Mason Kamb

Jamie Simon, Daniel Kunin, Alexander Atanasov et al.

In this paper, we make the case that a scientific theory of deep learning is emerging. By this we mean a theory which characterizes important properties and statistics of the training process, hidden representations, final weights, and performance of neural networks. We pull together major strands of ongoing research in deep learning theory and identify five growing bodies of work that point toward such a theory: (a) solvable idealized settings that provide intuition for learning dynamics in realistic systems; (b) tractable limits that reveal insights into fundamental learning phenomena; (c) simple mathematical laws that capture important macroscopic observables; (d) theories of hyperparameters that disentangle them from the rest of the training process, leaving simpler systems behind; and (e) universal behaviors shared across systems and settings which clarify which phenomena call for explanation. Taken together, these bodies of work share certain broad traits: they are concerned with the dynamics of the training process; they primarily seek to describe coarse aggregate statistics; and they emphasize falsifiable quantitative predictions. We argue that the emerging theory is best thought of as a mechanics of the learning process, and suggest the name learning mechanics. We discuss the relationship between this mechanics perspective and other approaches for building a theory of deep learning, including the statistical and information-theoretic perspectives. In particular, we anticipate a symbiotic relationship between learning mechanics and mechanistic interpretability. We also review and address common arguments that fundamental theory will not be possible or is not important. We conclude with a portrait of important open directions in learning mechanics and advice for beginners. We host further introductory materials, perspectives, and open questions at learningmechanics.pub.

Mason Kamb, Surya Ganguli

We obtain an analytic, interpretable and predictive theory of creativity in convolutional diffusion models. Indeed, score-matching diffusion models can generate highly original images that lie far from their training data. However, optimal score-matching theory suggests that these models should only be able to produce memorized training examples. To reconcile this theory-experiment gap, we identify two simple inductive biases, locality and equivariance, that: (1) induce a form of combinatorial creativity by preventing optimal score-matching; (2) result in fully analytic, completely mechanistically interpretable, local score (LS) and equivariant local score (ELS) machines that, (3) after calibrating a single time-dependent hyperparameter can quantitatively predict the outputs of trained convolution only diffusion models (like ResNets and UNets) with high accuracy (median $r^2$ of $0.95, 0.94, 0.94, 0.96$ for our top model on CIFAR10, FashionMNIST, MNIST, and CelebA). Our model reveals a locally consistent patch mosaic mechanism of creativity, in which diffusion models create exponentially many novel images by mixing and matching different local training set patches at different scales and image locations. Our theory also partially predicts the outputs of pre-trained self-attention enabled UNets (median $r^2 \sim 0.77$ on CIFAR10), revealing an intriguing role for attention in carving out semantic coherence from local patch mosaics.

Haining Pan, James V. Roggeveen, Erez Berg et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable progress in coding and math problem-solving, but evaluation on advanced research-level problems in hard sciences remains scarce. To fill this gap, we present CMT-Benchmark, a dataset of 50 problems covering condensed matter theory (CMT) at the level of an expert researcher. Topics span analytical and computational approaches in quantum many-body, and classical statistical mechanics. The dataset was designed and verified by a panel of expert researchers from around the world. We built the dataset through a collaborative environment that challenges the panel to write and refine problems they would want a research assistant to solve, including Hartree-Fock, exact diagonalization, quantum/variational Monte Carlo, density matrix renormalization group (DMRG), quantum/classical statistical mechanics, and model building. We evaluate LLMs by programmatically checking solutions against expert-supplied ground truth. We developed machine-grading, including symbolic handling of non-commuting operators via normal ordering. They generalize across tasks too. Our evaluations show that frontier models struggle with all of the problems in the dataset, highlighting a gap in the physical reasoning skills of current LLMs. Notably, experts identified strategies for creating increasingly difficult problems by interacting with the LLMs and exploiting common failure modes. The best model, GPT5, solves 30\% of the problems; average across 17 models (GPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, Llama) is 11.4$\pm$2.1\%. Moreover, 18 problems are solved by none of the 17 models, and 26 by at most one. These unsolved problems span Quantum Monte Carlo, Variational Monte Carlo, and DMRG. Answers sometimes violate fundamental symmetries or have unphysical scaling dimensions. We believe this benchmark will guide development toward capable AI research assistants and tutors.