Emergent Abilities in Language Models

Fine-tuned checkpoints and adapters now fill public repositories, and the most common operation applied to these artifacts is model merging: arithmetic on their weights that assembles capabilities cheaply. We ask what this operation does to emergent capabilities: behaviors an artifact carries that were never an explicit training target. Studying two independent testbeds (activation oracles and emergent-misaligned models) across three model families, we find that the answer is threefold. First, merging preserves an emergent capability that both parents carry: merging two misaligned checkpoints retains most of their broad misalignment across the whole mixing range. Second, merging cannot create an emergent capability that is superadditive in its parents: no weighted merge of two single-task oracles reaches the jointly-trained oracle's auditing ability. Third, when only one parent carries the capability, merging dilutes it faster than the trained capability that accompanies it: the gap is significant in most settings. In short, emergent behaviors of an artifact do not compose the way its trained capability does.

We introduce Semantic Lenia, an artificial life framework that transforms Large Language Model (LLM) inference from a static optimization problem into a continuous, closed-loop dynamical system. By establishing a non-linear homeostatic feedback loop to dynamically balance semantic attraction and syntactic repulsion, we demonstrate the emergence of Homeostatic Solitons''-metastable semantic structures that actively resist repetitive crystallization. Our exhaustive parameter sweeps map a critical Habitable Ridge'' where applied steering forces balance the model's intrinsic syntactic inertia. This approach successfully maintains generative trajectories in a numerically sensitive critical regime, triggering profound abductive leaps without structural collapse, and reveals a capacity-dependent scaling trend in the syntactic inertia across different model sizes.

Progress in large language models is often summarized using a single scalar measure, such as a time horizon, a latent ability estimate, or an aggregate benchmark score. These summaries capture the overall performance, but they do not test whether progress is distributed differently across task difficulty. We find that most of the apparent shift in gains toward harder tasks does not reflect a change in the shape of the difficulty-response curve. On METR time-horizon data, a single Rasch model with rising ability reproduces this pattern, so it is largely explained by ceiling effects rather than a qualitative change in capability. This echoes how the choice of metric can make claimed emergent abilities look like a property of the models themselves. We then identify a smaller hard-task effect that survives this control. Isolating it is difficult on agentic benchmarks, because newer models are usually run with newer agentic harnesses, so a gain on hard tasks cannot be assigned to the model or its scaffold. We break the confound with LiveCodeBench, a public competitive programming benchmark that runs no agentic scaffold while pairing dated models with an exogenous difficulty ordering. After accounting for the rise in overall ability, models released after September 2024 still gain on the hardest problems beyond what their easy and medium performance predicts, by about +0.40 logits under our most conservative assumption, raising the hard-problem solve rate from roughly 18% to 25%. The effect is led by the strongest reasoning models and holds for hard tasks that need only short reasoning, not autonomy over long horizons. We present this as a result specific to competitive programming, since our clean identification rests on a single coding benchmark. We release the LiveCodeBench Difficulty Panel (66 dated models x 1,055 problems) and our analysis code.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards without human-annotated data, often referred to as zero RL, has emerged as a powerful paradigm for eliciting chain-of-thought reasoning. However, due to computational constraints, existing studies are largely restricted to small models, leaving the training dynamics and emergent capabilities at a large scale unexplored. To meaningfully explore this frontier, we aim to elicit high-quality reasoning behaviors from the model. However, we find that naive scaling often suffers from poor readability, token redundancy, and a lack of adaptive reasoning depth. To address these challenges, we present a stable and efficient training pipeline, incorporating algorithmic and system optimizations such as clipped importance sampling, training-inference ratio correction, and mixed-precision control. Our experiments offer three key findings that validate the "bitter lesson" of scaling: (1) scaling to 1T parameters significantly enhances sample efficiency and performance ceilings; (2) the training process progresses sequentially through an initial discovery phase followed by a sharpening phase; and (3) the model spontaneously develops advanced cognitive behaviors, including anthropomorphism, structured formatting, self-verification, parallel reasoning, and context anxiety, rendering hand-crafted heuristics redundant. Evaluated on seven mathematical benchmarks, Ring-2.5-1T-Zero achieves competitive performance. Additionally, to assess CoT quality beyond final-answer correctness, we propose a structured evaluation framework across three dimensions: comprehensibility, reproducibility, and efficiency, where our model demonstrates clear advantages in producing structured and concise reasoning traces. By sharing our observed emergent phenomena, we hope to provide the community with deeper insights into scaling behaviors, particularly at the 1-trillion scale.

Large Language Models (LLMs) represent one of the most significant advances in AI and natural language processing in recent years. Still, many pressing questions about their mechanisms, capabilities, and relationship to human cognition remain highly debated. This chapter aims to outline our current understanding of LLMs by discussing recent evidence on emerging capabilities and their mechanistic implementation within processing layers. We begin with a concise overview of the Transformer architecture, emphasizing how the attention mechanism enables training on massive datasets, allowing LLMs to function as generalist rather than specialized models. Next, we examine emergent LLM capabilities that appear to resemble aspects of human cognition, including symbolic reasoning, theory of mind, and deception strategies. Several studies provide evidence that LLMs can solve tasks previously thought to require human-like cognition. Other studies reveal insightful failure cases that shed light on the differences between human and LLM cognition. Alongside these findings, we review explainable AI approaches ranging from neuron activation analysis to circuit tracing. In the final section, we address current debates concerning what LLMs genuinely understand versus what they merely appear to understand. Prominent arguments against AI anthropomorphism point to the simplicity of LLM training objectives, claiming that LLM behavior is better explained by pattern memorization of training data than by genuine cognition. We argue that this standpoint is guided by misconceptions about optimization processes and cognitive capacity, and advocate for a more nuanced discussion of LLM cognition that neither dismisses the differences between humans and LLMs nor precludes the possibility of AI cognition through overly simplistic reductionist arguments.

