When Training Order Becomes the Algorithm: Endpoint-Induced Collapse and Memorization Without Rule Generalization
An EpiLang case study of how epoch endpoints can select a degenerate output policy and hide the difference between memorizing examples and learning an executable rule.
The named Zenodo record is an author-identified preprint. The deposit notes an active anonymous TMLR/OpenReview submission; this page links only to the public preprint.
Author abstract
Abstract
Synthetic execution tasks are often used to test whether language models acquire algorithmic rules, yet aggregate accuracy can hide shortcuts induced by data order. EpiLang studies a register-language task in which a Qwen3.5-0.8B model must reduce an integer literal modulo 11, write the residue into a destination register, preserve the remaining state, and emit the same residue. Train and tune splits use disjoint raw literals. In an initial deterministic run, homogeneous residue blocks caused the model to generate residue 10 for every input. Reversing the blocks reproduced collapse to residue 0, while interleaving residues removed the single-class collapse and improved train fitting. Held-out execution did not improve, separating endpoint-controlled behavior from systematic rule generalization.
Research question
Does the model learn modulo execution or the order in which examples arrive?
The study uses a strict JSON register task so that an exact execution match requires the correct modulo residue, destination update, unchanged registers, and output format. The only intervention is byte-identical row order, allowing endpoint effects to be isolated from model, data, optimizer, and decoding changes.
Results
Key findings
The endpoint selects the collapsed class.
The ascending schedule ends in residue 10 and produces residue 10 everywhere; reverse blocks end in residue 0 and reproduce collapse to residue 0.
Interleaving unlocks train fitting.
Across three paired seeds, interleaving raises final train execution by a paired mean of 106.7 examples out of 176.
Train fitting is not rule transfer.
The paired final-tune effect is −3.3 examples, and no run exceeds 27/176 against the preregistered 159/176 tune threshold.
The negative result is diagnostic.
Removing endpoint collapse reveals extensive memorization without systematic generalization to held-out raw literals.
Experimental design
Method at a glance
- Model
- Qwen3.5-0.8B adapted for a controlled register-language task
- Operation
- Compute an integer modulo 11, write the residue, preserve state, and emit strict JSON
- Controls
- Ascending blocks, reverse blocks, and interleaved residues with rotating epoch endpoints
- Evaluation
- Exact interpreter-based execution on train and held-out raw literals
Scope
Limitations
- The experiment studies one executable modulo-11 task and one adapted Qwen3.5-0.8B model.
- The eight-epoch budget does not establish or rule out later grokking-style generalization.
- The result is a causal case study of order and endpoint composition, not a universal claim about language-model training.
Open research
Preprint and reproducibility artifacts
Reuse and citation
Cite this preprint
Sezer, N. M. (2026). When Training Order Becomes the Algorithm: Endpoint-Induced Collapse and Memorization Without Rule Generalization. Zenodo.
@article{sezer2026trainingorder,
title = {When Training Order Becomes the Algorithm: Endpoint-Induced Collapse and Memorization Without Rule Generalization},
author = {Sezer, Nedim Mutlu},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.21718516},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21718516},
note = {Zenodo preprint}
}Quick answers
Questions this study answers
Does higher training accuracy prove algorithmic learning?
No. EpiLang shows that order changes can improve train fitting while leaving held-out rule execution essentially unchanged.
What is endpoint-induced collapse?
It is a degenerate output policy selected by the examples at the end of each epoch; reversing the block order changes the collapsed residue.