Cross LLM Comparison
How much does the LLM generation matter for autonomous hyperparameter optimization? This page tracks cross-generation comparison experiments: the same dataset, same hardware, same codebase, same training budget — but different Claude model versions driving the optimization.
All five datasets are now complete. The full cross-generation comparison reveals that Sonnet 4.6 wins 3–2 on absolute val_bpb, discovers architectures Sonnet 4.0 misses, and consistently crashes less — but both models reach comparable performance floors.
| Metric | ClimbMix | FineWeb-Edu | Cosmopedia-v2 | SlimPajama | FineWeb-Edu-High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S4.0 baseline | 1.2969 | 1.4088 | 0.9640 | 1.5410 | 1.3730 |
| S4.6 baseline | 1.3213 | 1.3710 | 0.9806 | 1.5312 | 1.3478 |
| S4.0 best | 1.2959 | 1.3424 | 0.9606 | 1.5259 | 1.3463 |
| S4.6 best | 1.2997 | 1.3416 | 0.9549 | 1.5267 | 1.3345 |
| S4.0 improvement | −0.08% | −4.71% | −0.35% | −1.0% | −1.97% |
| S4.6 improvement | −1.63% | −2.14% | −2.63% | −0.30% | −0.99% |
| S4.0 keeps | 1 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 20 |
| S4.6 keeps | 8 | 18 | 16 | 2 | 13 |
| S4.0 crashes | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| S4.6 crashes | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Winner (absolute) | S4.0 | S4.6 | S4.6 | S4.0 | S4.6 |
Final scorecard: Sonnet 4.6 wins 3–2 on absolute val_bpb (FineWeb-Edu, Cosmopedia-v2, FineWeb-Edu-High). Sonnet 4.0 wins on ClimbMix and SlimPajama — both general text datasets where it started from pre-optimized baselines.
| Metric | Sonnet 4.0 (Mar 19) | Sonnet 4.6 (Mar 22) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best val_bpb | 1.2959 | 1.2997 | Sonnet 4.0 |
| Improvement | −0.08% | −1.63% | Sonnet 4.6 (20×) |
| Keeps | 1 (1.0%) | 8 (6.8%) | Sonnet 4.6 |
| Crashes | 11 (11.0%) | 5 (4.2%) | Sonnet 4.6 |
Sonnet 4.0 wins on absolute val_bpb (pre-optimized baseline advantage), but Sonnet 4.6 found 20× more improvement and 7× more keeps.
| Metric | Sonnet 4.0 (Mar 17) | Sonnet 4.6 (Mar 22) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best val_bpb | 1.3424 | 1.3416 | Sonnet 4.6 (by 0.0008) |
| Improvement | −4.71% | −2.14% | Sonnet 4.0 (more room) |
| Keeps | 17 (19.3%) | 18 (18.0%) | Comparable |
| Crashes | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (1.0%) | Sonnet 4.6 |
Near-identical results via completely different configs — 8 of 10 parameters differ. Proves FineWeb-Edu has multiple near-equivalent optima.
| Metric | Sonnet 4.0 (Mar 20) | Sonnet 4.6 (Mar 24) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best val_bpb | 0.9606 | 0.9549 | Sonnet 4.6 (by 0.006) |
| Improvement | −0.35% | −2.63% | Sonnet 4.6 (7.5×) |
| Keeps | 4 (3.9%) | 16 (16.0%) | Sonnet 4.6 (4×) |
| Crashes | 2 (1.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | Sonnet 4.6 |
Sonnet 4.6's strongest showing. Discovered ASPECT_RATIO=21 (vs AR=32), breaking the AR=32 consensus from all Sonnet 4.0 runs. Zero crashes.
