mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Information Shadow: Measuring Structural Limits on What Language Models Can Learn

arXiv 2607.18305 ↗First posted 17 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Some limits on what language models know are not gaps in data coverage but structural properties of learning from text. We introduce the information shadow: the region of phenomena that a text-trained learner cannot acquire regardless of scale, comprising (I) structures language cannot express, (II) functions that are statistically non-identifiable from the training distribution, and (III) functions that are representable but unreachable by gradient-based training. We give each type a probe that is decisive because the premise of the shadow is, in that setting, provable. For Type I, Language Compression Residuals compare a text learner, which sees only a lossy text-like encoding of the signal, against a full-signal learner, which sees the underlying signal directly. The text learner sits at a computable expressibility ceiling while the full-signal learner pulls away by a gap that stays flat across 300x more data, so the deficit is a property of the channel, not of training. For Type II, the Counterfactual Distinction Test trains models on data exactly consistent with two incompatible rules. Across a provable string task and a language-like agreement task, behavior on counterfactuals is set by the model's inductive bias, while 5% disambiguating data steers the learned rule bidirectionally to either target (r = +/-1.0, p < 1e-10). For Type III, Basin Escape Mapping exhibits a function that is representable at 100% (by hand construction) yet reached 0% of the time by standard training and instantly from a nearby initialization, with width scaling providing no help (p = 1.6 x 10^-14). Each effect is isolated by a control that rules out a capacity or modality artifact. We release the probe suite and discuss implications for benchmark design, capability auditing, and shadow-aware uncertainty.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.

Builds on

21 of 33 references.

References · 21

  1. 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,262
  2. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
  3. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 876
  4. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
  5. 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
  6. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
  7. 2016On the Expressive Power of Deep Neural Networkscited by 306
  8. 2019Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Modelscited by 288
  9. 2022Neural Networks and the Chomsky Hierarchycited by 217
  10. 2018Deep learning generalizes because the parameter-function map is biased towards simple functionscited by 183
  11. 2019Predictive Multiplicity in Classificationcited by 166
  12. 2023SGD learning on neural networks: leap complexity and saddle-to-saddle dynamicscited by 143
9 more
  1. 2023What Formal Languages Can Transformers Express? A Surveycited by 124
  2. 2022Overcoming a Theoretical Limitation of Self-Attentioncited by 113
  3. 2020On Linear Identifiability of Learned Representationscited by 105
  4. 2019BERTs of a feather do not generalize together: Large variability in generalization across models with similar test set performancecited by 89
  5. 2017Failures of Gradient-Based Deep Learningcited by 80
  6. 2020Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networkscited by 72
  7. 2021Provable Limitations of Acquiring Meaning from Ungrounded Form: What Will Future Language Models Understand?cited by 55
  8. 2019Inoculation by Fine-Tuning: A Method for Analyzing Challenge Datasetscited by 42
  9. 2023Provable Advantage of Curriculum Learning on Parity Targets with Mixed Inputscited by 22

Built on by

Not cited yet.