Every neural-network training run produces not only a model, but also evidence about how models learn. Can these accumulated experiments enable us to predict and compare new training runs before executing them? We study meta-models: models that predict the learning behavior of other models. From this perspective, final-performance prediction, learning-curve prediction, and hyperparameter selection are different queries to the same training response function. We take a first, humble empirical step toward this goal: treating real language-model training records as native numeric data, we find that an off-the-shelf tabular in-context learner, TabPFN, can match or outperform a fine-tuned LLM meta-model in multiple evaluated settings. Whereas recent work fine-tunes LLMs on tokenized configurations at a cost of tens to hundreds of GPU-hours, TabPFN requires seconds of fit-and-predict time without task-specific weight updates. We argue that meta-modeling is better treated as its own numeric modality rather than as a text task for LLMs. Going one step further, augmenting TabPFN with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) further improves accuracy on selected prediction tasks. Finally, we pre-registered a forecast of the Marin Hero Run, a 535B-parameter public training run, whose ground truth is revealed point by point as training progresses, putting meta-model predictions to the test against training outcomes not yet observed at the time of forecasting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peihang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: