Neural Scaling Laws

Recently observed empirical scaling laws describe the performance of foundation-type models as three independent key quantities -- dataset size, compute, and model parameters -- are modified. Extracting these scaling laws informs the training of large complex models for which the tuning of hyperparameters in traditional ways is not feasible. This work for the first time explores if scaling laws can also be observed for the task of particle jet generation -- both relevant as a pre-training objective for foundation models and as in-situ simulation by itself. We indeed replicate the key logarithmic scaling law behavior for model-size scaling. Beyond studying the next token prediction validation loss of the generative model, we also study the sliced Wasserstein distance of five physical quantities that are not immediately available to the model during training. Our study shows that this quantity is monotonically related to the next token prediction validation loss, meaning that this loss is indeed a good proxy for the physics performance. For the scaling with dataset size and compute, we observe substantially weaker scaling behavior of both the loss and the sliced Wasserstein distance. We analyze this behavior by introducing the concept of a learnable window, and argue that autoregressive next token prediction on jet constituents exhibits comparatively rapid saturation relative to language-model studies. We discuss possible origins of this behavior, including the stochastic nature of QCD radiation and differences between generative and supervised learning tasks in collider physics.

Low-thrust trajectory design relies heavily on repeated evaluations of fuel consumption and transfer feasibility, which require expensive optimal control solutions. In this work, we show these quantities can be accurately approximated by machine learning surrogates, enabling fast and scalable evaluation across a wide range of scenarios. By increasing both dataset size and model capacity, we observe that low-thrust trajectory optimization follows a scaling law, with performance improving linearly with the logarithm of training data and network parameters, and no evidence of saturation within the explored regime. Guided by this observation, we construct a large-scale dataset using the proposed homotopy-ray strategy tailored to mission design requirements. A key is the introduction of a self-similar transformation, which allows generalization across semi-major axes, inclinations, and central bodies avoiding retraining. As a result, the same neural approximator can be applied to diverse orbital environments and mission classes. The proposed models accurately predict optimal fuel consumption and minimum transfer time for single- and multi-revolution transfers. Their performance and generalization are demonstrated on a public dataset, a multi-asteroid flyby problem from the Global Trajectory Optimization Competition, and an asteroid rendezvous mission design. The models and datasets are released as open-source to support the space community.

We present a functional form (that we refer to as a Unified Neural Scaling Law (UNSL)) that accurately models and extrapolates the scaling behaviors of deep neural networks as multiple dimensions all vary simultaneously (i.e. how the evaluation metric of interest varies as one simultaneously varies the number of model parameters, training dataset size, number of training steps, number of inference steps, amount of compute, and various hyperparameters) for various architectures and for each of various tasks within a varied set of upstream and downstream tasks. This set includes large-scale vision, language, math, and reinforcement learning. When compared to other functional forms for neural scaling, this functional form yields extrapolations of scaling behavior that are considerably more accurate on this set.

We introduce a model for neural scaling laws under sparse activations. In the model, test loss is often dominated by rare coordinates that are never observed in the training input. This mechanism induces a novel bottleneck absent from dense models. We derive the asymptotic population loss in both the underparameterized and overparameterized regimes, and show that the loss exhibits a double-descent peak near the interpolation threshold -- where the number of parameters is just sufficient to fit the training data -- resulting in a loss curve governed by two distinct scaling exponents -- one for the overparameterized regime and one for the underparameterized regime -- with a gap determined by the degree of sparsity. Additionally, we derive a compute-optimal frontier that favors increasing dataset size over model capacity under fixed compute budgets. We also analyze gradient-descent dynamics and identify a scaling law for the probability that fixed-step gradient descent becomes unstable. We further show that the sparsity-induced effect persists under nonlinear activations.

Hard-label classification is usually trained with smooth surrogate losses, most prominently softmax cross-entropy. We isolate an asymptotic mechanism by which this mismatch between smooth surrogate and discrete labels produces power-law learning curves in an online teacher-student model. After subtracting the mean logit, the thermodynamic-limit dynamics close in centered variables: a growing centered student-teacher alignment $D$ and the residual student variance $Δ$. At late times, examples away from teacher decision boundaries are already classified confidently and contribute exponentially little. Only boundary layers of width $O(D^{-1})$ remain active, while the noise of fixed-learning-rate online gradient descent maintains a nonzero $Δ$. As a function of the training time $α$ the late-time solution yields a $α^{-1/3}$ power law not only for the test loss but also for the generalization error $ε_g$, i.e., one minus test accuracy. This is much slower than the $α^{-1}$ Bayes-optimal reference for the same model. We further show that learning-rate schedules can improve the generalization error towards a $ε_g \sim α^{-1/2}$ power law. Simulations support the predicted order parameter dynamics and learning curves. Controlled experiments with correlated Gaussian inputs and whitened pretrained features show that data structure can dominate transients. Therefore, our result is an asymptotic, complementary mechanism rather than an alternative to spectral explanations of neural scaling laws.

