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

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently portrayed as general-purpose solvers capable of solving arbitrary tasks. We argue that this view overlooks a fundamental constraint: language is a compressed and capacity-limited interface for conveying task information. Modelling User--System interaction as a bilevel \emph{cheap-talk} game, we analyse how latent tasks are encoded into prompts and reinterpreted under alignment and safety constraints. We introduce a conceptual decomposition separating task inference from execution and derive PAC-Bayes bounds that distinguish finite-sample estimation error from irreducible structural limitations. Our first main result establishes an \emph{expressivity floor}: language acts as a capacity-limited communication channel, and whenever the informational complexity of a task family exceeds the capacity of that channel, distinct tasks become unavoidably indistinguishable to the Solver, inducing a strictly positive error floor that cannot be eliminated by additional data, optimisation, or model scaling alone. We then establish an \emph{objective-misalignment floor}: when alignment constraints restrict the admissible output set, the User-ideal distribution may lie outside the feasible class, inducing an irreducible distortion. Together, these results yield a formal negative conclusion: prompt-conditioned LLMs are not universal problem solvers through prompting alone, as there exist task families for which correct behaviour is provably unattainable even in the infinite-data regime. More broadly, our analysis shows the limits of prompt-based generalisation arise from information-constrained communication and alignment-constrained objectives. This suggests that interfaces beyond natural language, including multimodal observations and, external memory, may reduce the inherent LLM limitations by increasing the task-relevant information available to the System.

Information locality, the tendency for syntactically related words to appear close together, shapes both human language processing and language model learning. While prior work has examined whether language models can acquire impossible languages, it remains unclear whether they can recover natural language from such input and what this reveals about their inductive biases. We address this by complementing learnability-based approaches with a reconstruction framework: fine-tuning GPT-2 models pre-trained on impossible languages to reconstruct natural English from three perturbation types. Our findings show that the recovered structures exhibit shorter dependency lengths than the original text, mirroring the locality preference observed in unconstrained language model generation and providing a quantitative signature of an architectural bias that learnability experiments alone do not reveal. Recovery difficulty increases with the degree of locality disruption. Structural recovery (dependency Triple F1) dissociates from surface recovery (Exact Match), while fluency dissociates from faithful reconstruction under global shuffling. Sentence length further modulates performance: longer sentences facilitate recovery when local structure is preserved but lead to complete collapse under global shuffling. Finally, recovery difficulty tracks learnability difficulty across perturbation types, suggesting that information locality is the shared constraint governing both.

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.