LLM
Large language model
A large language model is a deep learning language model trained on very large textual datasets. It is a kind of Model; its complete application or agent runtime is a separate system. [8] [14] Editorial interpretation
On this page
Definition comparison
EU-U.S. terminology
Institutional; language models
The second edition emphasizes deep learning and extremely large text datasets, and includes models that generate text or form representations useful for downstream tasks. [8]
GPT-3 study
Peer-reviewed; a specific experimental scale
Brown and colleagues study an autoregressive model with 175 billion parameters alongside smaller models. Its training corpus mixes web sources, books and Wikipedia; that recipe is an example, not a definition. [9]
Scope
This page concerns learned language models, including text generation and representation uses. The word “large” needs a stated scale and comparison context. [8] [9] Editorial interpretation
Includes
- A trained text-generation checkpoint is a model artifact; adding retrieval, tools and execution control creates a larger application around it. [13] [14] Editorial interpretation
- Representation-producing language models are within the cited institutional usage; generation is not its only permitted behavior. [8]
Excludes and counterexamples
- A corpus alone is training material, not a trained model. A tool-connected assistant is not identical to the language model inside it. [14] Editorial interpretation
- No universal parameter cutoff is established by the sources used here. Report parameters, training tokens and the relevant comparison rather than inventing a threshold. [9] [14] Editorial interpretation
Different usages and open boundaries
- The institutional definition foregrounds textual training. For a multimodal product, specify its language-model component and additional modalities instead of assuming the same definition covers the whole system. [8] [14] Editorial interpretation
- Training a model and conditioning an inference call are different operations: the GPT-3 few-shot experiments add examples in context without gradient updates. [9]
Operational criteria
Repository test: identify the learned model artifact, language task and objective, available training-material evidence, and reported scale. Record unknown proprietary details as unknown. Separately identify any tokenizer, serving system, tools and controller. [14] Editorial interpretation
Concept relationships
Only is-a means a strict subtype. Uses and supports/orchestrates describe composition and control.
An LLM workflow uses an LLM for one or more tasks; many workflows use no language model. [13] Editorial interpretation
Repository working definition
Repository · Proposed / not certified
Use LLM for a learned language-model component at a documented large scale. Avoid reducing the term to corpus size alone or using it as the name for a tool-using system. No minimum parameter count is ratified by the repository. [14]
No consensus decision recorded.
Sources and research gaps
Research notes
Scale gap: the institutional definition supplies qualitative scale, not a universal threshold; a concrete GPT-3 size cannot settle the category for all architectures.
- EU-U.S. Terminology and Taxonomy for Artificial Intelligence, Second Edition
EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council, Working Group 1. Tier 1 / Institutional terminology document
Second edition, prepared for the sixth TTC ministerial in 2024. Printed page 12, Model and Large language model; page 8, Machine Learning. Accessed 2026-10-10.
Context: AI-system terminology for transatlantic risk-management and standards cooperation.
Verification: Original text and publication record checked 2026-10-10.
- Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Tom B. Brown and others. Tier 2 / Peer-reviewed conference paper
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 2020. Abstract; sections 2.1-2.2, model sizes and training datasets. Accessed 2026-10-10.
Context: GPT-3 experiments and corpus; a concrete example, not a universal LLM definition.
Verification: Original text and publication record checked 2026-10-10.
- Building effective agents
Anthropic. Tier 3 / First-party engineering blog
19 December 2024; live page includes subsequent tooling updates. What are agents?; Building blocks, workflows, and agents. Accessed 2026-10-10.
Context: Company-specific distinction between predefined LLM workflows and dynamic agents.
Verification: Original text and publication record checked 2026-10-10.
- Repository terminology guide
Repository internal proposal. Tier 4 / Repository internal proposal; not certified
Repository proposal 1.3 / not certified. Term-specific proposal sections and editorial policy. Accessed 2026-10-12.
Context: Internal proposals and editorial interpretations, not external consensus.
Verification: Versions 1.1 and 1.2 add the Schema proposal and the flow/governance experimental example while preserving prior proposal sections. All remain unratified; no adoption decision claimed. Version 1.3 changes branding and certification scope only; it does not certify any proposal.
Revision record
- 1.0 / 2026-10-10
Researched and rewritten with attributed definitions, typed relations and an unratified Repository proposal.
- 1.1 / 2026-10-12
Scope the working definition and certification labels to this repository under Open AI Glossary. Citations and proposed status remain unchanged.