mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Deterministic Horizon: Impossibility Results as Design Specifications for Trustworthy AI Systems

arXiv 2605.23024 ↗First posted 21 May 2026cs.AI cs.CC cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models now write software, draft legal documents, and produce clinical notes, yet fundamental limits, from Turing and Arrow to the No Free Lunch theorems, shape what computation can do. This thesis turns such impossibility results from curiosities into design rules. Its flagship result proves an accuracy ceiling set by architecture alone: past a critical reasoning depth, no amount of training moves it, at any adapter rank, sample size, or loss function. Computable before deployment from layer count and embedding width, this Deterministic Horizon is measured between nineteen and thirty-one across twelve transformer architectures, and fine-tuning on optimal-length traces recovers under four percentage points. The mechanism is a capacity invariant of the residual stream, and an information-theoretic conversion yields super-exponential accuracy decay past the horizon. An unconditional circuit-complexity lower bound for modular exponentiation against constant-depth prime-modulus circuits complements this result. The same argument recasts across subfields: preference learning under any misspecified model jumps discontinuously in sample complexity; multi-stage retrieval pipelines require at least as many independent metrics as stages; standard truthful auctions fail for agents with prompt-dependent valuations; and zero-knowledge verification of neural inference pays a measured overhead of one hundred ten to one hundred ninety times per non-linear activation. Together these form a catalogue of sixteen specifications, each pairing a computable boundary, a quantified violation cost, and a constructive design rule: two compositions are proved, one pairing is an honest obstruction, and four remain open. The impossibility-specification methodology is offered for the generative research programme that trustworthy AI may need. Every fundamental limit of AI is also a design rule.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 197 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 May 2026.

Builds on

18 of 197 references.

References · 18

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  3. 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,212
  4. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
  5. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
  6. 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
  7. 2021Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Modelscited by 886
  8. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
  9. 2024Measuring short-form factuality in large language modelscited by 373
  10. 2023AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuningcited by 357
  11. 2023Personalized Soups: Personalized Large Language Model Alignment via Post-hoc Parameter Mergingcited by 280
  12. 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 263
6 more
  1. 2024Algorithmic Collusion by Large Language Modelscited by 62
  2. 2022COCO-DR: Combating Distribution Shifts in Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval with Contrastive and Distributionally Robust Learningcited by 20
  3. 2025On the Fundamental Limits of LLMs at Scalecited by 18
  4. 2025Fundamental Safety-Capability Trade-offs in Fine-tuning Large Language Modelscited by 17
  5. 2025Sharp Generalization Bounds for Foundation Models with Asymmetric Randomized Low-Rank Adapterscited by 11
  6. 2025On the Fundamental Impossibility of Hallucination Control in Large Language Modelscited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.