| Metric | Sonnet 4.0 (Mar 20) | Sonnet 4.6 (Mar 25) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best val_bpb | 1.5259 | 1.5267 | Sonnet 4.0 (by 0.0008) |
| Improvement | −1.0% | −0.30% | Sonnet 4.0 |
| Keeps | 3 (3.0%) | 2 (2.0%) | Comparable |
| Crashes | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (2.0%) | Sonnet 4.0 |
The hardest dataset to optimize. Both models find SlimPajama nearly impervious — total improvements of just 1.0% and 0.30%. Sonnet 4.6 went 62 experiments without a single keep before finding a triple-synergy combination (β1, FINAL_LR_FRAC, WARMDOWN_RATIO together). Sonnet 4.0 edges out on absolute val_bpb.
| Metric | Sonnet 4.0 (Mar 21) | Sonnet 4.6 (Mar 25) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best val_bpb | 1.3463 | 1.3345 | Sonnet 4.6 (by 0.012) |
| Improvement | −1.97% | −0.99% | Sonnet 4.0 (more room) |
| Keeps | 20 (20.0%) | 13 (12.9%) | Sonnet 4.0 |
| Crashes | 5 (5.0%) | 2 (2.0%) | Sonnet 4.6 |
Sonnet 4.6 wins decisively on absolute val_bpb (1.3345 vs 1.3463). The signature finding: a spectacular β2 walk — 5 consecutive keeps as β2 decreased from 0.98→0.975→0.970→0.968→0.966→0.964. Sonnet 4.0 had more keeps (20 vs 13) but started from a worse baseline with more room to improve.
FineWeb-Edu-High Configuration Comparison (click to expand)
| Parameter | Sonnet 4.0 | Sonnet 4.6 | Same? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPECT_RATIO | 32 | 21 | ❌ |
| MATRIX_LR | 0.047 | 0.068 | ❌ |
| EMBEDDING_LR | 0.375 | 0.60 | ❌ |
| SCALAR_LR | 0.39 | 0.18 | ❌ |
| WEIGHT_DECAY | 0.10 | 0.08 | ≈ |
| WARMDOWN_RATIO | 0.48 | 0.75 | ❌ |
| FINAL_LR_FRAC | 0.085 | 0.05 | ❌ |
| ADAM β1 | 0.66 | 0.45 | ❌ |
| ADAM β2 | 0.95 | 0.964 | ❌ |
| WINDOW_PATTERN | SSSL | SSSS | ❌ |
| MLP_RATIO | 4.25 | 4.0 | ❌ |
Every single parameter differs. Yet Sonnet 4.6 achieves 0.9% better val_bpb — the largest absolute gap in any comparison.
| Dataset | S4.0 Best | S4.6 Best | Gap | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClimbMix | 1.2959 | 1.2997 | +0.0038 | S4.0 |
| FineWeb-Edu | 1.3424 | 1.3416 | −0.0008 | S4.6 |
| Cosmopedia-v2 | 0.9606 | 0.9549 | −0.0057 | S4.6 |
| SlimPajama | 1.5259 | 1.5267 | +0.0008 | S4.0 |
| FineWeb-Edu-High | 1.3463 | 1.3345 | −0.0118 | S4.6 |
Sonnet 4.0's wins are narrow (0.0038 and 0.0008) and benefited from pre-optimized baselines. Sonnet 4.6's wins are larger (up to 0.0118 on FineWeb-Edu-High) and came despite starting from worse baselines.
| Dataset | Sonnet 4.0 | Sonnet 4.6 | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| ClimbMix | 11.0% | 4.2% | 2.6× fewer |
| FineWeb-Edu | 2.3% | 1.0% | 2.3× fewer |
| Cosmopedia-v2 | 1.9% | 0.0% | ∞ (zero crashes) |
| SlimPajama | 0.0% | 2.0% | S4.0 wins |
| FineWeb-Edu-High | 5.0% | 2.0% | 2.5× fewer |
| Total | 20 / 494 (4.0%) | 10 / 521 (1.9%) | 2.1× fewer |
Sonnet 4.6 crashes half as often overall. The sole exception is SlimPajama, where Sonnet 4.0 had zero crashes.
