The paper argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) do not function as Solomonoff induction estimators because their training objectives—cross‑entropy, negative log‑likelihood, and next‑token prediction—optimize fit to a supplied conditional distribution rather than a program‑weighted universal mixture. It further contends that additional computation alone does not transform these models into optimal predictors without external hyper‑parameter or architectural changes. The authors suggest that neurosymbolic machine learning, exemplified by models such as Fable and Astra, represents a shift toward symbolic model synthesis, moving beyond purely statistical LLMs.
arXiv:2601.05280v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: On the one hand, the question of whether Large Language Models (LLMs) are Solomonoff induction estimators has become an explicit question at...
arXiv:2601. 05280v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: On the one hand, the question of whether large language models (LLMs) are Solomonoff induction estimators has become an explicit question at the intersection of Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT) and Machine Learning (ML) of great interest.
arXiv:2607. 28667v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent work has shown that classifying large language models (LLMs)' responses can be distinguished by modeling token embeddings as trajectories of a black-box dynamical system (DS) and comparing prediction residuals of two DSs.
The paper introduces mentored decoding, a formal framework for lossy speculative decoding that can accelerate inference of autoregressive language models while potentially improving output quality. It connects this inference technique to boosting theory and extends it to all f‑divergences, revealing geometric insights for total variation, simple approximations tied to boosting compliance, and a divergence‑independent data structure enabling efficient optimal parameter queries and mentored distribution construction.
arXiv:2608. 01005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Solomonoff Induction, or SolInd, provides an ideal unbounded model of a priori sequence prediction but cannot naturally describe extrapolation from a given training dataset, as performed by Large Language Models.
The paper introduces F-ICL, a benchmark that measures in‑context algorithmic reasoning in language models by exhaustively enumerating 86 million valid programs of length ≤13 on a Turing‑complete machine and computing the exact posterior under a bounded Levin–Solomonoff prior. Unlike typical benchmarks, F‑ICL provides a distributional reference rather than just answers, allowing the evaluation of models’ inductive priors. Across 105 configurations of models ranging from 0.8 B to 675 B parameters, models achieve up to 92 % accuracy, yet many still deviate from the Bayes‑optimal reference, and the study derives theoretical bounds on cumulative loss for predictors with positive prior weight on the reference.
arXiv:2512. 22088v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The scaling law, a cornerstone of Large Language Model (LLM) development, predicts improvements in model performance with increasing computational resources.
arXiv:2606. 30372v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quantitative research across the social and behavioral sciences depends on human subject experiments that are expensive, slow, and subject to sampling bias.
arXiv:2607. 22757v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce Graded Large Language Models (GLLMs), an algebraic framework that equips the representation space of a transformer with a grading and propagates the induced weighted scalar action through embeddings, self-attention, and the training objective.
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.
Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: A Survey reviews how scaling LLMs leads to previously unseen capabilities such as advanced reasoning, in-context learning, coding, and problem-solving. The paper critically examines definitions, inconsistencies, and the conditions that foster these abilities, including scaling laws, task complexity, pre‑training loss, quantization, and prompting strategies. It also discusses the extension to Large Reasoning Models and highlights safety concerns like deception, manipulation, and reward hacking, calling for improved evaluation and governance.
Whether large language models perform genuine algorithmic reasoning or mere pattern completion is hard to test, because most benchmarks lack a ground truth for correct inductive inference. We introduce F-ICL, an in-context-learning benchmark that supplies one exactly.