mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Theory of Online Learning with Autoregressive Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

arXiv 2605.06819 ↗First posted 7 May 2026cs.LGcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Autoregressive generation lies at the heart of the mechanism of large language models. It can be viewed as the repeated application of a next-token generator: starting from an input string (prompt), the generator is applied for M steps, and the last generated token is taken as the final output. [Joshi et al., 2025] proposed a PAC model for studying the learnability of the input-output maps arising from this process. We develop an online analogue of this framework, focusing on the mistake bound of learning the final output induced by an unknown next-token generator. We distinguish between two forms of feedback. In the End-to-End model, after each round the learner observes only the final token produced after M autoregressive steps. In the Chain-of-Thought model, the learner is additionally shown the entire M-step trajectory. Our goal is to understand how the optimal mistake bound depends on the generation horizon M, and to what extent observing intermediate tokens can reduce this dependence. Our main results show that the online theory of autoregressive learning exhibits a qualitative picture analogous to the statistical one found by [Hanneke et al., 2026], but with a different scale of dependence on the generation horizon. In the End-to-End model, we prove a taxonomy of possible mistake-bound growth rates in the generation horizon M: essentially any rate between constant and logarithmic can arise. We further show that this logarithmic ceiling is unavoidable. In the Chain-of-Thought model, we show that access to the full generated trajectory eliminates the dependence on M altogether. We also analyze autoregressive linear threshold classes, and prove optimal mistake bounds, as well as a new lower bound for the statistical setting. Along the way, our results resolve several questions left open by [Joshi et al., 2025].

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 15 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.

Builds on

15 of 43 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Learning to Think from Multiple Thinkers27 Apr
  2. 2026Sample Complexity of Autoregressive Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought vs. End-to-End13 Apr
  3. 2025Transformers Provably Learn Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Length Generalization10 Nov
  4. 2025CoT Information: Improved Sample Complexity under Chain-of-Thought Supervision21 May
  5. 2025A Theory of Learning with Autoregressive Chain of Thought11 Mar
  6. 2024Transformers Provably Solve Parity Efficiently with Chain of Thought11 Oct
  7. 2023The Expressive Power of Transformers with Chain of Thought11 Oct

Other references · 8

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  3. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
  4. 2021Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Modelscited by 886
  5. 2023Auto-Regressive Next-Token Predictors are Universal Learnerscited by 67
  6. 2025How Reinforcement Learning After Next-Token Prediction Facilitates Learningcited by 10
  7. 2024Deterministic Apple Tastingcited by 4
  8. 2025The Probably Approximately Correct Learning Model in Computational Learning Theorycited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026How Does Unfaithful Reasoning Emerge from Autoregressive Training? A Study of Synthetic Experiments
  2. 2024Autoregressive + Chain of Thought = Recurrent: Recurrence's Role in Language Models' Computability and a Revisit of Recurrent Transformer
  3. 2026Next Thoughts Are Distributions: Generative Autoregressive Reasoning in the Latent Space
  4. 2024When a language model is optimized for reasoning, does it still show embers of autoregression? An analysis of OpenAI o1
  5. 2024Exploring and Enhancing the Transfer of Distribution in Knowledge Distillation for Autoregressive Language Models
  6. 2024The pitfalls of next-token prediction
  7. 2026Intrinsic Stability Limits of Autoregressive Reasoning: Structural Consequences for Long-Horizon Execution
  8. 2025Autoregressive Language Models are Secretly Energy-Based Models: Insights into the Lookahead Capabilities of Next-Token Prediction