While scaling laws have established a fundamental framework for foundation models in natural language processing, their applicability to electrocardiogram (ECG) models remains poorly characterized. Indeed, recent studies do not always yield consistent downstream gains as one increases the model size or pre-training dataset size of ECG models, leaving the exact roles of architectural inductive biases, pre-training paradigms, and expected improvements with size largely unanswered. In this work, we systematically investigate neural and loss-to-loss scaling laws within the ECG domain. By pre-training over $120$ models (ranging from $20$K to $200$M parameters) on the large-scale CODE dataset ($2.3$M records), we decouple the effects of model architecture (ResNet vs. Transformer) and pre-training paradigm, namely supervised learning (SL) versus self-supervised learning (SSL). We found that (i) SL models are data-bottlenecked in-distribution, whereas SSL models scale robustly across both model and data sizes; (ii) for out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, ResNets are $1.3$ to $2.5$ times more parameter-efficient than Transformers, while SSL is up to $16$ times more data-efficient and achieves up to $7.6$ times higher transfer efficiency than SL on unseen clinical tasks; (iii) across the observed scales, ResNet-based models generally achieve the lowest OOD loss, with SSL dominating on unseen clinical tasks and self-supervised Transformers overtaking at very large model sizes. Our results suggest that the path to effective ECG foundation models lies in the strategic alignment of architecture and paradigm rather than brute-force scaling.

Cortical neurons are complex, multi-timescale processors wired into recurrent circuits, shaped by long evolutionary pressure under stringent biological constraints. Mainstream machine learning, by contrast, predominantly builds models from extremely simple units, a default inherited from early neural-network theory. We treat this as a normative architectural question. How should one split a fixed parameter budget $P$ between the number of units $N$, per-unit effective complexity $k_e$, and per-unit connectivity $k_c$? What controls the optimal allocation? This calls for a model in which per-unit complexity can be tuned independently of width and connectivity. Accordingly, we introduce the ELM Network, whose recurrent layer is built from Expressive Leaky Memory (ELM) neurons, chosen to mirror functional components of cortical neurons. The architecture allows for individually adjusting $N$, $k_e$, and $k_c$ and trains stably across orders of magnitude in scale. We evaluate the model on two qualitatively different sequence benchmarks: the neuromorphic SHD-Adding task and Enwik8 character-level language modeling. Performance improves monotonically along each of the three axes individually. Under a fixed budget, a clear non-trivial optimum emerges in their tradeoff, and larger budgets favor both more and more complex neurons. A closed-form information-theoretic model captures these tradeoffs and attributes the diminishing returns at two ends to: per-neuron signal-to-noise saturation and across-neuron redundancy. A hyperparameter sweep spanning three orders of magnitude in trainable parameters traces a near-Pareto-frontier scaling law consistent with the framework. This suggests that the simple-unit default in ML is not obviously optimal once this tradeoff surface is probed, and offers a normative lens on cortex's reliance on complex spatio-temporal integrators.

We study the information-theoretic limits of learning a one-hidden-layer teacher network with hierarchical features from noisy queries, in the context of knowledge transfer to a smaller student model. We work in the high-dimensional regime where the teacher width $k$ scales linearly with the input dimension $d$ -- a setting that captures large-but-finite-width networks and has only recently become analytically tractable. Using a heuristic leave-one-out decoupling argument, validated numerically throughout, we derive asymptotically sharp characterizations of the Bayes-optimal generalization error and individual feature overlaps via a system of closed fixed-point equations. These equations reveal that feature learnability is governed by a sequence of sharp phase transitions: as data grows, teacher features become recoverable sequentially, each through a discontinuous jump in overlap. This sequential acquisition underlies a precise notion of \textit{effective width} $k_c$ -- the number of learnable features at a given data budget $n$ -- which unifies two distinct scaling regimes: a feature-learning regime in which the Bayes-optimal generalization error $\varepsilon^{\rm BO}$ scales as $n^{1/(2β)-1}$, and a refinement regime in which it scales as $n^{-1}$, where $β>1/2$ is the exponent of the power-law feature hierarchy. Both laws collapse to the single relation $\varepsilon^{\rm BO}=Θ(k_c d/n)$. We further show empirically that a student trained with \textsc{Adam} near the effective width $k_c$ achieves these optimal scaling laws (up to a small algorithmic gap), and provide an information-theoretic account of the associated scaling in model size.

