Neural scaling laws describe how loss decreases as models, data, and compute grow, but they do not answer a prior question: for a fixed task, what is the minimum model capacity required to solve it? We study this through the Entropic Bound, a spectral notion of task-intrinsic capacity for Transformers. We first prove that, in a linear attention surrogate, the intrinsic rank $r^*$ of the token-mixing operator is a tight lower bound: any rank-deficient model incurs unavoidable excess risk, and the bound is achievable at $r^*$. We further show that gradient descent recovers this rank under standard low-rank implicit-bias assumptions, confirm all three properties empirically, and show $r^*$ is recoverable from data before training. We then ask whether this transfers to real attention. A naive transfer fails, and a controlled interpolation ladder localizes the cause precisely: it is not softmax and not a rank constraint, but the input-conditioned nature of attention's mixing operator, which a static weight kernel cannot summarize. Motivated by this, we introduce an attention-native intrinsic rank -- the minimum query-key kernel rank realizing the task within the attention class -- and show that under this definition the full Entropic Bound structure (deficiency, achievability, recovery) is restored for both linear and softmax attention, with the energy effective rank as the estimator robust to softmax distortion. Finally, we map the boundary of data-only predictability: $r^*$ is exactly recoverable for linear QK attention, even without the value map at scale, while softmax attention admits only partial pre-training recovery due to nonlinear inversion and kernel-value identifiability effects. Our results reframe the Entropic Bound from a post-hoc descriptor into an attention-native capacity measure with a precisely characterized predictability frontier.
Neural networks trained on modular arithmetic exhibit grokking, a delayed transition from memorisation to generalisation known to depend on model capacity: too little and the network memorises slowly or not at all, too much and it generalises almost immediately. What happens at the extreme of this spectrum, when the architecture's expressible function class collapses to a finite-dimensional algebraic variety? We study two-layer networks with a holomorphic monomial activation sigma(z)=z^k, trained on modular tasks encoded via roots of unity. Here the network output, regardless of hidden width, is confined to a (k+1)-dimensional subspace of characters of (Z_p)^2, an O(k/p^2) slice of the full function space. We give a complete algebraic characterisation of this subspace: a task is representable if and only if its discrete Fourier support lies on the diagonal u+v = k (mod p), which for linear-phase targets reduces to the arithmetic criterion m+n=k. This is not merely a constraint on eventual generalisation but on memorisation itself: because the outputs are algebraically confined, a non-representable target cannot be fit even on the training set, and we prove a positive lower bound on the training loss, independent of width. Across 585 runs the algebraic prediction matches the observed outcome with 99.8% accuracy, with no memorisation regime and no grokking; outcomes split cleanly into instant success and outright failure. This binary behaviour is the limiting case of the capacity-grokking relationship: when the expressible class shrinks to a fixed algebraic object, the question of when a network will grok dissolves into whether it can represent the target at all. A bottleneck ablation connects this extreme to standard networks, tracing a continuous path from representational failure, through memorisation without generalisation, to grokking with a shrinking gap as capacity grows.
Prior work treats structured output as a reasoning tax, but this framing is incomplete: the cost of formatting depends strongly on a model's spare capacity. Using information-matched prose controls and a four-level schema complexity gradient, we separate format-specific effects from prompt-length confounds across 4 models and 5 benchmarks with 0% parse failures on successfully generated responses. We find that structured formats are capacity-dependent. Models with sufficient headroom absorb JSON constraints without degradation (Sonnet: $88.7\pm4.0$% JSON vs. $89.3\pm1.7$% CoT on MATH-Hard). In contrast, formats severely degrade models operating near their limits through two distinct mechanisms. First, under standard token budgets, Haiku drops 36.2pp ($p < 0.0001$) largely due to truncation. Second, even with extended budgets eliminating truncation, GPT-4o-mini drops 28.0pp ($p < 0.001$), revealing pure capacity competition independent of token exhaustion. This format penalty scales with schema complexity (McNemar $p < 0.0001$) and cannot be explained by prompt length alone. Furthermore, these results qualify claims of frontier model immunity: on AIME competition math, Opus 4.7 drops from 96.2% to 91.0% under JSON ($-5.3$pp; the displayed percentages are independently rounded, exact difference is $7/133 = 5.26$pp $\approx 5.3$pp). A delayed-structure ablation -- reasoning freely before formatting -- recovers most of the lost accuracy (3-run mean: 80--87%), supporting the capacity competition mechanism. The practical implication is not to avoid structured output, but to match it to capacity: when a model is near its limits, think first, format later.
Model dimension ($d_{model}$) is a fundamental hyperparameter in transformer language models, yet its role in setting the geometric limits of feature representation remains under-explored. Grounded in the Linear Representation and Superposition Hypotheses - which propose that models encode features as near-orthogonal directions in latent space - we develop a framework for estimating how many such directions a model can support. We first establish the embedding matrix as a measurable proxy for near-orthogonality constraints across the latent space: the boundary between meaningful token relationships and incidental similarity in the pairwise cosine similarity distribution gives a concrete estimate of the model's accepted deviation $\varepsilon$ from perfect orthogonality. Applying this metric across dozens of open-source models reveals two classes: models with high $\varepsilon$ whose embeddings lack near-orthogonal structure, and models with low $\varepsilon$ that maintain it. We then show that the standard Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma greatly underestimates the packing efficiency of trained representations, and derive an adjusted capacity formula in which the number of near-orthogonal directions depends on the ratio of vectors to dimensions ($k/d$) rather than the raw count - a single modification that cuts prediction error by two orders of magnitude with no extra parameters. Combining these results, we define representational capacity as an upper bound on the number of distinguishable directions available for features and embeddings in a model's latent space. Capacity is exponentially sensitive to $\varepsilon$, and larger models favor tighter orthogonality constraints over maximizing raw capacity - a pattern compatible with several explanations (a stability-capacity trade-off, a ceiling on usable concepts, or confounds with model scale) that we leave to future work.