Protoreasoning in Tiny 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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) solve many reasoning tasks via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, but smaller models (about 7 to 8B parameters) still struggle with multi-step reasoning under tight compute and token budgets. Existing test time reasoning methods such as self consistency (sampling multiple rationales and voting), Tree-of-Thoughts (search over intermediate thoughts), and critique revise loops improve performance, but often at high token cost and without fine-grained step-level control. This project1 aims to address that gap: can Small Language Models (SLMs) reason reliably using the same or fewer tokens? This question is both scientific and practical. Scientifically, it probes whether process supervision and simple test-time controls (such as token budgets and rejection of redundant steps) can substitute for model scale or large sampling counts. Practically, many deployments (on-device, low-latency, or cost-constrained settings) cannot afford huge models or dozens of sampled rationales per query. A method that improves SLM reasoning at fixed cost would therefore be directly useful.

A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors. When sampling fails, a common fix shows the generator the gold answer and asks it to write a chain that reaches that answer. We show that this second step degrades the training data in a way that correctness filtering cannot catch. We run a controlled experiment that fixes the generator, the problem set, and the correctness filter, and varies only whether the chain is generated under answer-conditioning, the gold answer shown with a request to reach it. Training a strong instruction-tuned reasoning model on its own answer-conditioned chains sharply lowers its verifiable-reasoning accuracy. The loss grows with difficulty, reaching as much as about 27 points on the hardest competition problems. The mechanism is legible in the chains themselves, which rationalize backward from the shown answer instead of deriving it, with the early final-answer statement as the measurable symptom. The harm is a property of the data rather than the generator, read off unlabeled generations before any fine-tuning, ordering the penalty across eight thinking models from four families, and transferring across teacher families. A prompt ablation localizes it to the rationalize-toward instruction rather than the answer's bare visibility. The practical takeaway is to generate answer-blind, because no correctness filter can see this damage in the data.