Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) enjoys performance gain by increasing model capacity while keeping computation cost constant. When comparing MoE to dense models, prior work typically adopt the following setting: 1) use FLOPs or activated parameters as a measure of model complexity; 2) train all models to the same number of tokens. We argue that this setting favors MoE as FLOPs and activated parameters do not accurately measure the communication overhead in sparse layers, leading to a larger actual training budget for MoE. In this work, we revisit the settings by adopting step time as a more accurate measure of model complexity, and by determining the total compute budget under the Chinchilla compute-optimal settings. To efficiently run MoE on modern accelerators, we adopt a 3D sharding method that keeps the dense-to-MoE step time increase within a healthy range. We evaluate MoE and dense LLMs on a set of nine 0-shot and two 1-shot English tasks, as well as MMLU 5-shot and GSM8K 8-shot across three model scales at 6.4B, 12.6B, and 29.6B. Experimental results show that even under these settings, MoE consistently outperform dense LLMs on the speed-accuracy trade-off curve with meaningful gaps. Our full model implementation and sharding strategy has been released at https://github.com/apple/axlearn.

Large Language Model (LLM) pre-training exhausts an ever growing compute budget, yet recent research has demonstrated that careful document selection enables comparable model quality with only a fraction of the FLOPs. Inspired by efforts suggesting that domain-specific training document selection is in fact an interpretable process [Gunasekar et al., 2023], as well as research showing that instruction-finetuned LLMs are adept zero-shot data labelers [Gilardi et al., 2023], we explore a promising direction for scalable general-domain document selection; employing a prompted LLM as a document grader, we distill quality labels into a classifier model, which is applied at scale to a large, and already heavily-filtered, web-crawl-derived corpus autonomously. Following the guidance of this classifier, we drop 75% of the corpus and train LLMs on the remaining data. Results across multiple benchmarks show that: 1. Filtering allows us to quality-match a model trained on the full corpus across diverse benchmarks with at most 70% of the FLOPs, 2. More capable LLM labelers and classifier models lead to better results that are less sensitive to the labeler's prompt, 3. In-context learning helps to boost the performance of less-capable labeling models. In all cases we use open-source datasets, models, recipes, and evaluation frameworks, so that results can be reproduced by the community.