mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Language Generation: Complexity Barriers and Implications for Learning

arXiv 2511.05759 ↗First posted 7 Nov 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.FLcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Kleinberg and Mullainathan showed that language generation in the limit is always possible at the level of computability: given enough positive examples, a learner can eventually generate data indistinguishable from a target language. However, such existence results do not address feasibility. We study the sample complexity of language generation in the limit for several canonical classes of formal languages. Our results show that infeasibility already appears for context-free and regular languages, and persists even for strict subclasses such as locally threshold testable languages, as well as for incomparable classes such as non-erasing pattern languages, a well-studied class in the theory of language identification. Overall, our results establish a clear gap between the theoretical possibility of language generation in the limit and its computational feasibility.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Nov 2025.

Builds on

9 of 23 references.

References · 9

  1. 2025Why Language Models Hallucinatecited by 220
  2. 2023Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinatecited by 115
  3. 2024Language Generation in the Limitcited by 40
  4. 2024Generation through the lens of learning theorycited by 31
  5. 2025Density Measures for Language Generationcited by 21
  6. 2025Generation from Noisy Examplescited by 20
  7. 2025Representative Language Generationcited by 19
  8. 2025On Union-Closedness of Language Generationcited by 17
  9. 2025(Im)possibility of Automated Hallucination Detection in Large Language Modelscited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.