File size: 12,894 Bytes
5114c4e
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
\onecolumn

\section*{Appendix}

\section{Theoretical Details and Proofs}
\label{app:info_theory}

\subsection{Information-Theoretic Preliminaries}
\label{app:preliminaries}

\begin{definition}[Mutual Information~\cite{cover1999elements}]
For random variables $X$ and $Y$ with joint distribution $P_{X,Y}$ and marginals $P_X$, $P_Y$, the mutual information is:
\begin{equation}
I(X; Y) = D_{KL}(P_{X,Y} \| P_X \otimes P_Y) = \sum_{x,y} P(x,y) \log \frac{P(x,y)}{P(x)P(y)}
\end{equation}
Mutual information is symmetric, non-negative, and equals zero if and only if $X \perp Y$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Kullback-Leibler Divergence]
For distributions $P$ and $Q$ over the same space:
\begin{equation}
D_{KL}(P \| Q) = \sum_x P(x) \log \frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}
\end{equation}
$D_{KL}(P \| Q) \geq 0$ with equality if and only if $P = Q$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Mixture Distribution]
\label{def:mixture}
Given column distributions $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^m$, the mixture distribution is:
\begin{equation}
Q(v) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(v)
\end{equation}
This is the marginal distribution of a cell $T_{i,J}$ when $J \sim \text{Uniform}([m])$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Position-to-Column Mapping]
\label{def:col_mapping}
For positions in the data region of a linearized table ($t > m$), define:
\begin{equation}
\text{col}(t) = ((t - m - 1) \mod m) + 1 \in [m]
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

\subsection{Assumptions}
\label{app:assumptions}

\begin{assumption}[Column Semantic Consistency]
\label{ass:consistency}
All cells in column $j$ are drawn from the same distribution:
\begin{equation}
T_{i,j} \sim P_j, \quad \forall i \in [n], \, \forall j \in [m]
\end{equation}
\end{assumption}

\begin{assumption}[Column Distribution Distinctiveness]
\label{ass:distinct}
Different columns have statistically distinguishable distributions:
\begin{equation}
D_{KL}(P_j \| P_k) > 0, \quad \forall j \neq k
\end{equation}
Equivalently, for each pair $j \neq k$, there exists some value $v$ such that $P_j(v) \neq P_k(v)$.
\end{assumption}

\begin{remark}[On Intra-Column Independence]
\label{rmk:intra_col}
We do \textbf{not} assume $T_{i,j} \perp T_{k,j} \mid j$ (conditional independence within columns). Real tables often exhibit intra-column dependencies (e.g., sorted data, time series). Our proofs analyze the conditional independence case to establish a \textit{lower bound} on $I^{same}$; any intra-column dependency strictly increases the mutual information.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Some Lemmas}
\label{app:same_col}

\begin{lemma}[Same-Column Pair Mutual Information]
\label{lem:same_col}
Let $J \sim \text{Uniform}([m])$. Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:consistency} and~\ref{ass:distinct}:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[(i)] $I^{same} := I(T_{1,J}; T_{2,J}) > 0$
    \item[(ii)] For any $i \neq k$: $I(T_{i,J}; T_{k,J}) = I^{same}$
\end{enumerate}
That is, the same-column mutual information is strictly positive and independent of row indices.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We prove both parts simultaneously.

\textbf{Step 1: Marginal distributions.}
For any row index $i$, by Assumption~\ref{ass:consistency} and $J \sim \text{Uniform}([m])$:
\begin{equation}
P(T_{i,J} = a) = \sum_{j=1}^m P(J=j) P_j(a) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a) = Q(a)
\end{equation}
This holds for all $i$, so all $T_{i,J}$ share the same marginal distribution $Q$.

\textbf{Step 2: Joint distribution.}
For any $i \neq k$, conditioning on the column:
\begin{equation}
P(T_{i,J} = a, T_{k,J} = b) = \sum_{j=1}^m P(J=j) \cdot P(T_{i,j} = a, T_{k,j} = b \mid J=j)
\end{equation}

To establish a lower bound independent of intra-column structure, consider the case where $T_{i,j} \perp T_{k,j} \mid j$. Then:
\begin{equation}
P(T_{i,J} = a, T_{k,J} = b) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a) P_j(b) =: R(a,b)
\label{eq:joint_R}
\end{equation}

Note that $R(a,b)$ depends only on the column distributions $\{P_j\}$, not on $i$ or $k$. If $T_{i,j} \not\perp T_{k,j} \mid j$, the actual joint distribution differs from $R$, but we will show $R \neq Q \otimes Q$, which implies $I(T_{i,J}; T_{k,J}) > 0$ in all cases.

