Multi-head Transformers Provably Learn Symbolic Multi-step Reasoning via Gradient Descent
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Transformers have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in multi-step reasoning tasks. However, understandings of the underlying mechanisms by which they acquire these abilities through training remain limited, particularly from a theoretical standpoint. This work investigates how transformers learn to solve symbolic multi-step reasoning problems through chain-of-thought processes, focusing on path-finding in trees. We analyze two intertwined tasks: a backward reasoning task, where the model outputs a path from a goal node to the root, and a more complex forward reasoning task, where the model implements two-stage reasoning by first identifying the goal-to-root path and then reversing it to produce the root-to-goal path. Our theoretical analysis, grounded in the dynamics of gradient descent, shows that trained one-layer transformers can provably solve both tasks with generalization guarantees to unseen trees. In particular, our multi-phase training dynamics for forward reasoning elucidate how different attention heads learn to specialize and coordinate autonomously to solve the two subtasks in a single autoregressive path. These results provide a mechanistic explanation of how trained transformers can implement sequential algorithmic procedures. Moreover, they offer insights into the emergence of reasoning abilities, suggesting that when tasks are structured to take intermediate chain-of-thought steps, even shallow multi-head transformers can effectively solve problems that would otherwise require deeper architectures.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2025Transformers Provably Learn Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Length Generalizationcited by 14
- 2025Shared Parameter Subspaces and Cross-Task Linearity in Emergently Misaligned Behaviorcited by 8
- 2026Outcome-Based RL Provably Leads Transformers to Reason, but Only With the Right Datacited by 6
- 2025Provable Benefit of Curriculum in Transformer Tree-Reasoning Post-Trainingcited by 4
- 2025Transformers Provably Learn Directed Acyclic Graphs via Kernel-Guided Mutual Informationcited by 2
- 2025Transformers with RL or SFT Provably Learn Sparse Boolean Functions, But Differentlycited by 2
- 2026When does Chain-of-Thought Help: A Markovian Perspectivecited by 2
- 2026When does Chain-of-Thought Help: A Markovian Perspective27 Feb 2026
- 2026Outcome-Based RL Provably Leads Transformers to Reason, but Only With the Right Data21 Jan 2026
- 2025Transformers with RL or SFT Provably Learn Sparse Boolean Functions, But Differently22 Nov 2025
- 2025Transformers Provably Learn Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Length Generalization10 Nov 2025
- 2025Provable Benefit of Curriculum in Transformer Tree-Reasoning Post-Training10 Nov 2025
- 2025Shared Parameter Subspaces and Cross-Task Linearity in Emergently Misaligned Behavior3 Nov 2025
- 2025Transformers Provably Learn Directed Acyclic Graphs via Kernel-Guided Mutual Information29 Oct 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025The Kinetics of Reasoning: How Chain-of-Thought Shapes Learning in Transformers?
- 2026How Transformers Learn to Plan via Multi-Token Prediction
- 2024Transformers Provably Solve Parity Efficiently with Chain of Thought
- 2025How do Transformers Learn Implicit Reasoning?
- 2026Invariant Learning Dynamics of Transformers in Inductive Reasoning Tasks
- 2025Limit Analysis for Symbolic Multi-step Reasoning Tasks with Information Propagation Rules Based on Transformers
- 2026Revealing Algorithmic Deductive Circuits for Logical Reasoning
- 2026Transformers Provably Learn to Internalize Chain-of-Thought