What formal languages can a recurrent neural language model recognize? Formal results in the literature conflict: some authors report Turing-completeness, while others show equivalence to regular languages. The reason for this discrepancy is that the underlying arithmetic model differs. The paper develops a unified algebraic account of the expressivity of recurrent neural networks, starting with a formal account of various arithmetic models. This account reduces expressivity to an algebraic question, e.g., whether a network's syntactic monoid divides a certain wreath product. As a case study, the paper revisits diagonal state-space models: the same architecture cannot implement an even-modulus counter once floating-point recurrences are enforced, yet realizes every even-modulus counter under unsigned-integer quantization.
An Algebraic View of the Expressivity of Recurrent Language Models
What formal languages can a recurrent neural language model recognize? Formal results in the literature conflict: some authors report Turing-completeness, while others show equivalence to regular languages.
- Preview

- Year
- 2026
- Hosting
- Abstract onlyARXIV-DEFAULT
Cite
Notes
Only stored in your browser.
Attribution
- Abstract & full text
- arxiv.org/abs/2606.01765ARXIV-DEFAULT
- TL;DR
- Semantic Scholar