Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
A general mathematical model of experience formation is considered, in which the learning level is defined as the probability that the next value of the uncertainty factor has already been mastered and not forgotten. Within this model the shape of the learning curve is derived, and it turns out to be determined primarily by the distribution of situation occurrence: a uniform distribution yields an exponential curve, whereas a power-law distribution yields a power-law curve whose exponent equals the ratio of the distribution exponent to that same exponent increased by one. Both mechanisms generating power-law curves, established earlier in the analysis of debugging, assembly and repair activities, are shown to have been independently rediscovered in deep learning theory as the "frequency" and "spectral" mechanisms of scaling laws for artificial neural networks, while the exponential curves of machine learning (contraction operators, strongly convex optimization, stationary reinforcement) are generated by the same constancy of the contraction coefficient that was revealed half a century earlier in models of radioactive decay, the first-order lag element, and others. A solution is given for the problem of choosing a training distribution that differs from the deployment distribution. A methodological consequence is discussed: three distinct mechanisms generate curves indistinguishable in shape, so an observed learning curve does not allow one to judge the "internal" structure of the learning system.