Quantifying the Necessity of Chain of Thought through Opaque Serial Depth

Reasoning models generate long chains of thought before they answer, yet it is debated whether the content of these chains does real computational work or is largely decorative. We study this question by viewing a transformer as a shallow circuit. One forward pass through a fixed number of layers has constant depth, so any procedure that runs the model a constant number of times is a shallow circuit. We call the best accuracy that a shallow circuit can reach on a task the ceiling of the task, and a task is serial if its ceiling lies below one. We prove three results on serial tasks that hold for every transformer, no matter how it was trained. Necessity: replacing the chain by anything that does not depend on its content, such as filler tokens or a restatement of the question, drives the accuracy down to the ceiling, and on a maximally serial task down to chance. Depth: no shallow computation can write the chain of a model whose accuracy exceeds the ceiling, not even approximately. Locality: the answer is one shallow pass away from the finished chain, so all of the serial reasoning happens in the chain. On word problems of finite groups, whose ceilings are known, small transformers trained from scratch, with or without reinforcement learning, attain the predicted numbers: chain-trained models solve every input length and fall to chance when the chain is erased, chainless models collapse to the ceiling as the input length grows, and open-weight reasoning models given the same problem in words return to the baseline without their chain. On MATH-500 and AIME, erasing the chain costs open reasoning models 0.52 to 0.82 accuracy, a sentence shuffle is harmless, and a token shuffle is as harmful as erasing; the same holds for checkpoints trained by GRPO with a correct or a random reward. The ceiling of a task therefore answers when a transformer can succeed without its chain of thought.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.

The viability of chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring hinges on models being unable to reason effectively in their latent representations. Yet little is known about the limits of such latent reasoning in LLMs. We test these limits by studying whether models can discover multi-step planning strategies without supervision on intermediate steps and execute them latently, within a single forward pass. Using graph path-finding tasks that precisely control the number of required latent planning steps, we uncover a striking limitation unresolved by massive scaling: tiny transformers trained from scratch discover strategies requiring up to three latent steps, fine-tuned GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B reach five, and GPT-5.4 attains seven under few-shot prompting. Although the maximum latent planning depth models can learn during training is five, the discovered strategy generalizes up to eight latent steps at test-time. This reveals a dissociation between the ability to discover a latent strategy under final-answer supervision alone and the ability to execute it once discovered. If similar limits hold more broadly, strategies requiring multiple coordinated latent planning steps may need to be explicitly taught or externalized, lending credence to CoT monitoring.