mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Sample Complexity of Autoregressive Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought vs. End-to-End

arXiv 2604.12013 ↗First posted 13 Apr 2026cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Modern large language models generate text autoregressively, producing tokens one at a time. To study the learnability of such systems, Joshi et al. (COLT 2025) introduced a PAC-learning framework for next-token generators, the primitive underlying autoregressive models. In this framework, an unknown next-token generator maps a sequence of tokens to the next token and is iteratively applied for T steps, producing a chain of tokens whose final token constitutes the model's output. The learning task is to learn the input-output mapping induced by this autoregressive process. Depending on the available supervision, training examples may reveal only the final output (End-to-End supervision) or the entire generated chain (Chain-of-Thought supervision). This raises two natural questions: how the sample complexity depends on the generation length T, and how much Chain-of-Thought supervision can reduce this dependence. In this work we give a nearly complete answer to both questions by uncovering a taxonomy of how the sample complexity scales with T. For End-to-End learning, we show that the landscape is remarkably rich: subject to mild conditions, essentially any growth rate r(T) between constant and linear can arise as the sample complexity, and combined with the linear upper bound of Joshi et al., this yields an essentially complete characterization. In contrast, under Chain-of-Thought supervision we show that the sample complexity is independent of T, demonstrating that access to intermediate reasoning steps can eliminate the dependence on the generation length altogether. Our analysis introduces new combinatorial tools, and as corollaries we resolve several open questions posed by Joshi et al. regarding the dependence of learnability on the generation length and the role of Chain-of-Thought supervision.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.

Builds on

9 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Transformers Provably Learn Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Length Generalization10 Nov
  2. 2025From Reasoning to Super-Intelligence: A Search-Theoretic Perspective13 Jul
  3. 2025On Learning Verifiers and Implications to Chain-of-Thought Reasoning28 May
  4. 2025CoT Information: Improved Sample Complexity under Chain-of-Thought Supervision21 May
  5. 2025A Theory of Learning with Autoregressive Chain of Thought11 Mar

Other references · 4

  1. 2023Auto-Regressive Next-Token Predictors are Universal Learnerscited by 65
  2. 2025How Reinforcement Learning After Next-Token Prediction Facilitates Learningcited by 8
  3. 2025Online Learning of Neural Networkscited by 5
  4. 2025Mistake-bounded online learning with operation capscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Stochastic Autoregressive Learning
  2. 2024Beyond Autoregression: Fast LLMs via Self-Distillation Through Time
  3. 2026Reasoning with Latent Tokens in Diffusion Language Models
  4. 2026How Does Unfaithful Reasoning Emerge from Autoregressive Training? A Study of Synthetic Experiments
  5. 2024Autoregressive + Chain of Thought = Recurrent: Recurrence's Role in Language Models' Computability and a Revisit of Recurrent Transformer
  6. 2026Intrinsic Stability Limits of Autoregressive Reasoning: Structural Consequences for Long-Horizon Execution
  7. 2026ForkLeft: Entropy-First Rollouts for Prefix-Aligned Autoregressive-to-Diffusion Distillation
  8. 2025Computational-Statistical Tradeoffs at the Next-Token Prediction Barrier: Autoregressive and Imitation Learning under Misspecification