mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Efficiently Representing Algorithms With Chain-of-Thought Transformers

arXiv 2606.19697 ↗First posted 18 Jun 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing popularity of reasoning models -- language models that output a series of reasoning or thought tokens before producing an answer -- is justified, in part, by theoretical results showing that chain-of-thought (CoT) transformers can simulate Turing machines, and thus perform arbitrary computation. However, the Turing machine, while suitable for complexity-theoretic analysis, is not convenient, intuitive, or efficient for discussing algorithms. Algorithms are typically designed and analyzed at a higher level of abstraction, captured by the Word RAM model with random-access memory and unit-cost operations on bigO(log n)-bit words. As a result, Word RAM algorithms can be substantially more efficient than their Turing machine counterparts, raising the question: Can CoT transformers efficiently simulate Word RAM algorithms? For instance, can they sort n items in bigO(n log n) steps or run Dijkstra's algorithm in bigO(E + V log V) steps? We answer affirmatively, up to poly-logarithmic overhead. We first establish this for finite-precision transformers with poly-logarithmic width and rightmost unique hard attention, then strengthen the result to two more practical settings with finite width and log-precision: continuous CoT, where reasoning takes the form of vectors rather than tokens, and a hybrid architecture in which transformer layers sit atop a recurrent (linear RNN) layer. In all three cases, we find that CoT can efficiently simulate any Word RAM algorithm with only a poly-logarithmic overhead in n. This overhead reduces to log-square when the Word RAM has a ``flat'' instruction set, and only logarithmic for multiplication-free flat instructions -- in stark contrast to known CoT simulations of Turing machines, which require quadratic overhead over Word RAM.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 5 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

Builds on

5 of 35 references.

References · 5

  1. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
  2. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,220
  3. 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 930
  4. 2025Olmo 3cited by 95
  5. 2026Why Are Linear RNNs More Parallelizable?cited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Barriers to Universal Reasoning With Transformers (And How to Overcome Them)
  2. 2025To CoT or To Loop? A Formal Comparison Between Chain-of-Thought and Looped Transformers
  3. 2024Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problems
  4. 2024On the Representational Capacity of Neural Language Models with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
  5. 2025Analyzing the Power of Chain of Thought through Memorization Capabilities
  6. 2023Towards Revealing the Mystery behind Chain of Thought: A Theoretical Perspective
  7. 2025The Kinetics of Reasoning: How Chain-of-Thought Shapes Learning in Transformers?
  8. 2025Continuous Chain of Thought Enables Parallel Exploration and Reasoning