Andrew Saxe

Yedi Zhang, Peter E. Latham, Leena Chennuru Vankadara et al.

In this short note we consider the gradient descent dynamics of deep scalar linear networks, $f(x) = \prod_{l=1}^L w_l x$, which enjoy exact time-course solutions for any integer depth. We show that even in this minimal model, the optimal depth-wise learning rate scaling depends on data, whereas data-agnostic scaling rules fail to transfer across depths. Under the data-dependent optimal scaling, the learning dynamics is independent of data and weakly dependent on depth, resulting in a constant linear convergence rate across all depths including infinity. We further show similar data-dependent effects in deep scalar linear networks with residual connections.

Valentina Njaradi, Clémentine Dominé, Rachel Swanson et al.

Learning to generalise from limited data is a fundamental challenge for both artificial and biological systems. A common strategy is to extract reusable structure from abundant unlabelled data, enabling efficient adaptation to new tasks from limited labelled data. This two-stage paradigm is now standard in modern training pipelines, where pretraining is followed by fine-tuning or linear probing. We provide an analytical model of this process: structure extraction is formalized as principal component analysis on unlabelled data, and downstream learning as linear regression on a separate labelled dataset. In the high-dimensional regime, we derive exact expressions for training and generalisation error showcasing their dependence on representation dimensionality, unlabelled and labelled sample sizes, and task alignment. Our results show that pretrained representations strongly influence downstream generalisation, and we characterize the optimal representation size as a function of task parameters: with abundant pretraining data but scarce downstream data, maximally compressed representations are optimal, whereas with limited pretraining data, higher-dimensional representations generalise better. Furthermore, we establish an exact trade-off between pretraining and supervision, quantifying how much unlabelled data is required to replace a single labelled sample. Beyond our idealised model, we observe similar phenomenology in autoencoders and pretrained LLMs. Altogether, we highlight that optimising representation size is critical, giving conditions for when compression during pretraining improves generalisation.

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.