LLM Capability Limits: Static Emergence and Dynamic Boundary Control
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Test-time emergence in LLM systems has a deployment boundary: additional computation can realize decisions already supported by the deployed information--execution structure, while evidence, tools, memory, and executable semantics can change the class inherited by later computation. We formalize this boundary through inherited structural capability DJ and resource-indexed finite realization Fs(J,M). At a common budget, Theorem 1 gives an exact decision representation: a successor improves every bounded-loss task exactly when its closed convex finite envelope retains the predecessor's. Terminal capability can therefore expand while same-budget capability strictly reverses. The same object yields finite-slice recovery and a workload-tail information radius for open-ended evaluation. Dynamically, Bellman value prices the successor capability class together with the finite policies it preserves. Nested realization makes every fixed extra resource increment vanish at saturation, allowing persistent positive successor value to dominate that increment. The resulting theory turns emergence into a boundary, compatibility, measurement, and control problem.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2026.
Builds on
0 of 74 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.