Next-Token Prediction Capacity: General Upper Bounds and a Lower Bound for Transformers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a sequence of tokens, such as words, the task of next-token prediction is to predict the next-token conditional probability distribution. Decoder-only transformers have become effective models for this task, but their properties are still not fully understood. In particular, the largest number of distinct context sequences that a decoder-only transformer can interpolate next-token distributions for has not been established. To fill this gap, we prove upper and lower bounds on this number, which are equal up to a multiplicative constant. We prove these bounds in the general setting where next-token distributions can be arbitrary as well as the empirical setting where they are calculated from a finite number of document sequences. Our lower bounds are for one-layer multi-head decoder-only transformers and our proofs highlight an important injectivity property satisfied by self-attention. Furthermore, we provide numerical evidence that the minimal number of parameters for memorization is sufficient for being able to train the model to the entropy lower bound.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".