Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the differential success of code generation versus reinforcement learning by proposing a five-level hierarchy of learnability based on information structure and feedback quality. It formally distinguishes between expressibility, computability, and learnability of computational problems, establishing their pairwise relationships and limitations. The analysis suggests that the learnability of a task, rather than solely model size, is a key determinant of ML progress, explaining the predictable scaling of supervised learning on code compared to reinforcement learning.
Forget scaling laws: the real bottleneck for AI progress isn't model size, but whether a task's information structure makes it inherently learnable.
Code generation has progressed more reliably than reinforcement learning, largely because code has an information structure that makes it learnable. Code provides dense, local, verifiable feedback at every token, whereas most reinforcement learning problems do not. This difference in feedback quality is not binary but graded. We propose a five-level hierarchy of learnability based on information structure and argue that the ceiling on ML progress depends less on model size than on whether a task is learnable at all. The hierarchy rests on a formal distinction among three properties of computational problems (expressibility, computability, and learnability). We establish their pairwise relationships, including where implications hold and where they fail, and present a unified template that makes the structural differences explicit. The analysis suggests why supervised learning on code scales predictably while reinforcement learning does not, and why the common assumption that scaling alone will solve remaining ML challenges warrants scrutiny.
