PreprintCited by 6Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models

Open access
Pfau, Jacob, Merrill, William, Bowman, Samuel R.·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Chain-of-thought responses from language models improve performance across most benchmarks. However, it remains unclear to what extent these performance gains can be attributed to human-like task decomposition or simply the greater computation that additional tokens allow. We show that transformers can use meaningless filler tokens (e.g., '......') in place of a chain of thought to solve two hard algorithmic tasks they could not solve when responding without intermediate tokens. However, we find empirically that learning to use filler tokens is difficult and requires specific, dense supervision to converge. We also provide a theoretical characterization of the class of problems where filler tokens are useful in terms of the quantifier depth of a first-order formula. For problems satisfying this characterization, chain-of-thought tokens need not provide information about the intermediate computational steps involved in multi-token computations. In summary, our results show that additional tokens can provide computational benefits independent of token choice. The fact that intermediate tokens can act as filler tokens raises concerns about large language models engaging in unauditable, hidden computations that are increasingly detached from the observed chain-of-thought tokens.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.15758

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Latent reasoning can allow LLMs to reason more efficiently and flexibly, with fewer or no explicit textual intermediate steps.

    “Building on the insight that latent reasoning can allow LLMs to reason more efficiently and flexibly, with fewer (or no) explicit textual intermediate steps, several new methods focus on compressing or replacing explicit CoT with more compact latent representations.”

    From Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [141]

    The Conclusion (p. unavailable) reports improved performance on certain parallelizable problems using filler tokens instead of explicit chain-of-thought text. It does not establish greater computational efficiency or general flexibility; Section 4.3 says filler-token computation is incompatible with some instance-adaptive reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Guhao Feng, Bohang Zhang, Yuntian Gu, Haotian Ye, Di He, and Liwei Wang. Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: A theoretical perspective. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=qHrADgAdYu.
  2. Sachin Goyal, Ziwei Ji, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Sanjiv Kumar, and Vaishnavh Nagarajan. Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens. 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02226. · arXiv
  3. Michael Hahn and Mark Rofin. Why are sensitive functions hard for transformers? 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09963. · arXiv
  4. Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 2733-2743, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ D19-1275. URL https://aclanthology.org/D19-1275. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Tamera Lanham, Anna Chen, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Benoit Steiner, Carson Denison, Danny Hernandez, Dustin Li, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, Jackson Kernion, et al. Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13702, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13702. · arXiv
  6. William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The parallelism tradeoff: Limitations of log-precision transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:531-545, 2023a. doi: 10.1162/tacl a 00562. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.tacl-1. · DOI
  7. William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. A logic for expressing log-precision transformers. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023b. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=uR8TtWCIsr.
  8. William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The expressive power of transformers with chain of thought, 2023c. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07923. · arXiv
  9. Koyena Pal, Jiuding Sun, Andrew Yuan, Byron C. Wallace, and David Bau. Future Lens: Anticipating Subsequent Tokens from a Single Hidden State. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pp. 548-560, 2023. doi: 10. 18653/v1/2023.conll-1.37. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04897. arXiv:2311.04897 · DOI
  10. Clayton Sanford, Daniel J Hsu, and Matus Telgarsky. Representational strengths and limitations of transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02896. · arXiv
  11. Lena Strobl, William Merrill, Gail Weiss, David Chiang, and Dana Angluin. Transformers as recognizers of formal languages: A survey on expressivity, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2311.00208.
  12. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Denny Zhou, and Jason Wei. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.09261. · arXiv
  13. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971. · arXiv
  14. Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. In A. Oh, T. Neumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pp. 74952-74965.
  15. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/ ed3fea9033a80fea1376299fa7863f4a-Paper-Conference.pdf.
  16. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large lan- guage models. 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. · arXiv
  17. Wilson Wu, John X. Morris, and Lionel Levine. Do language models plan ahead for future tokens?, March 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00859. arXiv:2404.00859 [cs. · arXiv
  18. Eric Zelikman, Georges Harik, Yijia Shao, Varuna Jayasiri, Nick Haber, and Noah D. Good- man. Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking. 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09629. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfau, J., Merrill, W., & Bowman, S. R.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395484023
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1922658)
  • Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
chain-of-thought prompting, transformer language models, algorithmic tasks, interpretability, large language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review