If a person can solve a task, can measuring their brain make it easier to train a model to solve that task too? Recent NeuroAI work suggests that supplementing task training with neural recordings can modestly improve model performance and robustness. However, it is unclear when there should be a benefit from using neural data and how much benefit to expect. We formulate this question mathematically, and begin to address it theoretically using a simple, analytically tractable linear gaussian model of task targets and neural recordings. For a multimodal estimator trained on both brain data and task labels, we derive scaling laws for how performance scales with the numbers of brain and task samples. From these laws we derive relative value and exchange rates between brain samples and task samples, quantifying how much extra task samples neural data is worth as a function of task-brain alignment, neural and task noise, latent dimension, and brain data sample size. We also analyze test distribution shift, to identify conditions where brain-regularized learning can produce substantial robustness gains through learned invariances. Finally, under a fixed collection budget, we characterize the regimes in which brain data is worth collecting. Our results provide a foundation for understanding how valuable brain data could be for improving machine learning.

The scaling laws guiding modern model training were calibrated for a single regime: data-rich, single-epoch pretraining. The dominant such scaling law form, Chinchilla's $L = E + A/N^α+ B/D^β$, has three structural limitations outside that regime: it diverges as unique data shrinks instead of saturating at the uninformed baseline; it cannot represent overfitting when capacity exceeds the data; and it conflates total examples seen with unique examples available. We propose a closed-form extension, $L(N, D, T) = E + (L_0 - E)\,h/(1+h)$ with $h = a/N^α+ b/T^β+ c\,N^γ/D^δ$, that decomposes loss into undercapacity, undertraining, and overfitting terms. It saturates between the irreducible loss $E$ and an uninformed baseline $L_0$ fixed by the loss type, and reduces to Chinchilla in the data-rich, single-epoch limit. We validate it on four multi-epoch experiments spanning four architecture families (MLPs, ResNets, Fourier neural operators, and transformers) across vision, scientific ML, and language domains, and refit it to five published LLM scaling-law grids. Extrapolating to higher compute and larger unique data than seen at fit time, our form achieves state-of-the-art RMSE on every published LLM grid we evaluate and on most cells of our constructed experiments. Once calibrated, the form admits a cost-aware allocation that recovers Chinchilla's optimum when data is free and shifts toward smaller corpora and more epochs as data grows expensive.

Neural scaling laws approximate a language model's loss as a power-law function of parameter count $N$ and token count $D$. Following Chinchilla-style compute-optimal training, many studies fit scaling laws from runs performed under a fixed tokens-per-parameter (TPP) ratio $k$ and set $D = kN$. We show that this collinear design, combined with the empirically common near-equality of the exponents governing $N$ and $D$, induces an inherent ill-conditioning in the Gauss-Newton least-squares problem: the condition number of the design grows as the inverse square of the gap between the $N$ and $D$-exponents. The scale coefficients become practically unidentifiable, with confidence intervals inflating by an order of magnitude or more, yielding a ``sloppy'' model whose extrapolations degrade sharply off the training ray. We prove this for four scaling-law formalisms and derive a closed-form TPP-diversity threshold that is necessary and sufficient for well-conditioned estimation. Empirically, non-collinear designs outperform collinear ones on held-out splits with a 97.3% win rate across four laws, five corpora, multiple floating point precision modes. We further show the degeneracy is rooted in Jacobian geometry and is not an artifact of the loss function: any smooth estimation objective whose curvature involves the Jacobian inherits the same ill-conditioning.

