Language Generation with Infinite Contamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study language generation in the limit, where an algorithm observes an adversarial enumeration of strings from an unknown target language $K$ and must eventually generate new, unseen strings from $K$. Kleinberg and Mullainathan [KM24] proved that generation is achievable in surprisingly general settings. But their generator suffers from ``mode collapse,'' producing from an ever-smaller subset of the target. To address this, Kleinberg and Wei [KW25] require the generator's output to be ``dense'' in the target language. They showed that generation with density, surprisingly, remains achievable at the same generality. Both results assume perfect data: no noisy insertions and no omissions. This raises a central question: how much contamination can generation tolerate? Recent works made partial progress on this question by studying (non-dense) generation with either finite amounts of noise (but no omissions) or omissions (but no noise). We characterize robustness under contaminated enumerations: 1. Generation under Contamination: Language generation in the limit is achievable for all countable collections iff the fraction of contaminated examples converges to zero. When this fails, we characterize which collections are generable. 2. Dense Generation under Contamination: Dense generation is strictly less robust to contamination than generation. As a byproduct, we resolve an open question of Raman and Raman [ICML25] by showing that generation is possible with only membership oracle access under finitely many contaminated examples. Finally, we introduce a beyond-worst-case model inspired by curriculum learning and prove that dense generation is achievable even with infinite contamination provided the fraction of contaminated examples converges to zero. This suggests curriculum learning may be crucial for learning from noisy web data.
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 | 0.006 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".