cs.LGSep 16, 2026

Beyond Embedding Transfer: Component Roles in Grokking Transfer and Stability

Authors: Zeyu Jia

Abstract

Warm-start transfer can make algorithmic tasks generalize rapidly, yet it is unclear which model components provide the gain and whether that gain remains stable under continued optimization. We study cross-operator transfer on modular arithmetic and separate efficacy (early velocity) from stability (post-reach drawdown). In a scale-matched 108-run battery across 12 seed blocks (96-run 2^3 factorial plus 12-run scale control), transferring internal attention/MLP weights (B) alongside token embeddings and readout (E+U) improves early accuracy by 5.46 pp (Holm p=0.0039) and cuts confirmation latency by 558 steps (Holm p=0.0088). While readout plus internal-block transfer satisfies the pre-specified +/-500-step latency equivalence criterion in 1-layer models (TOST p=0.0011, though Full is faster in 11/12 paired seeds), a prospective 2-layer replication confirms the internal-block advantage (12/12 seeds, +704.67 integral units, p=4.88x10^-4) while revealing an architectural boundary: omitting donor embeddings falls 4475.6 units below Full, outside the +/-250-unit margin. Continued target training frequently triggers severe post-grokking relapse. Freezing transferred representation carriers (E, U) nearly eliminates offline relapse (19.40% -> 0.07%, Holm p=0.005859). Online validation-triggered gating slashes True Max Drawdown from 22.06% to 0.60% on 2a+b (p=0.000488), with prospective confirmations extending protection across affine, nonlinear quadratic, and 2-layer targets (10.94-23.47 pp reductions), distinguishing continual stabilization from static early stopping. In non-abelian S_5, unshielded transfer surges transiently (95.4% peak), but a prospective shielding cohort yields no confirmed benefit (+0.15 +/- 1.14 pp). These results establish a component-level dissociation between transfer acceleration and trajectory stability, and expose the empirical boundaries of parameter shielding.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 7, 2026cs.LG

At-Grok Is Not Converged:A Measurement-Validity Audit for Grokking Representation Metrics

On modular arithmetic, a network's embedding keeps compressing for tens of thousands of steps after it has already generalized. Reading effective rank at the grokking transition overstates the converged value by 3-5x on an MLP, and by 1.3-1.5x on a transformer trained to convergence; on the MLP it also erases which cells compress at all. Compression lags the accuracy transition by an amount on the order of the time-to-grok, at least 10,000 steps, rather than coinciding with it. A one-variable ablation shows what sets the lag size: adding LayerNorm to an otherwise identical transformer moves the fraction of compression done by the grok step from 0.87 to 0.25, and a pre-registered control rules out scale invariance as the mechanism. We package this as an audit that separates onset from compression, flags censoring, excludes boundary cells that never fully generalize, and checks that the reference floor has plateaued, with an adversarial suite that caught a false-confidence bug in our own branch. A secondary, MLP-specific depth law linking norm budget to converged floor fails a generality test on a transformer and flips sign under free weight decay. Code and the toolkit are released.
Truong Xuan Khanh
GrokkingModular AdditionUnified TransformerAlgorithm Auditing
AskPDF
Jul 6, 2026cs.LG

Grokking Is Conditional and Fragile: A Fully-Tractable, Multi-Seed Study at 12K Parameters

Grokking -- the delayed onset of generalization long after a network has fit its training set - -is usually studied in models too large to read completely and reported from single training runs. We instead study a publicly released ~11,856-parameter Llama-style transformer (Glimmer-1-Base) on modular arithmetic, small enough to enumerate its weights, attention, and full input-output map, and we measure grokking as a multi-seed rate rather than a single outcome. In this fully-tractable regime grokking is a conditional, fragile phase transition. It is gated by training-set coverage, whose threshold tracks output cardinality (the modulus) more than task structure, an ordering that holds above the transition and across a ten-fold change in domain size. Weight decay reproduces the Omnigrok inverted-U at 12K parameters, a positive control on the rate measurement. Grokking also sits on a numerical knife-edge: two perturbations of the floating-point environment -- CPU thread count (reduction order) and CPU-versus-GPU execution -- each flip a minority of same-seed outcomes without a detectable shift in the aggregate rate. Decomposition into sub-task specialists helps chiefly by making coverage cheap rather than by adding supervision. Methodologically, multi-seed control under a fixed numerical environment overturns three dramatic single-run narratives in our own data, each a seed confound. The unit of evidence for grokking must therefore be a multi-seed rate under a pinned numerical environment, checked where possible against a direct reading of the model.
Yoshiyuki Ootani
GrokkingLarge ModelsLow-Data RegimesMulti-Model StudyFragility
AskPDF
May 20, 2026cs.LG

Quantifying Hyperparameter Transfer and the Importance of Embedding Layer Learning Rate

Hyperparameter transfer allows extrapolating optimal optimization hyperparameters from small to large scales, making it critical for training large language models (LLMs). This is done either by fitting a scaling law to the hyperparameters or by a judicious choice of parameterization, such as Maximal Update (μμP), that renders optimal hyperparameters approximately scale invariant. In this paper, we first develop a framework to quantify hyperparameter transfer through three metrics: (1) the quality of the scaling law fit, (2) the robustness to extrapolation errors, and (3) the asymptotic loss penalty due to choice of parameterization. Next, we investigate through a comprehensive series of ablations why μμP appears to offer high-quality learning rate transfer relative to standard parameterization (SP), as existing theory is inadequate. We find that the overwhelming benefit of μμP relative to SP when training with AdamW arises simply from maximizing the learning rate of the embedding layer. In SP, the embedding layer learning rate acts as a bottleneck that induces training instabilities; increasing it by a factor of width to match μμP dramatically smooths out training while improving hyperparameter transfer. We also find that weight decay improves the scaling law fits, while, in the fixed token-per-parameter setting, it hurts the robustness of the extrapolation.
Dayal Singh Kalra, Maissam Barkeshli
Hyperparameter OptimizationLarge ModelsExtrapolation
AskPDF