Empirical scaling laws for autoregressive language models relate prediction loss to model size, data size, and optimization compute, but their theoretical origin is still poorly understood in sequential pretraining settings. We study this question in a tractable teacher--student model where a stable latent linear RNN generates trajectories and a sketched linear recurrent student is trained by safeguarded full-batch WSD gradient descent on next-token prediction. The sketch dimension M plays the role of model size, while N independent trajectories of length P provide the training tokens. We allow the innovation and initialization covariances to have different power-law exponents α and θ. The induced design spectrum produces explicit approximation, optimization, and statistical scaling laws separated by spectral crossovers. When θ≥α, the original one-scale rates M1−βα, R(1−βα)/α, and (NP)−1min{M,R1/α} are recovered. When α−2r≤θ<α, the heavier initialization tail changes the rates beyond P-dependent model and optimization crossovers. The proof uses a covariance event only internally and a globally safeguarded step size on its complement. The variance retains the factor (NP)−1, while sequence length also suppresses the initialization transient, so N and P cease to be fully interchangeable in the two-scale regime.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our conceptual interpretation of AP and ICL. AP learns reusable dynamics for iteratively encoding token sequences and autoregressively decoding outputs. ICL operates on the resulting representations, mapping demonstrations and a query context to an answer-sequence seed.
Figure 2: Schematic demonstration of the learning setup, from random initialization and latent autoregressive trajectories to sketched training sequences and the empirical WSD-GD iterate BL .
Figure 3: Synthetic verification of the two-regime scaling law. The first row tests Regime I, where the initialization tail decays at least as fast as the innovation tail: approximation follows the M -power law, bias decreases with the optimization horizon, and variance scales inversely with N and P while increasing with the active dimension. The second row tests Regime II, where the heavier initialization tail produces an explicit P−1 transient in approximation and bias and changes the P - and R -dependence of variance. Solid curves are measured values; dashed or dotted curves are asymptotic or finite-filter guides.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Regime
Quantity
Measured
Guide
I
Approx vs. M
−0.962
−0.900
I
Bias vs. R
−0.718
−0.600
I
Var vs. N
−1.008
−1.000
I
Var vs. P
−1.066
−1.000
I
Var vs. R
0.733
0.667
II
Approx vs. P
−0.949
−0.950
Appendix
Table F.1: Log–log slopes from the six saved experiment checkpoints. The guide column uses the asymptotic power law in Regime I and the plotted finite two-scale or finite-filter curve in Regime II.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi · Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi