analiza aiqbench
This study investigates the origins of "jagged competence" in neural networks, revealing how models acquire partial knowledge of a foundational task only where it is strictly necessary for an upper-layer objective. The research demonstrates that even when a lower-level capability is explicitly trained, the optimization process for a subsequent layer can degrade or selectively ignore that foundation, leading to specific input-dependent failures. These findings offer critical insights into the theoretical limits of modular learning and the inherent trade-offs between efficiency and robustness in hierarchical AI architectures.
Where Does Jagged Competence Come From?
arXiv:2610.03831v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Capable systems often show jagged competence: low average error alongside failures on particular inputs. We ask where it comes from in a task built from two known layers. A lower layer A computes five per-slot sums from records; an upper layer B uses the slot-1 sum and a mode carried over from earlier boards to predict the next board's category, so B cannot be computed from the current A alone: B is a strict extension of A. We train small recurrent networks on B and measure, against exact ground truth, what they acquire of A. The central finding is that learning B gives the network a jagged version of A, measured through probe readability and supervised outputs. It is readable where B needs it (slot 1, 97-98% by a linear probe) and becomes less readable where B does not (the other slots, 5-10%); category misreads concentrate near the slot-1 cutoffs; and when A is trained explicitly it comes out only approximately right. The networks show jagged competence in B: natural KL below $3\times10^{-4}$ bits coexists with a maximum law TV of about 0.25 on constructed histories. Matched experiments show that even a good A is not enough: connecting a learned A to B cuts misreads 1.3 to 17-fold, the same exact A gives fewer misreads as one-hot inputs (0-2) than as numerical inputs (10-317), one B update makes an exact A inexact unless the B gradient is blocked, and exact A still leaves some B failures. In this task, uneven acquisition, access and preservation of the lower theory explain part of the jagged competence of a network that learns the theory built on it; some failures remain unexplained. Whether the same holds in larger systems is a test to run.
Title:Where Does Jagged Competence Come From?
Abstract:Capable systems often show jagged competence: low average error alongside failures on particular inputs. We ask where it comes from in a task built from two known layers. A lower layer A computes five per-slot sums from records; an upper layer B uses the slot-1 sum and a mode carried over from earlier boards to predict the next board's category, so B cannot be computed from the current A alone: B is a strict extension of A. We train small recurrent networks on B and measure, against exact ground truth, what they acquire of A. The central finding is that learning B gives the network a jagged version of A, measured through probe readability and supervised outputs. It is readable where B needs it (slot 1, 97-98% by a linear probe) and becomes less readable where B does not (the other slots, 5-10%); category misreads concentrate near the slot-1 cutoffs; and when A is trained explicitly it comes out only approximately right. The networks show jagged competence in B: natural KL below $3\times10^{-4}$ bits coexists with a maximum law TV of about 0.25 on constructed histories. Matched experiments show that even a good A is not enough: connecting a learned A to B cuts misreads 1.3 to 17-fold, the same exact A gives fewer misreads as one-hot inputs (0-2) than as numerical inputs (10-317), one B update makes an exact A inexact unless the B gradient is blocked, and exact A still leaves some B failures. In this task, uneven acquisition, access and preservation of the lower theory explain part of the jagged competence of a network that learns the theory built on it; some failures remain unexplained. Whether the same holds in larger systems is a test to run.
30 pages, 10 figures. Code: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.03831 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.03831v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.03831 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 398 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Academia is for Ambition — Alex Zhang, MIT
Latent Space · 2 oct. 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · 21 sept. 2026
Debating RSI, the US-China Gap, and Jaggedness with JS Denain of Epoch AI
Interconnects · 22 sept. 2026
Current AIs out-persuade professionals in lab settings but (probably) not in the world
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026