1: \begin{abstract}

2: Hoffmann et al. (2022) propose three methods for estimating a compute-optimal scaling law. We attempt to replicate their third estimation procedure, which involves fitting a parametric loss function to a reconstruction of data from their plots. However, we find that their reported estimates are inconsistent with their first two estimation methods, fail at fitting the extracted data, and report implausibly narrow confidence intervals—intervals this narrow would require over 600,000 experiments, while they likely only ran fewer than 500. Two factors explain these findings: firstly, the optimizer used by Hoffmann et al. stopped before convergence due to a poor choice of loss scale, and secondly, the parameter estimates reported in the body of the paper (as opposed to the TeX source) are rounded in a way that results in substantial bias in the predictions of the scaling law. In contrast, our re-derivation of the scaling law using the third approach yields results that are compatible with the findings from the first two estimation procedures described by Hoffmann et al.\let\thefootnote\relax\footnotetext{We thank Nuño Sempere, Tom Adamczewski, Eric Michaud, Tony Wang, Nathan Labenz and Jaime Sevilla for their suggestions.}

3: \let\thefootnote\relax\footnotetext{All our analysis can be replicated using the following address: \url{https://epochai.org/code/analyzing-chinchilla-repo}

4: }

5: \end{abstract}

6: