Depth and Scale in the Sub-150M Regime: JugnuLM-53M vs JugnuLM-110M
We scale our conventional sub-150M pretraining recipe from 53.5M to 109.7M parameters, holding the method fixed (Qwen3-style decoder with grouped-query attention, RoPE, SwiGLU, RMSNorm, QK-Norm, and a z-loss; FineWeb-Edu data) and changing only the geometry to a deep-and-thin 23-layer x 576-hidden design. The larger model improves across the board -- BLiMP 78.1 -> 81.3, ARC-Easy 51.4 -> 52.5, WikiText-2 byte-perplexity 2.04 -> 1.95 -- and its 81.3% BLiMP essentially matches GPT-X2-125M (81.28) at about 12% fewer parameters. Notably the 110M model achieves this on fewer training tokens (about 8B vs 12B), so the gain is attributable to capacity and depth, not more data. Both models are deli...
| Authors | Dushyant Rajput, Nirdesh Chauhan, Siddharth Kosaraju |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.AI |
| Published | 13 September 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 13 September 2026 |
Connected in the knowledge graph
- altslate/JugnuLM-110MModel · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-110M-R2Model · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-110M-R1Model · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-110M-R4aModel · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-110M-R4bModel · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-53MModel · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-110M-R2plusModel · cited by
- altslate/JugnuLM-110M-R3Model · cited by
Models and datasets referencing this paper
Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.