Exact Expressive Power of Transformers with Padding
Open accessAbstract
Chain of thought is a natural inference-time method for increasing the computational power of transformer-based large language models (LLMs), but comes at the cost of sequential decoding. Are there more efficient alternatives to expand a transformer's expressive power without adding parameters? We consider transformers with padding tokens as a form of parallelizable test-time compute. We show that averaging-hard-attention, masked-pre-norm transformers with polynomial padding recognize precisely the class $\mathsf{FO}$-uniform $\mathsf{TC}^0$ of extremely parallelizable problems. While the $\mathsf{TC}^0$ upper bound was known, proving a matching lower bound had been elusive. Further, our novel analysis reveals the precise expanded power of padded transformers when coupled with another form of inference-time compute, namely dynamically increasing depth via looping. Our core technical contribution is to show how padding helps bring the notions of complete problems and reductions, which have been a cornerstone of classical complexity theory, to the formal study of transformers. Armed with this new tool, we prove that padded transformers with $O(\log^d n)$ looping on inputs of length $n$ recognize exactly the class $\mathsf{FO}$-uniform $\mathsf{TC}^d$ of moderately parallelizable problems. Thus, padding and looping together systematically expand transformers' expressive power: with polylogarithmic looping, polynomially padded transformers recognize precisely the class $\mathsf{FO}$-uniform $\mathsf{NC}$, the best that could be expected without losing parallelism (unless $\mathsf{NC} = \mathsf{P}$). Our results thus motivate further exploration of padding and looping as parallelizable alternatives to chain of thought for test-time compute.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Chain-of-thought (CoT) generation operationalizes a form of temporal recurrence, iterating over the model's own symbolic traces.
“chain-of-thought (CoT) generation operationalizes a form of temporal recurrence, iterating over the model’s own symbolic traces [62].”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [62]
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
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Length Generalization Bounds for Transformers
Yang, A., Bergsträßer, P., Zetzsche, G., Chiang, D., & Lin, A. W. (2026) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18800699
- Authors
- Merrill, W., & Sabharwal, A.
- Affiliations
- Ai2 / TTIC
- Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
- Venue
- Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 124733-124760
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4414581865
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › semigroups and automata theory
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
- Keywords
- transformer models, expressiveness, TC0, NC, parallel computing, test-time compute, looping, complete problems, reduction, lower bounds, 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