Circuit Complexity of Hierarchical Knowledge Tracing and Implications for Log-Precision Transformers

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting substantially improves the sample efficiency of transformers, reducing the complexity of tasks like parity learning from exponential to polynomial in the input length. However, generating explicit reasoning steps at inference is computationally expensive. Implicit Chain-of-Thought (ICoT) has emerged as a promising empirical remedy that trains models to internalize intermediate steps within their hidden states, but its theoretical foundations remain poorly understood. We give the first theoretical analysis of ICoT, proving that an $L$-layer transformer trained under our proposed Log-ICoT curriculum learns $k$-parity with $\mathsf{poly}(n)$ samples and $L = \log_2 k$ training stages. This matches the sample efficiency of explicit CoT while eliminating its inference overhead, and extends prior one-layer parity guarantees to multi-layer architectures. Compared to standard ICoT, which removes thinking tokens one at a time, Log-ICoT removes them in geometric chunks, reducing the number of stages from linear in $k$ to logarithmic. Experiments on multi-layer transformers confirm the theory and visualize how reasoning is progressively absorbed into deeper layers.

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.

Recent work describes what transformers can and cannot compute through connections to boolean circuits, but existing results lack exact characterizations and are sensitive to modeling choices. Padded transformers -- to whose input filler symbols such as ``...'' are appended -- emerge as a useful gadget for establishing equivalences to circuit classes by providing polynomial space for adaptive parallel computation. However, only a limited set of padded transformer idealizations has been studied, leaving open how robustly these equivalences hold under changes to attention type, model width, and uniformity. We find that, under practical assumptions, padded transformers are surprisingly robust to all of these, and identify numeric precision and model depth as the main factors affecting expressivity. Concretely, we prove that polynomially padded $\text{L-uniform}$ constant-precision transformers are equivalent to $\text{L-uniform AC}^0$, while growing-precision ones achieve $\text{L-uniform TC}^0$ regardless of width. Furthermore, looping enables sequential processing analogous to circuits: $\log^d N$-looped constant-precision transformers reach $\text{FO-uniform AC}^d$, and growing-precision ones reach $\text{FO-uniform TC}^d$. Interestingly, growing width or precision beyond logarithmic does not increase expressivity, and all our results hold for both softmax and average hard attention transformers.