Neural scaling laws for transformer language models predict smooth improvements in pretraining loss with increasing parameters, but downstream capabilities such as in-context learning are known to emerge abruptly past a certain model scale. In this paper, we show that emergent capabilities arise stochastically throughout training, with larger models acquiring them earlier on average. We demonstrate that the emergence of capabilities such as pattern completion and indirect object identification corresponds to the abrupt learning of task-relevant attention patterns. To isolate this phenomenon, we train transformer models on synthetic linear map and cellular automata datasets, and we show that the difficulty of learning attention patterns depends on context length and pattern sparsity. Moreover, scaling the number of attention heads improves learning efficiency on our synthetic tasks, while increasing the head dimension yields diminishing returns past a minimum capacity. We additionally investigate architectures with alternative attention mechanisms, showing that MLP-Mixer outperforms a transformer on linear map tasks with complex attention patterns. Our findings provide a mechanistic insight into emergence, showing that downstream capabilities arise abruptly due to the intrinsic difficulty of learning sparse attention patterns in transformer models.

This paper develops a model-theoretic framework for verifying context-conditioned language-model behavior by replacing benchmark labels with finite semantic certificates. The first problem is finite determinacy: when do examples in a context force the answer to a query without changing model parameters? In finite-field linear task families, we prove an exact row-space criterion, compute the residual hypothesis count, derive full and query-local identification curves, and show that extracting a smallest forcing subcontext is NP-complete even for binary outputs. The second problem is threshold emergence: when does an apparent benchmark jump reflect a semantic transition rather than a discontinuity of the scoring map? We prove an anti-mirage theorem separating thresholded metrics from semantic confidence and give a rate-sensitive crossing bound for latent commitments becoming visible above threshold. The common semantic object is a confidence functional on definable events. We show that it is a Boolean probability measure, equivalently a Keisler measure on the relevant type space, whose measure-one formulas form a proper filter and whose Stone-space representation is invariant under definitional expansion. The resulting calculus provides finite context certificates, pair-separator hitting sets, query teaching dimension, prompt-preservation criteria, and scale-limit witnesses. Exact-arithmetic ancillary scripts reproduce the finite-field and threshold calculations and generate the data used by the figures.

Large language models (LLMs) can perform remarkably complex tasks, yet the fine-grained details of how these capabilities emerge during pretraining remain poorly understood. Scaling laws on validation loss tell us how much a model improves with additional compute, but not what skills it acquires in which order. To remedy this, we propose the Implicit Curriculum Hypothesis: pretraining follows a compositional and predictable curriculum across models and data mixtures. We test this by designing a suite of simple, composable tasks spanning retrieval, morphological transformations, coreference, logical reasoning, and mathematics. Using these tasks, we track emergence points across four model families spanning sizes from 410M-13B parameters. We find that emergence orderings of when models reach fixed accuracy thresholds are strikingly consistent ($ρ= .81$ across 45 model pairs), and that composite tasks most often emerge after their component tasks. Furthermore, we find that this structure is encoded in model representations: tasks with similar function vector representations also tend to follow similar trajectories in training. By using the space of representations derived from our task set, we can effectively predict the training trajectories of simple held-out compositional tasks throughout the course of pretraining ($R^2 = .68$-$.84$ across models) without previously evaluating them. Together, these results suggest that pretraining is more structured than loss curves reveal: skills emerge in a compositional order that is consistent across models and readable from their internals.

Deterministic inference is a comforting ideal in classical software: the same program on the same input should always produce the same output. As large language models move into real-world deployment, this ideal has been imported wholesale into inference stacks. Recent work from the Thinking Machines Lab has presented a detailed analysis of nondeterminism in LLM inference, showing how batch-invariant kernels and deterministic attention can enforce bitwise-identical outputs, positioning deterministic inference as a prerequisite for reproducibility and enterprise reliability. In this paper, we take the opposite stance. We argue that, for LLMs, deterministic inference kills. It kills the ability to model uncertainty, suppresses emergent abilities, collapses reasoning into a single brittle path, and weakens safety alignment by hiding tail risks. LLMs implement conditional distributions over outputs, not fixed functions. Collapsing these distributions to a single canonical completion may appear reassuring, but it systematically conceals properties central to artificial cognition. We instead advocate Stochastic CHAOS, treating distributional variability as a signal to be measured and controlled. Empirically, we show that deterministic inference is systematically misleading. Single-sample deterministic evaluation underestimates both capability and fragility, masking failure probability under paraphrases and noise. Phase-like transitions associated with emergent abilities disappear under greedy decoding. Multi-path reasoning degrades when forced onto deterministic backbones, reducing accuracy and diagnostic insight. Finally, deterministic evaluation underestimates safety risk by hiding rare but dangerous behaviors that appear only under multi-sample evaluation.