Although performance of language-based models is improved by scaling, whether the gap to a structure-aware architecture can eventually be eliminated remains untested.
Abstract
Specialized machine learning architectures encode structural assumptions (equivariance, permutation invariance, relational structure) that language-based foundation models lack by design. This review asks whether such assumptions can instead be acquired through language, drawing on a corpus of 186 papers published between 2016 and 2026 across nine modalities: tabular data, graphs, time series, vision, chemistry, code, knowledge graphs, point clouds, and protein structure. Methods are organized into eight representational regimes, ranging from language-only prompting to fully specialized architectures, and are assessed not only on predictive accuracy but on whether structural information is preserved by the representation and computed by the model. Language-mediated models prove competitive in extreme few-shot prediction, discretized symbolic tasks, and textually annotated knowledge graphs. No evidence of general replacement survives once structure itself is evaluated: where direct tests exist, apparent parity is traceable to information asymmetry, benchmark contamination, or computation performed outside the language model. Across independent research communities, missing structural inductive biases are reintroduced through graph modules, structure-aware tokens, or specialized attention, indicating that specialization is relocated rather than eliminated. The review closes by specifying a falsifiable controlled experiment that would measure the remaining gap directly. The derived data supporting the findings of this review are openly available in the repository at https://github.com/kiyan-rezaee/language-vs-structure.
Large language models have shifted AI toward statistical learning, but knowledge-based methods remain essential for tasks governed by combinatorial structure, declarative correctness, strong domain priors, and auditable reasoning. This paper treats the issue as one of task–architecture fit rather than paradigm competit...
Maikel Leon· WSEAS Transactions on System...· 0 citations
Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct an...
Ted Underwood, Zi-Liang Qiu, Sarah Griebel et al.· 0 citations
The results show that the LLM's capability dissolves with dimension in a way no noise-corrupted classical learner mimics - which explains why LLMs, so capable elsewhere, keep losing to fifty-year-old baselines on tables, while leaving the mechanism of the prediction as an open question.
Treating supervision format as a first-class hyperparameter for multi-task reasoning SFT in large language models—at least in this benchmark-and-model setting—rather than a mere rendering detail is supported.
Nhat Thanh Vu, M. Rashid, Fariza Sabrina· Electronics· 0 citations
A task-centric, retrieval-based perspective is offered for how TFMs generalize: it is believed that tabular in-context generalization is largely retrieval-based, and good models are those that learn to identify relevant examples in the provided context and aggregate them well.
Nour Shaheen, Junwei Ma, Alex Labach et al.· 3 citations
Steerling-8B remains competitive with open peer models trained on substantially 2-16x more compute, suggesting a different scaling paradigm: interpretability can be designed into training, and it improves with scale.
Guide Labs Team, Andreas Madsen, A. Ismail et al.· 3 citations· ⚡1
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 29, 2026
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.