enochlev/llm-toddler-30

Toddler-LLM (fully pre-trained on CHILDES)

Overview

• Model name: Toddler-LLM
• Type: Decoder-only small LM for toddler-like dialogue
• Status: Fully pre-trained from scratch on child-directed speech, then SFT + GRPO
• Primary language: English
• Target behavior: Coherent, short, child-like responses (approx. 2–3 years old)
• Parameter count: ~155M (see config below)
• Intended domain: Parent–child conversational exchanges

Model architecture

• hidden_size: 672
• intermediate_size: 1809
• num_hidden_layers: 31
• num_attention_heads: 12
• num_key_value_heads: 4
• max_position_embeddings: 256
• vocab_size: 8192
• lower-case-only tokenizer
• tie_word_embeddings: true
• rope_theta: 10000.0
• max input length: 256 tokens

Training data

• Source: CHILDES (filtered, English-only)
• Approx. 14M tokens after filtering
• Pretraining exclusively on child-directed speech (no large-scale adult corpora)
• Data filtering (for downstream SFT/GRPO): caregiver utterance clarity via RM-4 to select top 10% “helpful” caregiver prompts; coherence scoring for child utterances via RM-2

Training procedure

• Stage 1: Pre-training
  • Library: Nanotron
  • Objective: next-token prediction
  • Steps: 25,000 (~64 epochs)
  • Peak learning rate: 0.0025
  • Loss convergence: just above 1.0
• Stage 2: Chat SFT
  • Adapted to SmolLM2 Instruct chat template and special tokens
  • Library: unsloth (response-only SFT)
  • Curriculum on increasingly higher-quality subsets (by RM-2 and RM-4):
    • Top 10%: LR 9e-4, 2 epochs
    • Top 5%: LR 8e-4, 14 epochs
    • Top 2.5%: LR 7e-4, 7 epochs
    • Top 1.25%: LR 6e-4, 3 epochs
  • Reached stable response coherence around loss ≈ 0.45
• Stage 3: GRPO optimization
  • GRPO learning rate: 1e-5
  • LoRA rank doubled vs. Step 1 (rank=128); target modules: [q,k,v,o,gate,up,down]
  • Steps: 1000
  • Reward weights: RM-1 (1.0), RM-2 (0.2), RM-3 (0.5)
  • Selected best checkpoint by manual inspection for coherence + child-likeness

Reward models and data filters used

• RM-1 (Toddler-BERT): BERT classifier for “child-like” style found @ enochlev/childish_behavior_model
• RM-2 (Coherence-BERT): BERT classifier trained with soft labels for coherence
  • Labeled by Llama‑3.3‑70B (batched for consistency), 0.0–1.0 scale found @ enochlev/child_coherence_model
  • Training: 5 epochs, BCEWithLogitsLoss, LR 2e-5, weight decay 0.01, batch size 150, max length 96
• RM-3 (Length PMF): Bayesian-based PMF over sentence lengths from CHILDES, min–max normalized to [0,1], temperature for smoothness; per-sentence score scaled by 1/max(1, number_of_punctuations) to encourage one short sentence
• RM-4 (Caregiver clarity): LLM-scored question clarity; used as a filter only (not a reward) to select top 10% caregiver prompts

Inference and prompt format

• Chat template: compatible with SmolLM2 Instruct-style templates
• Guidance:
  • Input: single caregiver question or brief prompt
  • Output: one short, coherent sentence with age-appropriate vocabulary
• Example prompt format (generic):
  • System: “You are a 2–3-year-old child speaking in short, simple sentences.”
  • User: “Caregiver: What did you have for dessert for lunch?”
  • Assistant (model): “i had some spaghettis.” (Note: spelling/grammar may be age-typical)

Example generations (from evaluation set)

• Caregiver Utterance: What did you have for dessert for lunch?
  • Gold Child Response: a ice cream sandwich
  • llm-toddler-30: i had some spaghettis.
• Caregiver Utterance: What did we do with the toy?
  • Gold Child Response: we put it in his cage
  • llm-toddler-30: it broke.
• Caregiver Utterance: Where is your bag?
  • Gold Child Response: I didn't bring it. It's in the car
  • llm-toddler-30: i got it
• Caregiver Utterance: What did you find?
  • Gold Child Response: look. Elmo
  • llm-toddler-30: i found luke's lightsaber.
• Caregiver Utterance: What did you put on the pizza?
  • Gold Child Response: cheese and cheese
  • llm-toddler-30: i put sause on it

Evaluation

• Human evaluation (19 participants; two robot platforms: Cozmo, Misty II):
  • Perceived age: ~3 years (closer to target for our model)
  • Coherence: comparable across models; higher with Cozmo than Misty on average
  • AoA and vocabulary: humans used broader vocabulary and higher AoA; models remained lower AoA as intended; some SmolLM variants occasionally produced adult-level content
  • Notable: Participant expectations matched Cozmo’s child-like morphology/voice better than Misty’s

Intended use

• Research on child-like conversational agents and human-robot interaction
• Simulated child responses to caregiver prompts

Out-of-scope and limitations

• Not for clinical, diagnostic, educational placement, or childcare decision-making
• English-only; small corpus (≈14M tokens); limited world knowledge
• Can produce off-context, random child-like words; may fixate on certain “baby words”
• May generate age-inappropriate content in rare cases; monitor outputs
• Sensitive to prompt phrasing; best with concise caregiver questions

Safety and ethical considerations

• Use responsibly around minors; ensure adult supervision in interactive settings
• Avoid anthropomorphizing beyond research context
• Respect CHILDES data licenses and privacy norms
• Models may reflect biases or artifacts from child-directed corpora