What Makes a Representational Prior Work? Feature Families, Label-Free Invariances, and Critical Windows in Grokking

Abstract

Companion work showed the grokking delay is causally the time to form task-structured representations, injectable via a contrastive prior. Here we characterize what makes such a prior work, across four axes, in 188 new runs. Content: a coherent, learnable prior built from the wrong feature family (magnitude bands) blocks generalization like a random partition (1/15 vs 0/20 grok; $p=0.43$ between them), confirming the companion's prediction that priors act at the level of the circuit's features. Supervision: a fully label-free invariance prior -- positives are commuted pairs $(a,b)\sim(b,a)$ only -- generalizes in 15/15 runs at a median $2.7\times$ speedup, more reliably than the label-supervised prior itself ($p=0.038$), and combined with a weight-norm clamp yields the strongest method we test (median $17\times$, 5/5) -- strongest meaning reliably fast: plain cross-entropy with a clamp matches this speed only at the exact critical norm, while the prior keeps it fast across the entire clamp range. Timing: the prior is only needed early -- applied solely during the first 2000 epochs (4% of budget) it generalizes 10/10 at $2.7\times$, beating continuous application (8/10, $1.25\times$) and a duration-matched later window ($2.1\times$). Setting: the dissociation replicates on modular multiplication and across depths and normalization variants, and a clamp sweep quantifies the companion's central claim: structure injection flattens the weight-norm delay-law exponent about 17-fold (plain cross-entropy slows $31\times$ per +10 norm units, a lower bound as higher cells are censored, versus $1.22\times$ with the prior). Honest boundary: tasks that generalize before memorizing have no delay to control. Feature-family alignment decides whether a prior permits generalization; invariance content suffices for acceleration without labels; a brief early window captures nearly all of the benefit.