Nishil Patel

Nishil Patel, Sebastian Lee, Stefano Sarao Mannelli et al.

Reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms have proven transformative in a range of domains. To tackle real-world domains, these systems often use neural networks to learn policies directly from pixels or other high-dimensional sensory input. By contrast, much theory of RL has focused on discrete state spaces or worst-case analysis, and fundamental questions remain about the dynamics of policy learning in high-dimensional settings. Here, we propose a solvable high-dimensional model of RL that can capture a variety of learning protocols, and derive its typical dynamics as a set of closed-form ordinary differential equations (ODEs). We derive optimal schedules for the learning rates and task difficulty - analogous to annealing schemes and curricula during training in RL - and show that the model exhibits rich behaviour, including delayed learning under sparse rewards; a variety of learning regimes depending on reward baselines; and a speed-accuracy trade-off driven by reward stringency. Experiments on variants of the Procgen game "Bossfight" and Arcade Learning Environment game "Pong" also show such a speed-accuracy trade-off in practice. Together, these results take a step towards closing the gap between theory and practice in high-dimensional RL.

Azwar Abdulsalam, Nishil Patel, Andrew Saxe

Does RL post-training merely amplify primitive skills already latent in a base model, or can it compose primitive skills into new higher-level strategies? We study this question in a fully observable rewrite-grammar environment where the pretraining distribution is known and every generated rewrite can be audited. A Transformer is pretrained on primitive symbol-rewrite chains and post-trained on a Trace-based reasoning task with only a binary final-answer reward. RL solves held-out problems that remain rarely solved by the pretrained model even under much larger sampling budgets, while rejection fine-tuning improves early but plateaus. Trace analysis shows that RL reorganizes primitive competence through a phased compositional mechanism: it first strengthens primitive reductions, then discovers valid composed procedures. These include sequential compositions, which collapse ordered chains of primitive contractions, and parallel compositions, which combine independent primitive contractions in a single step. The composed procedures are not isolated samples; they are reused and consolidated into a stable repertoire. Comparing RL with rejection fine-tuning shows that the key difference is not exploration volume but selectivity: RFT produces many shortcut-like rewrites, much of them invalid, whereas RL concentrates exploration into valid reusable structure. Pretraining ablations show that the emergence of compositional strategies is gated not by primitive exposure alone, but by whether pretraining organizes primitive competence into reduction procedures that RL can later compress. The base model provides weak procedural ingredients; RL builds them into reliable higher-level strategies.