The scaling behavior, in which test performance often improves as model size and data increase, is a central empirical phenomenon in modern deep learning, yet its theoretical basis remains incomplete. In this paper, we study depth expansion in normalized residual networks: starting from a trained model in an old hypothesis class, we insert a new residual block at an intermediate layer and ask when such an expansion can yield a provable improvement in test risk. We develop a unified framework that decomposes this question into representational gain, optimization gain, and generalization transfer. First, under a first-order descent condition near zero initialization, we prove that the expanded hypothesis class contains an auxiliary jumpboard model with strictly smaller population risk than the original model. Second, under norm control tailored to post-normalized residual architectures, we establish a norm-based Rademacher complexity bound for the expanded model class. These ingredients lead to two complementary test-risk guarantees: one route passes through population risk and is tighter when a positive population margin is available, while the other works directly at the train/test level, avoids Hoeffding transfer, and is more robust in degenerate regimes. Together, these results provide a theorem-driven mechanism under which residual depth expansion can improve test performance in normalized residual networks. More broadly, they suggest that scaling is inherently joint: depth creates new improving directions, width enhances the finite-sample observability of weak signals, and data determines whether the statistical cost of expansion can be controlled.

Neural scaling laws establish a predictable relationship between model performance and data or compute, offering crucial guidance for resource allocation in new domains and tasks. Yet such laws are most needed precisely where they are hardest to obtain: fitting one for a new model task pair demands expensive sweeps that typically exhaust the very compute budget the law is meant to economize. This paper poses the research question of how to develop generalizable scaling laws: laws fit once on a well-resourced source domain and reliably transported to new domains where running a full sweep is infeasible, which requires a fundamental understanding of when and why scaling properties change. We address this by identifying the right invariants: scaling laws are preserved under bijective (information-preserving) transformations of the data and modified in predictable, information-theoretically grounded ways under non-bijective transformations that lower its information resolution $ρ$: a single axis along which a law fit in one domain can be transported to another. We validate this across language, vision, and speech, and demonstrate two cross-domain applications: predicting scaling for language models trained on electronic health records from laws fit on general text, and predicting time-series classification scaling under varying levels of noise injection, recovering the data-scaling exponents to within $3\%$ error.

Wireless foundation models are rapidly emerging as a key enabler of AI-native communication systems, yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: how large should these models be? We present a principled, physics-grounded answer, showing that the intrinsic dimensionality (dNL, the nonlinear manifold dimension of the channel) acts as the fundamental bottleneck, defining the scaling ceiling once a data-sufficient regime is reached. This dimensionality is not a design choice but a physical constraint: Maxwell's equations, finite scatterers, and antenna aperture inherently constrain wireless propagation environments to a limited number of degrees of freedom -- spanning 5-35 across both real-world OTA measurements and 3GPP-standardized channel models we evaluate -- orders of magnitude below the ~1,000-dimensional semantic space of language. As a consequence, we propose a scaling framework for wireless AI: taking NTN satellite channels as a representative case (dNL ~= 14), scaling gains diminish rapidly beyond ~30 million parameters, entering a stochastic asymptote above 70M where a further 1.6x increase (96M->150M) yields only 0.52 dB. Beyond this ceiling, inference-time adaptation via pilot-aided test-time training (TTT) is far more effective: a compact 12M-parameter model surpasses a static 96M model by 9.9 dB (NMSE, SNR = 20 dB) / 7.6 dB (MCM, SNR = 10 dB) at one-eighth the parameters. With dNL distributions validated across real-world indoor massive MIMO measurements, our scaling laws and TTT gains are demonstrated through NTN satellite simulations, reframing wireless AI design: channel geometry -- not model size -- fundamentally governs the scaling laws of physical-layer wireless AI.

Performance of deep learning models is strongly governed by architectural capacity, with width and depth as primary controls. However, in physical-science applications, models are often compared at a single fixed size or by separating accuracy and computational cost, which can be misleading since architectures exhibit different accuracy-cost scaling as width and depth vary. This issue is particularly relevant for U-Net-type encoder-decoder models, widely used for multi-scale gas, fluid, and plasma dynamics due to their ability to represent features across spatial scales. A U-Net constructs a multi-resolution representation via an encoder that progressively reduces spatial resolution, followed by a decoder that restores it for prediction. Skip connections link corresponding encoder and decoder features, preserving fine-scale information and improving optimization. In practice, U-Net width is routinely tuned, while depth is typically kept fixed (a set number of down/up-sampling stages with few convolutions per stage), limiting systematic exploration of depth for improving the accuracy-cost trade-off. We address this limitation by increasing effective depth through stacking multiple encoder-decoder "waves" in series, with skip connections both within and across waves to enable progressive cross-scale refinement. We call this architecture a Deep Wave Network (DW-Net). Training data, optimization, and schedules are kept identical across models. Instead of evaluating single configurations, we train multiple width variants of each architecture and compare accuracy vs. GPU time Pareto fronts. Across several 2D and 3D flow benchmarks, DW-Net models consistently improve the Pareto frontier over single-wave U-Nets, achieving higher accuracy at matched cost or similar accuracy at reduced cost, and reaching low-error regimes with up to 3x less training time under identical training settings.

