How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Fixed-depth hard attention cannot recognize PARITY or 2DYCK
Statement
Let . Let be the language over of words whose brackets are correctly balanced and properly nested by type. No fixed finite-depth hard-attention sequence model with a fixed finite number of heads, fixed maps independent of input length, and a fixed classification readout from its end-marker state classifies every sufficiently long input exactly as a member or nonmember of ; no such model recognizes either. Exact recognition means that the model's binary output equals the language membership indicator for every input word, with the end marker appended before the model is evaluated.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A fixed hard-attention sequence model and the two language definitions in the Statement.
For every finite input alphabet, hard-attention depth reduction can refine a restriction while retaining any specified smaller positive fraction of free positions; iterating through the fixed finite depth yields a restriction on which the output depends on a bounded number of original input positions (Hard-attention depth reduction under input restrictions).
A hard-attention sequence model appends a fixed end marker, uses shared score, value, and positionwise maps fixed independently of input length, and classifies from the final state after reading that marker (Hard and soft attention sequence models).
Proof
Let the model have layers and let be the number of input positions for a word of length , including its fixed end marker. Initially each free layer-zero state depends on its own input symbol. For all sufficiently large , at least positions are free, since only the end-marker position is fixed. Apply [F1] successively through the layers, using free fractions . For every sufficiently large , this gives a restriction leaving at least free word positions and a constant such that the classification output depends on at most input positions.
Now suppose the model recognizes . Its restriction to the two-symbol subalphabet consisting of one opening bracket and its matching closing bracket would recognize the one-type Dyck language, whose words have equal numbers of opening and closing brackets and nonnegative opening-minus-closing count at every prefix. Fix an even word length , put , and let . Initially fix the first word symbols to the opening bracket and the last word symbols to the closing bracket; leave the middle symbols free and keep the end marker fixed. For all sufficiently large even , at least positions are free. By [F1], with final free fraction , refine this restriction so the model output depends on at most input positions and at least word positions remain free. If middle positions were additionally fixed, then for all sufficiently large . Also , so .
Choose large enough that . Some free bit position is not among the at most positions determining the output. Complete the restriction arbitrarily to a word , and let be obtained by flipping bit . Their model outputs agree because all input positions on which the output depends agree, but exactly one of has an even number of ones. Thus no such model classifies all length- words exactly as .
Let be the number of additionally fixed middle symbols that are opening brackets, and let be the number of still-free middle positions. Assign an opening bracket to the first still-free positions in their order, and assign a closing bracket to the rest. Since , we have and The completed word has exactly opening brackets, hence total balance zero. A prefix before the last of the assigned free opening brackets has height at least , because at most fixed middle symbols are closings. After that last free opening, every still-free middle symbol is a closing. For any later prefix ending in the middle segment, its remaining suffix contains the final fixed closings and at most fixed openings, so its net opening-minus-closing count is at most . Since the whole word has total balance zero, every such middle prefix has positive height. The final closing brackets decrease the height from to zero. Thus this completion is a valid one-type Dyck word.
At least positions remain free, so for sufficiently large there is a free word position outside the at most positions determining the model output. Flip its bracket in the valid completion from step 2.2. The new word is unbalanced, while the model output is unchanged because position does not affect that output. This contradicts recognition of the one-type Dyck language. Any exact recognizer for would restrict to an exact recognizer for this one-type sublanguage, so no such hard-attention model recognizes .
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
5 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Hahn, Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Models, §5.1, Theorem 1 and Corollary 2 (standard reference, not scraped)