When the Canonical Completion Is Wrong: Formalizing and Measuring the Jump in Large Language Models
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2608.26187 (cs)
[Submitted on 22 Aug 2026]
Title:When the Canonical Completion Is Wrong: Formalizing and Measuring the Jump in Large Language Models
View a PDF of the paper titled When the Canonical Completion Is Wrong: Formalizing and Measuring the Jump in Large Language Models, by Dai Shi and 2 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Whether large language models (LLMs) can perform the abductive leap from evidence to a new system of axioms, commonly referred to as a jump, has recently attracted considerable debate. A prominent position holds that LLMs are structurally incapable of such jumps, while recent studies challenge both its mechanism and its evidence. However, the debate remains difficult to settle, since the field still lacks a formal definition of the jump and a measure to test either side. In this paper, we develop a formal account of the jump in four steps and measure the second. The steps ask what the default completion of partial data is, when abandoning it is forced, when the abandonment is correct, and how successive jumps compound. Specifically, we define a jump instance as a finite extension problem with a machine-checked certificate that a correct completion exists, is unique up to renaming, and differs from the canonical completion of the data. The canonical completion is given by the left and right Kan extensions and is also what models produce without constraints, so it serves as the default. We prove that jump instances are well-posed and establish a family theorem that certifies instances of unbounded difficulty without enumeration. We further formalize when a jump is correct and how successive jumps compound. Finally, we run the measurement on nine certified instances and four frontier models. The Kan-default rate is zero in all 248 constrained trials, so the models do jump at this step and abandon the excluded default every time. Failures at higher difficulty stem from exhausted reasoning budgets or constraint errors, never from reverting to the default. These results indicate that the second step is not the bottleneck. If the disputed incapacity is real, it lies in generating the constraints or inventing the framework. Code can be found at: this https URL.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.26187 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2608.26187v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26187
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled When the Canonical Completion Is Wrong: Formalizing and Measuring the Jump in Large Language Models, by Dai Shi and 2 other authors
Current browse context:
cs.CL
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Recipes for Steering and Scaling LLMs via Sampling
Aug 28
-
Can a Model Catch Its Own Hallucinations for Free?: Label-Free Doubt Signals Hold Their Own Against a Labelled Dataset for Abstention
Aug 28
-
FIRSTPASS: A Multi-Domain, Multi-Round Peer Review Dataset Grounded in Real Editorial Outcomes
Aug 28
-
Interpretable, Fairly Evaluated Automated L2 Speaking Assessment that Beats the Single-Human Ceiling and Why Pause Encoding Does Not Change LLM Fluency Scores
Aug 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.