How feature learning can improve neural scaling laws<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We develop a solvable model of neural scaling laws beyond the kernel limit. Theoretical analysis of this model shows how performance scales with model size, training time, and the total amount of available data. We identify three scaling regimes corresponding to varying task difficulties: hard, easy, and super easy tasks. For easy and super-easy target functions, which lie in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) defined by the initial infinite-width Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK), the scaling exponents remain unchanged between feature learning and kernel regime models. For hard tasks, defined as those outside the RKHS of the initial NTK, we demonstrate both analytically and empirically that feature learning can improve scaling with training time and compute, nearly doubling the exponent for hard tasks. This leads to a different compute optimal strategy to scale parameters and training time in the feature learning regime. We support our finding that feature learning improves the scaling law for hard tasks but not for easy and super-easy tasks with experiments of nonlinear MLPs fitting functions with power-law Fourier spectra on the circle and CNNs learning vision tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".