mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Symmetry without a manifold: intrinsic dimension on orbits

arXiv 2609.17926 ↗First posted 15 Sep 2026cs.LG stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The standard geometric derivation of neural scaling exponents takes the intrinsic dimension of a data manifold as its input. On modular addition in mathbbZp that derivation has no input. The exact algebraic solution is an orbit of mathbbZp acting by isometries. Transitivity alone makes the ratio statistic underlying the standard dimension estimator a point mass, so the estimator is undefined, and here the two nearest neighbour distances coincide exactly. Breaking the symmetry at scale ε returns a number, but one that tracks 1/ε with no scale free plateau. We show that the failure is general, since on any finite orbit of a group acting by isometries the estimator reports the resolution at which the set is probed rather than a dimension. What replaces the power law is exponential in hidden width, L(h)=L_∞+Aexp(-c,hα), with R2 between 0.982 and 0.995 against 0.857 to 0.906 for a power law admitting the same floor and fitted under the same protocol. Where the data supply is sufficient the rate belongs to the regulariser rather than to the group, since weight decay moves c by a factor of 47 while group order moves it by 1.10, a residual below seed to seed resolution, for every fixed α between 0.75 and 2. The critical width falls with group order rather than rising, against capacity counting that assigns a fixed number of neurons to each irreducible representation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2026.

Builds on

26 of 30 references.

References · 26

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  2. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
  3. 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
  4. 2020Prevalence of Neural Collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning trainingcited by 719
  5. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
  6. 2022Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruningcited by 528
  7. 2021Explaining Neural Scaling Lawscited by 363
  8. 2019Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networkscited by 282
  9. 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 250
  10. 2022Omnigrok: Grokking Beyond Algorithmic Datacited by 146
  11. 2023A Toy Model of Universality: Reverse Engineering How Networks Learn Group Operationscited by 144
  12. 2023The Quantization Model of Neural Scalingcited by 138
14 more
  1. 2023Explaining grokking through circuit efficiencycited by 111
  2. 2023Grokking modular arithmeticcited by 83
  3. 2023Feature emergence via margin maximization: case studies in algebraic taskscited by 33
  4. 2025Superposition Yields Robust Neural Scalingcited by 31
  5. 2023Grokking Group Multiplication with Cosetscited by 24
  6. 2024Grokking Modular Polynomialscited by 18
  7. 2024Neural Scaling Laws Rooted in the Data Distributioncited by 15
  8. 2025Provable Scaling Laws of Feature Emergence from Learning Dynamics of Grokkingcited by 15
  9. 2026On the Mechanism and Dynamics of Modular Addition: Fourier Features, Lottery Ticket, and Grokkingcited by 7
  10. 2023A Neural Scaling Law from Lottery Ticket Ensemblingcited by 5
  11. 2026Neural Networks Provably Learn Spectral Representations for Group Compositioncited by 3
  12. 2025Quiet Feature Learning in Algorithmic Taskscited by 2
  13. 2026Beyond Neural Collapse: Task-Intrinsic Geometry Governs Neural Representations in Modular Arithmeticcited by 2
  14. 2026Algebraic Representability as the Limiting Regime of Grokking: An Exactly Solvable Model with Holomorphic Activationscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.