Transformers Provably Solve Parity Efficiently with Chain of Thought

Thank you for your detailed review and valuable suggestions, which have helped us greatly in improving the paper! Below are our responses. **Response to Weaknesses:** **W1.** We have conducted new experiments supporting our theoretical findings in Section 4 of the updated paper. We set $d=64$, $k=8,16,32$ and implemented four models: direct learning, basic CoT, CoT with teacher forcing, and CoT with self-consistency. These are optimized with a realistic learning schedule (as opposed to the carefully chosen one-step learning rate in our theory), tracking the loss trajctories of both the intermediate states and the final prediction over time. We verified that direct learning and basic CoT fail to solve parity, while CoT with teacher forcing is able to learn efficiently. Moreover, we observed that the masking and filtering procedure for the fourth model helps break the learning into distinct stages, where each level of the parity problem is solved sequentially to 'unlock' the next level. This explicit step-by-step optimization is crucial to arriving at the correct answer. These results confirm that training explicitly for CoT generation can improve performance on multi-step tasks, and that teacher forcing or self-consistency is key to ensuring proper step-by-step learning. We also varied $k$ in our experiments, and the results have been presented in Appendix D (varying $d$ did not have as much impact). In particular, basic CoT was able to solve parity when $k=8$ (only two intermediate levels) but not when $k=16,32$ (three or four levels), indicating that assistance becomes necessary for more complex tasks. On the other hand, direct optimization was unable to solve parity in all cases. Please see the updated paper for figures and details. **W2.** Given that we do not study fine-tuning or other practical considerations for LLM optimization, we agree that the conclusion is phrased too strongly and have revised the claim to "Our work takes the first steps towards understanding how CoT can be leveraged to improve multi-step reasoning capability of foundation models." Nevertheless, we hope that our numerical experiments can make the message of our paper more convincing. **Response to Questions:** **Q1.** While most existing works on CoT study the expressivity of CoT by proving certain target functions can be expressed by iterating multi-layer transformers, we wanted to shift the focus to optimization and show that CoT-transformers can learn hard tasks such as parity **despite** having a simple one-layer architecture. The solvability of parity with intermediate states by itself is not surprising, for example we can design a gradient-based algorithm which simply checks all ${d\choose 2}$ combinations at each step to solve parity in $O(d^3)$ time, matching Gaussian elimination. Our contribution is to (1) successfully describe the CoT training dynamics of a simple transformer model, and (2) show the emergence of step-by-step reasoning, for which one layer suffices. Nonetheless, from purely an expressivity point of view, iterating a one-layer transformer $v$ times is a special case of iterating a two-layer transformer $v/2$ times, so we expect more powerful models to exhibit similar/stronger learning capability with shorter CoT lengths. This may result in a tradeoff between less error accumulation due to shorter CoT versus higher difficulty of training due to having more parameters, which seems like an interesting direction for future work. That said, even our one-layer transformer is highly nonlinear and challenging to analyze (softmax attention followed by a nonlinear link function, which is iterated multiple times), so it is likely difficult to obtain a rigorous dynamical analysis for two or more layers. **Q2.** Our theory is able to handle the tree-like subtask hierarchy of parity (Figure 1) by either linearizing it with teacher forcing (Section 3.2) or optimizing level by level through consistency checks (Section 3.3). We believe this can also give insights to more complex real-world reasoning tasks, which may be expressed as directed graphs connecting certain bits of information to each other via relationships similar to knowledge graphs, e.g. A [CAUSE] B, C [GEQ] D. Through graph traversal methods, a meaningful order could be defined for classes of reasoning tasks for the model to learn step-by-step. Linearization of DAGs can always be performed via Topological Sorting, so teacher forcing should still be possible, but breadth-first traversal may result in shorter CoT which we have seen can be optimized efficiently even without teacher forcing. We thank you again for your efforts in reviewing our paper and humbly ask to consider raising your score if your concerns have been suitably addressed.

