Rethinking the Role of Positional Encoding: Sliding-Window Transformers without PE Remain Turing Complete
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Positional encoding (PE) is widely viewed as necessary for transformers to process ordered sequences: without them, the next-token map appears permutation-invariant in its context tokens. This intuition underlies all prior universality results, which rely on positional information to prove that transformers with chain-of-thought can perform arbitrary computation, i.e., they are Turing complete. We revisit this belief in the regime most relevant to long-form reasoning, where generation proceeds through a finite sliding context window. Our opening perception is that the window mechanism itself (mildly) breaks the permutation symmetry. To distill and precisely capture the degree of this added expressiveness, we introduce an abstract autoregressive model, the HIST model, in which each update depends only on constant-size internal state and the token-count histogram within the current window. We prove that this HIST model is Turing complete by showing that the evolution of the window can reveal the token that has just left the window, which suffices to simulate Turing-complete Post machines. We then construct a sliding-window transformer over a constant-size token alphabet, without PE, and show that it can simulate the HIST model. Our result demonstrates that positional encodings are not indispensable for transformers to perform universal computation: The window sliding itself already breaks permutation symmetry and captures sufficient positional information.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.
Builds on
16 of 24 references.
References · 16
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2021RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embeddingcited by 4,581
- 2018Self-Attention with Relative Position Representationscited by 1,112
- 2021Train Short, Test Long: Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolationcited by 1,085
- 2023The Impact of Positional Encoding on Length Generalization in Transformerscited by 319
- 2024Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problemscited by 256
- 2022The Parallelism Tradeoff: Limitations of Log-Precision Transformerscited by 191
- 2025A Little Depth Goes a Long Way: The Expressive Power of Log-Depth Transformerscited by 49
- 2025PENCIL: Long Thoughts with Short Memorycited by 31
- 2024On the Representational Capacity of Neural Language Models with Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 26
- 2024Limits of Deep Learning: Sequence Modeling through the Lens of Complexity Theorycited by 19
4 more
- 2025Constant Bit-size Transformers Are Turing Completecited by 19
- 2025The Counting Power of Transformerscited by 7
- 2025Efficient Turing Machine Simulation with Transformerscited by 4
- 2026Parity, Sensitivity, and Transformerscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Barriers to Universal Reasoning With Transformers (And How to Overcome Them)
- 2025Dynamical Properties of Tokens in Self-Attention and Effects of Positional Encoding
- 2022Transformers Learn Shortcuts to Automata
- 2026Chain-of-Thought and Compressed Looped Transformers: A Memory-Budget Separation
- 2025Transformers are Inherently Succinct
- 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models
- 2023The Expressive Power of Transformers with Chain of Thought
- 2026On the Expressiveness of State Space Models via Temporal Logics