Skip to content
Preprint

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

Jul 2026 · 0 citations · 33 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The information shadow is introduced: 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.

Abstract

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.

View source

Similar papers

Review Jul 2026

Instruction-Tuned Language Models Cannot Sample from Distributions They Can Describe

For applications that require per-persona outputs, the same model that cannot sample from a distribution can describe it accurately in a single call, and is proposed Prompt-Perturbed Argyle (PPA), which reduces the same error by 21% at no added cost.

Chaemi Jang, Dongman Lee, Jihee Kim · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Knowledgeless Language Models: Suppressing Parametric Recall for Evidence-Grounded Language Modeling

The results demonstrate that suppressing entity-linked supervision during pretraining induces a shift in epistemic behavior: KLLMs rely less on parametric knowledge and more on external evidence, leading to improved reliability under realistic conditions, suggesting that pretraining-time control over knowledge acquisition can complement retrieval-augmented and tool-based systems by providing a more evidence-sensitive base model.

Roi Cohen, Yvan Carr'e, Nick Lechtenborger et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Attention-Path Fragility as an Uncertainty Signal in Large Language Models

It is proposed that a model's uncertainty about a token is reflected not only in the breadth of its output distribution but also in whether a confident prediction is \emph{fragile} under perturbation of its attention pathways, a training-free estimator that masks attention heads and measures the BALD mutual information among the resulting subnetworks.

Minsoo Kim, Sungyoung Ji, Kisung Moon et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Language models suffer from a curse of ambiguity

This work identifies a curse of ambiguity: in large language models, and more broadly in all neural networks that produce discrete probability distributions, the more ambiguous a next-token distribution is, the harder it is to learn accurately.

Nicolas Zucchet, Hyun Dong Lee, Scott W. Linderman · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

When Is Noise Response Universal? Tokenization as the Hidden Variable in Language Models

The performance of textual neural models often degrades when their inputs are corrupted by noise such as typos, OCR errors, or dropped words. We study the degradation rate across neural models, both sentence embeddings and decoder-only LLMs, and find that how consistent it is depends on the scale of the noise: under word-level noise, models with very different architectures decline along nearly the same curve, while under character-level noise they separate. We further identify the determining factor to be the training objective, not the architecture: eight encoders spanning six pretraining paradigms are scattered initially, and collapse onto a common curve after a short contrastive training recipe. We trace the word/character split to tokenization: a single character edit forces the tokenizer to re-segment the surrounding word, disturbing the token sequence far more than dropping a whole word does. This finding and its underlying mechanism provide a practical means to predict a model's robustness to noise without any noisy evaluation, and to install robustness at a chosen noise scale through noise-augmented training.

Yefan Tao, Gerald Friedland, Luyang Kong · 0 citations