\textbf{Step 3: Comparison with product of marginals.}
Under independence, we would have:
\begin{equation}
Q(a) Q(b) = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{j=1}^m \sum_{l=1}^m P_j(a) P_l(b)
\end{equation}

Consider the diagonal $a = b$:
\begin{align}
R(a,a) - Q(a)^2 &= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a)^2 - \frac{1}{m^2}\left(\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a)\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{m^2}\left[ m\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a)^2 - \left(\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a)\right)^2 \right] \nonumber \\
&= \frac{\text{Var}_j[P_j(a)]}{m}
\label{eq:variance_form}
\end{align}
where $\text{Var}_j[P_j(a)] = \frac{1}{m}\sum_j P_j(a)^2 - \left(\frac{1}{m}\sum_j P_j(a)\right)^2$ is the variance of $P_j(a)$ across columns.

\textbf{Step 4: Positivity.}
By Assumption~\ref{ass:distinct}, there exist $j \neq l$ with $P_j \neq P_l$. Hence there exists some $a$ with $P_j(a) \neq P_l(a)$, implying $\text{Var}_j[P_j(a)] > 0$.

Therefore $R(a,a) > Q(a)^2$ for some $a$, so $R \neq Q \otimes Q$.

\textbf{Step 5: Conclusion.}
Since the joint distribution differs from $Q \otimes Q$:
\begin{equation}
I(T_{i,J}; T_{k,J}) = D_{KL}(P_{T_{i,J}, T_{k,J}} \| Q \otimes Q) > 0
\end{equation}

Moreover, under conditional independence, the joint is exactly $R(a,b)$ from~\eqref{eq:joint_R}, which is independent of $i,k$. Thus $I(T_{i,J}; T_{k,J})$ is constant for all $i \neq k$, proving part (ii).
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[Periodic Structure]
\label{lem:periodic}
For a table with $n$ rows and $m$ columns, and any $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$:
\begin{equation}
\bar{I}_{table}(km) = I^{same}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\textbf{Step 1: Same-column positions.}
For $t, t' > m$ in the data region:
\begin{equation}
\text{col}(t) = \text{col}(t') \iff t' - t \equiv 0 \pmod{m}
\end{equation}

\textbf{Step 2: Structure at lag $km$.}
When $d = km$ with $1 \leq k \leq n-1$, for each $t \in \mathcal{S}_{km} = \{t : m < t \leq L - km\}$:
\begin{itemize}
    \item $W_t = T_{r_1, c}$ for some row $r_1$ and column $c = \text{col}(t)$
    \item $W_{t+km} = T_{r_1+k, c}$ (same column, row differs by $k$)
\end{itemize}

By Lemma~\ref{lem:same_col}(ii):
\begin{equation}
I(W_t; W_{t+km}) = I(T_{r_1, c}; T_{r_1+k, c}) = I^{same}
\end{equation}

\textbf{Step 3: Averaging.}
Since every pair contributes equally:
\begin{equation}
\bar{I}_{table}(km) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{S}_{km}|} \sum_{t \in \mathcal{S}_{km}} I^{same} = I^{same}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[Cross-Column Independence]
\label{lem:cross_col}
Let $J, L \sim \text{Uniform}([m])$ be independent. Then $T_{i,J} \perp T_{k,L}$, and hence $I(T_{i,J}; T_{k,L}) = 0$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
When $J \perp L$:
\begin{align}
P(T_{i,J} = a, T_{k,L} = b) &= \sum_{j,l} P(J=j)P(L=l) P_j(a) P_l(b) \nonumber \\
&= \left(\frac{1}{m}\sum_j P_j(a)\right)\left(\frac{1}{m}\sum_l P_l(b)\right) = Q(a) Q(b)
\end{align}
Hence $T_{i,J} \perp T_{k,L}$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Characterization of $I^{same}$}

\begin{proposition}[Characterization of Same-Column MI]
\label{prop:isame_characterization}
Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:consistency} and~\ref{ass:distinct}, in the conditional independence case ($T_{i,j} \perp T_{k,j} \mid j$):
\begin{equation}
I^{same} = D_{KL}(R \| Q \otimes Q)
\end{equation}
where $R(a,b) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^m P_j(a)P_j(b)$ and $Q = \frac{1}{m}\sum_j P_j$.

The magnitude of $I^{same}$ is governed by the \textbf{cross-column variance}:
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2 := \sum_a \text{Var}_j[P_j(a)] = \sum_a \left( \frac{1}{m}\sum_j P_j(a)^2 - Q(a)^2 \right)
\end{equation}
Specifically:
\begin{itemize}
    \item $I^{same} > 0$ if and only if $\sigma^2 > 0$ (i.e., columns are not all identical)
    \item $I^{same}$ increases monotonically with $\sigma^2$
    \item When columns are highly distinct (large $\sigma^2$), $I^{same}$ is correspondingly large
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The expression $I^{same} = D_{KL}(R \| Q \otimes Q)$ follows directly from the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:same_col}.

For the characterization, note from~\eqref{eq:variance_form} that $R(a,a) - Q(a)^2 = \frac{\text{Var}_j[P_j(a)]}{m}$. The KL divergence $D_{KL}(R \| Q \otimes Q)$ is determined by how much $R$ differs from $Q \otimes Q$. Since the diagonal differences $R(a,a) - Q(a)^2$ are proportional to $\text{Var}_j[P_j(a)]$, the total cross-column variance $\sigma^2 = \sum_a \text{Var}_j[P_j(a)]$ governs the magnitude of $I^{same}$.