Training compute is increasingly outpacing the availability of high-quality data. This shifts the central challenge from optimal compute allocation to extracting maximum value from limited data. The widely adopted Chinchilla scaling law assumes every training token is unique. This limits its ability to guide pretraining decisions in data-constrained regimes. We model the excess loss under repetition with a simple additive overfitting penalty and find that it accurately describes model behavior. Our scaling law yields qualitatively new compute-optimal allocation advice. Beyond a point, further repetition is counterproductive and compute is better spent on model capacity. We show that following our law's recommended configuration improves performance in data-constrained regimes. Finally, because our one-parameter form isolates overfitting in a single coefficient, it enables direct comparison across training configurations. As a case study, we show that strong weight decay ($λ=1.0$) reduces this coefficient by approximately 70%, providing a scaling-law explanation for recent findings that optimal weight decay in data-constrained regimes is an order of magnitude larger than standard practice.

Emergent intelligence have played a major role in the modern AI development. While existing studies primarily rely on empirical observations to characterize this phenomenon, a rigorous theoretical framework remains underexplored. This study attempts to develop a mathematical approach to formalize emergent intelligence from the perspective of limit theory. Specifically, we introduce a performance function E(N, P, K), dependent on data size N, model size P and training steps K, to quantify intelligence behavior. We posit that intelligence emerges as a transition from finite to effectively infinite knowledge, and thus recast emergent intelligence as existence of the limit $\lim_{N,P,K \to \infty} \mathcal{E}(N,P,K)$, with emergent abilities corresponding to the limiting behavior. This limit theory helps reveal that emergent intelligence originates from the existence of a parameter-limit architecture (referred to as the limit architecture), and that emergent intelligence rationally corresponds to the learning behavior of this limit system. By introducing tools from nonlinear Lipschitz operator theory, we prove that the necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of the limit architecture. Furthermore, we derive the scaling law of foundation models by leveraging tools of Lipschitz operator and covering number. Theoretical results show that: 1) emergent intelligence is governed by three key factors-training steps, data size and the model architecture, where the properties of basic blocks play a crucial role in constructing foundation models; 2) the critical condition Lip(T)=1 for emergent intelligence provides theoretical support for existing findings. 3) emergent intelligence is determined by an infinite-dimensional system, yet can be effectively realized in practice through a finite-dimensional architecture. Our empirical results corroborate these theoretical findings.

Scaling data and artificial neural networks has transformed AI, driving breakthroughs in language and vision. Whether similar principles apply to modeling brain activity remains unclear. Here we leveraged a dataset of 3.1 million neurons from the visual cortex of 73 mice across 323 sessions, totaling more than 150 billion neural tokens recorded during natural movies, images and parametric stimuli, and behavior. We train multi-modal, multi-task models that support three regimes flexibly at test time: neural prediction, behavioral decoding, neural forecasting, or any combination of the three. OmniMouse achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming specialized baselines across nearly all evaluation regimes. We find that performance scales reliably with more data, but gains from increasing model size saturate. This inverts the standard AI scaling story: in language and computer vision, massive datasets make parameter scaling the primary driver of progress, whereas in brain modeling -- even in the mouse visual cortex, a relatively simple system -- models remain data-limited despite vast recordings. The observation of systematic scaling raises the possibility of phase transitions in neural modeling, where larger and richer datasets might unlock qualitatively new capabilities, paralleling the emergent properties seen in large language models. Code available at https://github.com/enigma-brain/omnimouse.

