Small Models, Smarter Learning: The Power of Joint Task Training
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-task learning improves generalization, but when does it reduce the model capacity required to learn? We provide a systematic study of how joint training affects the learning transition, the minimum model size at which a task can be learned, using nested arithmetic (ListOps) and permutation groups as controlled testbeds. Certain task pairings dramatically reduce model size requirements: combining easy operations (MAX, MIN, PROD) with hard ones (modular addition, permutation products) enables learning with 2-7 times fewer parameters. Crucially, we also identify when synergies fail: pairing structurally similar hard tasks (e.g., ADD with alternating-sign NADD) provides no benefit, nor does pairing tasks lacking shared computational primitives. PCA of learned embeddings reveals that successful joint training induces structured number representations (ordering, parity, modular structure) absent in single-task models. Transfer experiments confirm these representations are causal: models pretrained on easy tasks learn addition at 7 times smaller sizes. Our results establish that task compatibility, not mere diversity, determines whether joint training reduces capacity requirements, providing quantitative guidance for curriculum design.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2025.
Builds on
25 of 34 references.
References · 25
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
- 2021Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Modelscited by 886
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
- 2017An Overview of Multi-Task Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 803
- 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
- 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 582
- 2023Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?cited by 523
- 2023Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionalitycited by 503
- 2023Scaling Data-Constrained Language Modelscited by 403
- 2023Mathematical Capabilities of ChatGPTcited by 268
13 more
- 2022Towards Understanding Grokking: An Effective Theory of Representation Learningcited by 230
- 2023The Clock and the Pizza: Two Stories in Mechanistic Explanation of Neural Networkscited by 156
- 2024Physics of Language Models: Part 3.3, Knowledge Capacity Scaling Lawscited by 144
- 2018ListOps: A Diagnostic Dataset for Latent Tree Learningcited by 129
- 2023Teaching Arithmetic to Small Transformerscited by 123
- 2023Compositional Abilities Emerge Multiplicatively: Exploring Diffusion Models on a Synthetic Taskcited by 93
- 2024Strategic Data Ordering: Enhancing Large Language Model Performance through Curriculum Learningcited by 28
- 2024A Percolation Model of Emergence: Analyzing Transformers Trained on a Formal Languagecited by 26
- 2024MuMath-Code: Combining Tool-Use Large Language Models with Multi-perspective Data Augmentation for Mathematical Reasoningcited by 22
- 2024Intelligence at the Edge of Chaoscited by 13
- 2025Task Generalization With AutoRegressive Compositional Structure: Can Learning From D Tasks Generalize to DT Tasks?cited by 11
- 2024Benchmarking GPT-4 on Algorithmic Problems: A Systematic Evaluation of Prompting Strategiescited by 9
- 2024Investigating Symbolic Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.