability makes it difficult to provide solid conclusions to guide the training, especially for key experiments such as data ablation and scaling law. (2) Inconsistency between base and instruct models: base models generally exhibit poorer evaluation performance compared to corresponding instruct models. This gap poses a challenge for assessing whether a base model with better evaluation can truly lead to a better instruct model. To address these issues, we propose Base model Oriented Systematic Evaluation (BOSE), a method specifically designed to optimize the evaluation of base models. Specifically, BOSE introduces two key innovations: In-Context Light-instruction Prompt (ICLiP) for open-ended tasks and Blank-ppl for multi-choice tasks with candidate options, which transforms the standard perplexity (ppl) metric into a fill-in-the-blank format to mitigate early-stage evaluation fluctuations. Furthermore, we are the first to propose Kendall’s rank correlation to quantitatively measure the evaluation stability and consistency. Experimental results demonstrate that BOSE significantly enhances both the stability of evaluations during pre-training and the consistency between base and instruct models, thereby providing more reliable guidance for the LLMs’ training.