By Assumption~\ref{ass:distinct}, $\sigma^2 > 0$, ensuring $I^{same} > 0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The cross-column variance $\sigma^2$ can be interpreted as a measure of column heterogeneity. For example:
\begin{itemize}
    \item If all columns have the same distribution ($P_j = P$ for all $j$), then $\sigma^2 = 0$ and Assumption~\ref{ass:distinct} is violated.
    \item If columns have disjoint supports (e.g., column 1 contains only integers, column 2 contains only strings), then $\sigma^2$ is maximal and $I^{same}$ is large.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}





\subsection{Proofs of Main Theorems}

\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
\label{app:proof_main}

\begin{proof}
This follows directly from Lemma~\ref{lem:periodic}: for any $k \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$, $\bar{I}_{table}(km) = I^{same} > 0$.
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:liminf}}
\label{app:proof_liminf}

\begin{proof}
For any $K \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, consider a table with $n > K$ rows. By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, $\bar{I}_{table}(Km) = I^{same}$. Since $K$ is arbitrary, the set $\{km : k \in \mathbb{Z}^+\}$ is unbounded, and at each such lag the average MI equals $I^{same}$. Therefore:
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{d \to \infty} \bar{I}_{table}(d) \geq I^{same} > 0
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:ratio}}
\label{app:proof_ratio}

\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, $\bar{I}_{table}(km) = I^{same} > 0$ for all $k \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. By the power-law assumption~\eqref{eq:powerlaw}, $I_{text}(km) \sim C(km)^{-\alpha} \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$. Hence:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{\bar{I}_{table}(km)}{I_{text}(km)} = \lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{I^{same}}{C(km)^{-\alpha}} = +\infty
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:eff_dist}}
\label{app:proof_eff}

\begin{proof}
\textbf{Part 1 (Table data):}
For any $\tau < I^{same}$ and any $K \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, consider a table with $n > K$ rows. By Lemma~\ref{lem:periodic}:
\begin{equation}
\bar{I}_{table}(Km) = I^{same} > \tau
\end{equation}
Since $K$ is arbitrary:
\begin{equation}
D_{eff}^{table}(\tau) = \sup\{d : \bar{I}_{table}(d) \geq \tau\} = +\infty
\end{equation}

\textbf{Part 2 (Natural language):}
Under power-law decay $I_{text}(d) \sim C d^{-\alpha}$, for any $\tau > 0$:
\begin{equation}
I_{text}(d) < \tau \quad \text{for all } d > d^* := (C/\tau)^{1/\alpha}
\end{equation}
Hence $D_{eff}^{text}(\tau) \leq d^* < \infty$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proofs of Propositions}

\subsubsection{Proof of Proposition for Uniform Attention Requirements}
\label{app:proof_attention}

\begin{proof}
Let $W_t$ be a cell in column $c = \text{col}(t)$. The set of past tokens in the same column is $\mathcal{C}_t := \{W_s : s < t, \, \text{col}(s) = c\}$. 

For any $W_s \in \mathcal{C}_t$, both $W_s$ and $W_t$ are cells from column $c$, at different rows. By Lemma~\ref{lem:same_col}(ii):
\begin{equation}
I(W_s; W_t) = I^{same} > 0
\end{equation}
regardless of the distance $t - s$. Thus all same-column predecessors provide the same amount of information $I^{same}$ about $W_t$, requiring uniform attention across the context.
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Proof of Proposition for Context Length Requirements}
\label{app:proof_context}

\begin{proof}
Consider any column $c \in [m]$. The cell at row 1 occupies position $m + c$ in the linearized sequence, while the cell at row $n$ occupies position $m + (n-1)m + c = m + c + (n-1)m$. Thus these two same-column cells are separated by exactly $(n-1) \cdot m$ positions.

By Lemma~\ref{lem:same_col}, this pair has mutual information $I^{same} > 0$. To capture this dependency, the model's effective context must span at least $(n-1) \cdot m$ tokens.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Auxiliary Result}

\begin{lemma}[Positive Column-Type MI]
\label{lem:type_mi}
Let $J \sim \text{Uniform}([m])$ and $T_J$ be a cell from column $J$. Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:consistency}--\ref{ass:distinct}:
\begin{equation}
I(T_J; J) > 0
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We have $I(T_J; J) = H(J) - H(J|T_J) = \log m - H(J|T_J)$.

By Bayes' rule: $P(J=j|T_J=v) = \frac{m P_j(v)}{\sum_l P_l(v)}$.

By Assumption~\ref{ass:distinct}, there exist $j \neq k$ and $v$ with $P_j(v) \neq P_k(v)$, so $P(J=j|T_J=v) \neq P(J=k|T_J=v)$. The posterior is non-uniform for some $v$, implying $H(J|T_J) < H(J)$, hence $I(T_J; J) > 0$.
\end{proof}