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

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.

Causally Evaluating the Learnability of Formal Language Tasks

Language models, as multi-task learners, acquire a wide range of abilities during training. A fundamental question is how much task-specific data is needed to learn a given task. Answering this for natural language is difficult: tasks are hard to delineate and can confound one another. To rigorously investigate the relationship between data frequency and learnability, we turn to a controlled setting using formal languages induced from probabilistic finite automata. These serve as a methodological testbed to demonstrate that standard correlational evaluation practices are inherently flawed. To enable causal analysis, we introduce the binning semiring, an algebraic object that lets us control how often a targeted property occurs in a sampled corpus. We formulate the experimental pipeline as a causal graphical model and derive decomposed Kullback-Leibler divergence metrics to measure the learnability of specific sub-tasks. Our experiments show that evaluating learnability without causal intervention leads to incorrect conclusions due to confounders in correlational analysis, and serve as a warning about correlational pitfalls in natural-language settings.