How much data is enough to make a scientific discovery? As biomedical datasets scale to millions of samples and AI models grow in capacity, progress increasingly depends on predicting when additional data will substantially improve performance. In practice, model development often relies on empirical scaling curves measured across architectures, modalities, and dataset sizes, with limited theoretical guidance on when performance should improve, saturate, or exhibit cross-over behavior. We propose a scaling-law framework for cross-modal discoverability based on spectral structure of data covariance operators, task-aligned signal projections, and learned representations. Many performance metrics, including AUC, can be expressed in terms of cumulative signal-to-noise energy accumulated across identifiable spectral modes of an encoder and cross-modal operator. Under mild assumptions, this accumulation follows a zeta-like scaling law governed by power-law decay of covariance spectra and aligned signal energy, leading naturally to the appearance of the Riemann zeta function. Representation learning methods such as sparse models, low-rank embeddings, and multimodal contrastive objectives improve sample efficiency by concentrating useful signal into earlier stable modes, effectively steepening spectral decay and shifting scaling curves. The framework predicts cross-over regimes in which simpler models perform best at small sample sizes, while higher-capacity or multimodal encoders outperform them once sufficient data stabilizes additional degrees of freedom. Applications include multimodal disease classification, imaging genetics, functional MRI, and topological data analysis. The resulting zeta law provides a principled way to anticipate when scaling data, improving representations, or adding modalities is most likely to accelerate discovery.

Modern large-scale neural networks are often trained and released in multiple sizes to accommodate diverse inference budgets. To improve efficiency, recent work has explored model upscaling: initializing larger models from trained smaller ones to accelerate convergence. However, this method can be sensitive to hyperparameters that need to be tuned at the target upscaled model size, which is prohibitively costly to do directly. It remains unclear whether tuning hyperparameters on smaller models and extrapolating via scaling laws is sound in this setting. We address this with principled approaches to width-based upscaling and efficient hyperparameter tuning in this setting. Motivated by $μ$P and any-dimensional architectures, we introduce a general upscaling method that, like Net2Net, copies and perturbs weights, but uses theoretically grounded, width-dependent scalings for the perturbation noise and optimizer hyperparameters. First, we prove that under zero perturbation, the upscaled model is functionally equivalent to the base model throughout training. Second, we extend the $μ$P theory to enable infinite-width limit analysis and establish hyperparameter transfer for upscaled models, greatly reducing the tuning cost. We empirically demonstrate that this method is effective on realistic datasets and architectures.

Despite the fact that experimental neural scaling laws have substantially guided empirical progress in large-scale machine learning, no existing theory can quantitatively predict the exponents of these important laws for any modern LLM trained on any natural language dataset. We provide the first such theory in the case of data-limited scaling laws. We isolate two key statistical properties of language that alone can predict neural scaling exponents: (i) the decay of pairwise token correlations with time separation between token pairs, and (ii) the decay of the next-token conditional entropy with the length of the conditioning context. We further derive a simple formula in terms of these statistics that predicts data-limited neural scaling exponents from first principles without any free parameters or synthetic data models. Our theory exhibits a remarkable match with experimentally measured neural scaling laws obtained from training GPT-2 and LLaMA style models from scratch on two qualitatively different benchmarks, TinyStories and WikiText.

We inspect the deductive connection between the neural scaling law and Zipf's law -- two statements discussed in machine learning and quantitative linguistics. The neural scaling law describes how the cross entropy rate of a foundation model -- such as a large language model -- changes with respect to the amount of training tokens, parameters, and compute. By contrast, Zipf's law posits that the distribution of tokens exhibits a power law tail. Whereas similar claims have been made in more specific settings, we show that the neural scaling law is a consequence of Zipf's law under certain broad assumptions that we reveal systematically. The derivation steps are as follows: We derive Heaps' law on the vocabulary growth from Zipf's law, Hilberg's hypothesis on the entropy scaling from Heaps' law, and the neural scaling from Hilberg's hypothesis. We illustrate these inference steps by a toy example of the Santa Fe process that satisfies all four statistical laws.

Modern Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) often operate on high-dimensional data and rely on overparameterized models, where classical low-dimensional intuitions break down. In particular, the proportional regime where the data dimension, sample size, and number of model parameters are all large and comparable, gives rise to novel and sometimes counterintuitive behaviors. This paper extends traditional Random Matrix Theory (RMT) beyond eigenvalue-based analysis of linear models to address the challenges posed by nonlinear ML models such as DNNs in this regime. We introduce the concept of High-dimensional Equivalent, which unifies and generalizes both Deterministic Equivalent and Linear Equivalent, to systematically address three technical challenges: high dimensionality, nonlinearity, and the need to analyze generic eigenspectral functionals. Leveraging this framework, we provide precise characterizations of the training and generalization performance of linear models, nonlinear shallow networks, and deep networks. Our results capture rich phenomena, including scaling laws, double descent, and nonlinear learning dynamics, offering a unified perspective on the theoretical understanding of deep learning in high dimensions.