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} |