The Power of Power Law: Asymmetry Enables Compositional Reasoning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Natural language data follows a power-law distribution, with most knowledge and skills appearing at very low frequency. While a common intuition suggests that reweighting or curating data towards a uniform distribution may help models better learn these long-tail skills, we find a counterintuitive result: across a wide range of compositional reasoning tasks, such as state tracking and multi-step arithmetic, training under power-law distributions consistently outperforms training under uniform distributions. To understand this advantage, we introduce a minimalist skill-composition task and show that learning under a power-law distribution provably requires significantly less training data. Our theoretical analysis reveals that power law sampling induces a beneficial asymmetry that improves the pathological loss landscape, which enables models to first acquire high-frequency skill compositions with low data complexity, which in turn serves as a stepping stone to efficiently learn rare long-tailed skills. Our results offer an alternative perspective on what constitutes an effective data distribution for training models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 55 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2026.
Builds on
55 of 66 references.
References · 55
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
- 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,054
- 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 556
- 2016Linear Convergence of Gradient and Proximal-Gradient Methods Under the Polyak-Lojasiewicz Conditioncited by 526
- 2022Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruningcited by 519
- 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 510
- 2023MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questionscited by 292
- 2022Transformers Learn Shortcuts to Automatacited by 260
- 2024Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problemscited by 256
- 2024From Explicit CoT to Implicit CoT: Learning to Internalize CoT Step by Stepcited by 225
- 2023Task Arithmetic in the Tangent Space: Improved Editing of Pre-Trained Modelscited by 218
38 more
- 2022The Parallelism Tradeoff: Limitations of Log-Precision Transformerscited by 191
- 2022Hidden Progress in Deep Learning: SGD Learns Parities Near the Computational Limitcited by 184
- 2024Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning?cited by 165
- 2022Neural Networks can Learn Representations with Gradient Descentcited by 161
- 2025Scaling Latent Reasoning via Looped Language Modelscited by 145
- 2020Rethinking Class-Balanced Methods for Long-Tailed Visual Recognition from a Domain Adaptation Perspectivecited by 143
- 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulationcited by 142
- 2022The merged-staircase property: a necessary and nearly sufficient condition for SGD learning of sparse functions on two-layer neural networkscited by 141
- 2023The Quantization Model of Neural Scalingcited by 137
- 2023Representational Strengths and Limitations of Transformerscited by 132
- 2023Skill-it! A Data-Driven Skills Framework for Understanding and Training Language Modelscited by 120
- 2023A Theory for Emergence of Complex Skills in Language Modelscited by 111
- 2024Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Processcited by 107
- 2024Metacognitive Capabilities of LLMs: An Exploration in Mathematical Problem Solvingcited by 82
- 2024Grokked Transformers are Implicit Reasoners: A Mechanistic Journey to the Edge of Generalizationcited by 78
- 2024Hopping Too Late: Exploring the Limitations of Large Language Models on Multi-Hop Queriescited by 78
- 2020Learning Parities with Neural Networkscited by 77
- 2023Skill-Mix: a Flexible and Expandable Family of Evaluations for AI modelscited by 64
- 2024On Limitations of the Transformer Architecturecited by 63
- 2021The staircase property: How hierarchical structure can guide deep learningcited by 62
- 2024Transformers Provably Solve Parity Efficiently with Chain of Thoughtcited by 49
- 2024Understanding and Patching Compositional Reasoning in LLMscited by 45
- 2024Theoretical limitations of multi-layer Transformercited by 43
- 2025Learning Compositional Functions with Transformers from Easy-to-Hard Datacited by 34
- 2023Gradient-Based Feature Learning under Structured Datacited by 32
- 2025Transformers Learn to Implement Multi-step Gradient Descent with Chain of Thoughtcited by 32
- 2024From Sparse Dependence to Sparse Attention: Unveiling How Chain-of-Thought Enhances Transformer Sample Efficiencycited by 28
- 2023Provable Advantage of Curriculum Learning on Parity Targets with Mixed Inputscited by 22
- 2023A Mathematical Model for Curriculum Learning for Paritiescited by 19
- 2024Can Models Learn Skill Composition from Examples?cited by 17
- 2025How do Transformers Learn Implicit Reasoning?cited by 15
- 2024Investigating Multi-Hop Factual Shortcuts in Knowledge Editing of Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2023Learning Multi-Step Reasoning by Solving Arithmetic Taskscited by 12
- 2025Transformers Provably Learn Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Length Generalizationcited by 12
- 2025Language models can learn implicit multi-hop reasoning, but only if they have lots of training datacited by 11
- 2024Enhancing Multi-hop Reasoning through Knowledge Erasure in Large Language Model Editingcited by 9
- 2025CaKE: Circuit-aware Editing Enables Generalizable Knowledge Learnerscited by 9
- 2025Asymptotics of SGD in Sequence-Single Index Models and Single-Layer Attention Networkscited by 9
50 most cited of 55 All 55 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.