mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

No Certificate for Alignment: Two Independent Impossibilities and the Pareto Frontier of Achievable Safety Guarantees

arXiv 2603.08761 ↗First posted 8 Mar 2026stat.ML cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We argue that formal certification of AI alignment over open-ended or unbounded input domains is impossible under standard assumptions in computational complexity and learning theory, and characterise what remains achievable. Two structurally independent impossibility theorems support this position. The semantic barrier (Theorem 1): deciding whether a system satisfies any non-trivial alignment property over the full input domain is NP-hard for feedforward networks and undecidable for Turing-complete architectures -- a direct consequence of neural-network verification complexity and Rice's Theorem. The statistical barrier (Theorem 2): any verification procedure that is both sound and tractable cannot satisfy Completeness over the full input domain -- a direct consequence of the impossibility of certifying infinite-domain properties from finite observations. These two theorems jointly entail a trilemma: no procedure can simultaneously satisfy soundness (no misaligned system is certified), completeness (no aligned system is rejected), and tractability (polynomial runtime). Each pair is simultaneously achievable; all three are not. We combine these results as a joint framework of two structurally independent barriers, prove their independence, and characterise the achievable Pareto frontier quantitatively via a constructive coverage-gap lower bound.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2026.

Builds on

14 of 31 references.

References · 14

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  5. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  6. 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,095
  7. 2017Reluplex: An Efficient SMT Solver for Verifying Deep Neural Networkscited by 744
  8. 2014On the Number of Linear Regions of Deep Neural Networkscited by 381
  9. 2018On the Effectiveness of Interval Bound Propagation for Training Verifiably Robust Modelscited by 328
  10. 2016Safety Verification of Deep Neural Networkscited by 263
  11. 2020On the Computational Power of Transformers and its Implications in Sequence Modelingcited by 85
  12. 2017Interpreting Blackbox Models via Model Extractioncited by 44
2 more
  1. 2024Catastrophic Goodhart: regularizing RLHF with KL divergence does not mitigate heavy-tailed reward misspecificationcited by 23
  2. 2025Constant Bit-size Transformers Are Turing Completecited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.