| Dataset | S4.0 params changed | S4.6 params changed |
|---|---|---|
| ClimbMix | 1 | 3 |
| FineWeb-Edu | 6 | 9 |
| Cosmopedia-v2 | 4 | 10 |
| SlimPajama | 3 | 4 |
| FineWeb-Edu-High | 8 | 10 |
| Average | 4.4 | 7.2 |
Sonnet 4.6 consistently explores 60% more parameter dimensions and builds compositional improvements across all datasets.
| Dataset | S4.0 AR | S4.6 AR | Agreement? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ClimbMix | 32 | 32 | ✅ |
| FineWeb-Edu | 32 | 32 | ✅ |
| Cosmopedia-v2 | 32 | 21 | ❌ |
| SlimPajama | 32 | 21 (inherited) | ❌ (different defaults) |
| FineWeb-Edu-High | 32 | 21 (inherited) | ❌ (different defaults) |
Sonnet 4.6's Cosmopedia-v2 AR=21 discovery propagated to subsequent runs via defaults. Neither SlimPajama nor FineWeb-Edu-High tried to change it — both explored narrower (AR=14, 16) and wider (AR=24, 26, 28) alternatives and found AR=21 near-optimal.
Sonnet 4.6 wins 3–2 on absolute val_bpb, but the margins are small on 4 of 5 datasets. The optimization landscape has natural performance floors that both models can approach. The exception is FineWeb-Edu-High, where Sonnet 4.6's β2 walk found a clearly better optimum.
By every meta-metric, Sonnet 4.6 outperforms:
- Crashes: 1.9% vs 4.0% (2.1× fewer)
- Parameter dimensions explored: 7.2 vs 4.4 per run (60% more)
- Compositional optimization: Consistently builds synergistic multi-parameter improvements
- β2 discovery: Systematic β2 walks (never attempted by Sonnet 4.0) produced keeps on 3 of 5 datasets
Sonnet 4.0 found AR=32 optimal on all 5 datasets. Sonnet 4.6 found AR=21 optimal on Cosmopedia-v2 and the result propagated — neither SlimPajama nor FineWeb-Edu-High reverted it. The "hardware-optimal architecture" depends on the LLM's exploration strategy, not just the hardware.
On FineWeb-Edu, both models find the same val_bpb via completely different configs (8/10 parameters differ). On FineWeb-Edu-High, every single parameter differs yet Sonnet 4.6 still beats Sonnet 4.0. The optimization landscape has multiple basins at similar or different depths.
Both models find SlimPajama nearly impervious to optimization (0.30–1.0% improvement, 2–3 keeps). Its 7-source diversity creates a flat optimization landscape where no parameter adjustment can meaningfully improve the model's ability to compress such varied data in 5 minutes.
-
Would AR=21 improve Sonnet 4.0's results? Sonnet 4.0 never tested AR<32 on any dataset. Running Sonnet 4.0 with AR=21 on Cosmopedia-v2 would reveal whether the AR=21 advantage is model-specific or universal.
-
Can we combine the best insights from both models? The models found complementary strategies (e.g., low WD vs low momentum on FineWeb-Edu). A hybrid config might beat both.
-
Is Sonnet 4.6's β2 walk transferable to Sonnet 4.0 datasets? The β2 walk was Sonnet 4.6's signature discovery. Testing β2<0.96 on Sonnet 4.0's best configs could unlock further improvements.
-
What would a third LLM generation find? Both models left optimization opportunities on the table. Would a more capable model discover entirely new parameter regions?
See individual run pages: S4.6 FineWeb-Edu-High (Mar 25) | S4.6 SlimPajama (Mar 25) | S4.6 Cosmopedia-v2 (Mar 24) | S4.6 FineWeb-Edu (Mar 22) | S4.6 ClimbMix (Mar 22) | S4.0 FineWeb-Edu-High (Mar 21) | S4.0 SlimPajama (Mar 20) | S4.0 Cosmopedia-v2 (Mar 20) | S4.0 ClimbMix (Mar 19) | S4.0 FineWeb-Edu (Mar 17) | Cross-Dataset Comparison