On the Computational Complexity of Structural Generalization

arXiv:2607.19573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Structural generalization has been measured repeatedly by several benchmarks, yet it has never been formally defined. We give a definition that translates the two premises (compositional structure and unbounded generalization) into mathematical language. The definition itself is neutral: a compiler that hard-codes the rules satisfies it just as well. But structural generalization becomes a scientific question only insofar as the capacity can autonomously emerge from finite data. This question pits the computational lower bound $\mathrm{NC}^1$ against the learnable ceiling $\mathrm{TC}^0$ of pure Transformers. Under a Montagovian instantiation, each compositional rule splits into two projections: a syntactic face ($F_\gamma$) and a semantic face ($G_\gamma$). Tree evaluation on the $G_\gamma$ side is an instantiation of BFVP, which is $\mathrm{NC}^1$-complete (Buss, 1987). A pure Transformer must learn both faces at once, but Kraus et al. (2026) prove that its learnable class $\subseteq \mathrm{TC}^0$. Under the standard assumption $\mathrm{TC}^0 \neq \mathrm{NC}^1$, a pure Transformer cannot learn structural generalization. Neuro-symbolic systems achieve the best benchmark scores precisely because they inject $G_\gamma$, sidestepping the genuinely hard half. Benchmark scores cannot distinguish "learned" from "given." This is what this paper sets out to make clear.

Abstract:Structural generalization has been measured repeatedly by several benchmarks, yet it has never been formally defined. We give a definition that translates the two premises (compositional structure and unbounded generalization) into mathematical language. The definition itself is neutral: a compiler that hard-codes the rules satisfies it just as well. But structural generalization becomes a scientific question only insofar as the capacity can autonomously emerge from finite data. This question pits the computational lower bound $\mathrm{NC}^1$ against the learnable ceiling $\mathrm{TC}^0$ of pure Transformers. Under a Montagovian instantiation, each compositional rule splits into two projections: a syntactic face ($F_\gamma$) and a semantic face ($G_\gamma$). Tree evaluation on the $G_\gamma$ side is an instantiation of BFVP, which is $\mathrm{NC}^1$-complete (Buss, 1987). A pure Transformer must learn both faces at once, but Kraus et al. (2026) prove that its learnable class $\subseteq \mathrm{TC}^0$. Under the standard assumption $\mathrm{TC}^0 \neq \mathrm{NC}^1$, a pure Transformer cannot learn structural generalization. Neuro-symbolic systems achieve the best benchmark scores precisely because they inject $G_\gamma$, sidestepping the genuinely hard half. Benchmark scores cannot distinguish "learned" from "given." This is what this paper sets out to make clear.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2607.19573 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2607.19573v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.19573 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

On the Computational Complexity of Structural Generalization

Subiecte conexe