Thank you for highly evaluating our contribution and sharing insightful suggestions! Below are our responses, including new numerical experiments. **Response to Weaknesses:** **W1.** Indeed, our analysis is currently limited to the parity problem. It seems reasonably straightforward to extend the data to more general tokens and 2-parity link function to more general binary operations, to consider the learnability of complex tasks consisting of compounded operations. However, we focused on the parity problem in order to draw a contrast with the negative learning result for parity (Theorem 2). More ambitiously, we could study whether the feedforward layer can learn the binary operation, or consider multiple operations (like addition, multiplication, etc. for arithmetic tasks) and study whether multi-head attention can learn to select the correct one. **W2.** Taking reviewer feedback into account, we have conducted new experiments supporting our theoretical findings in Section 4 and Appendix D of the updated paper. We set $d=64$, $k=8,16,32$ and implemented four models: direct learning, basic CoT, CoT with teacher forcing, and CoT with self-consistency. These are optimized with a realistic learning schedule (as opposed to the carefully chosen one-step learning rate in our theory), tracking the loss trajctories of both the intermediate states and the final prediction over time. We verified that direct learning and basic CoT fail to solve parity, while CoT with teacher forcing is able to learn efficiently. Moreover, we observed that the masking and filtering procedure for the fourth model helps break the learning into distinct stages, where each level of the parity problem is solved sequentially to 'unlock' the next level. This explicit step-by-step optimization is crucial to arriving at the correct answer. These results confirm that training explicitly for CoT generation can improve performance on multi-step tasks, and that teacher forcing or self-consistency is key to ensuring proper step-by-step learning. Please see the updated paper for figures and details. **Response to Questions:** **Q1.** As discussed in W1, our framework could potentially be extended to more general binary operations which combine to give the answer, such as arithmetic-based tasks. Moreover, compared to other CoT works which only consider one-directional task composition, our theory is able to handle the tree-like subtask hierarchy of parity (Figure 1) by either linearizing it with teacher forcing (Section 3.2) or optimizing level by level through consistency checks (Section 3.3). We believe this can also give insights to real-world reasoning tasks, which may be expressed as directed graphs connecting certain bits of information to each other via relationships similar to knowledge graphs, e.g. A [CAUSE] B, C [GEQ] D. Through graph traversal methods, a meaningful order could be defined for classes of reasoning tasks for the model to learn step-by-step. For example, linearization of DAGs can always be performed via Topological Sorting. Alternatively, breadth-first traversal may result in shorter CoT which we have shown can also be optimized efficiently. **Q2.** In our paper, data augmentation is only used to internally validate each reasoning step; the additional data itself is not necessary. For practical tasks, we believe this can be substituted by any reasonable validation procedure, for example: (1) examining the loss of each specific step and focusing on the first step that is not yet well learned, (2) measuring mutual information between input and output to see if key information is being preserved, (3) using a separate agent classifying each step as valid or invalid. In particular, (1) could also be directly applied to our paper, but we chose the augmentation approach (which does not modify the loss) in order to study how step-by-step naturally arises from a fixed objective. **Q3.** In our numerical experiments, we found the following considerations to be of practical interest. (1) learning rate: in Theorems 5,7, we carefully chose a large step size to simplify the analysis. For the experiments, however, a smaller learning rate was used for stable optimization. Nevertheless, the observed training curves match our theoretical results. (2) stability: CoT assisted with either teacher forcing or the self-consistency procedure resulted in stable training and was able to fully solve parity, aligning with Theorem 5 and 7. On the other hand, training with only end-to-end CoT generation became unstable and failed to make accurate predictions, even after tuning hyperparameters. This supports the use of forcing/validation procedures to control error accumulation. (3) compute: with 100K 64-bit samples, full-batch gradient descent is unnecessarily memory intensive. Of course, we used full-batch throughout the paper only to contrast with the impossibility result (Theorem 2) and SGD with appropriate batch size should be used in practice.

Thank you for your positive assessment of our contribution and valuable comments! Following reviewer suggestions, we have conducted new numerical experiments to complement our theoretical findings and alleviate the main limitations of our paper, which we describe below. **Response to Weaknesses:** Our setup is indeed quite specific to the parity problem. While the idea of learning a complex task step-by-step is natural, the studied models (even with one layer) are highly nonlinear and difficult to analyze GD dynamics -- softmax attention followed by a nonlinear link function, which is iterated multiple times. Within this setup, the main limitations are: (1) A large learning rate, which is carefully calibrated to ensure that every GD update cleanly solves a part of the problem, simplifying the analysis. In practice, a smaller learning rate is needed for stable training. (2) The masking (and filtering) procedure for the no-forcing setting is quite artificial, as pointed out by the reviewer, and their necessity is not fully justified. In our numerical experiments detailed in Section 4 and Appendix D of the updated paper, we aimed to address the above two limitations. We set $d=64$, $k=8,16,32$ and implemented four models (direct learning, basic CoT, CoT with teacher forcing, CoT with self-consistency) and optimized them with a relatively small learning rate, tracking the loss trajctories of both the intermediate states and the final prediction over time. We verified that direct learning and basic CoT fail to solve parity, while CoT with teacher forcing is able to learn efficiently. Moreover, we observed that the masking and filtering procedure for the fourth model helps break the learning into distinct stages, where each level of the parity problem is solved sequentially to 'unlock' the next level. This explicit step-by-step optimization is crucial to arriving at the correct answer (in essence, teacher forcing is doing this at all levels simultaneously). Notably, a similar behavior seemed to arise in the basic CoT model as well but failed due to accumulating error, further justifying the use of the filtering mechanism. These results confirm that training explicitly for CoT generation can improve performance on multi-step tasks, and that teacher forcing or self-consistency is key to ensuring proper step-by-step learning. Please see the updated paper for figures and details. We also mention that ICLR has had oral sessions devoted specifically to theory papers including theoretical and mechanistic analyses of LLMs (2022 Oral 2, 2023 Oral 6 Track 1, 2024 Oral 2D), so if the reviewer feels like recommending our paper for a talk, please go ahead!

Thanks for answering W1 so deeply and thanks for changing the wording on W2. I just increased the score to 8, reflecting the high value and high contribution amount the work is providing to the community.