Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 54 references

Stochastic Autoregressive Learning

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Stochastic autoregressive learning breaks the deterministic sample-complexity comparison between base, chain-of-thought, and end-to-end supervision.

desk verdict A solid, internally consistent theory paper that delivers a genuine sample-complexity taxonomy for stochastic autoregressive learning, with the main caveat being its realizable-PAC setting and one conditional hardness result. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07224 v1 pith:RFOPG2OT submitted 2026-08-07 cs.LG

Ilan Doron-Arad , Idan Mehalel , Elchanan Mossel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG MSC 68Q32
keywords stochasticautoregressivelearningchain-of-thoughtend-to-endsamplecomplexityPACfat-shatteringdimensionlogisticclassparitywithnoise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a PAC-learning model in which a fixed stochastic generator assigns a Bernoulli next-token distribution to every prompt and is iterated for M steps. It studies the minimum samples needed to learn the one-step probabilities from base samples, the final-token probability from full chain-of-thought trajectories, and the same final-token probability from end-to-end samples that reveal only the last token. The central finding is that, at the same accuracy scale, no universal ordering exists: both the CoT-to-base and e2e-to-CoT sample-complexity ratios can be made arbitrarily larger than M/ε. After shifting scales, however, universal bounds appear: CoT at scale ε costs no more than base at scale ε/M², and e2e at scale ε costs at most O~(M(1∨m_CoT(cε))/ε). This matters because practical language models are stochastic, so a theory built on deterministic next-token functions can misstate what chain-of-thought and end-to-end samples are worth.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the stochastic autoregressive generator g:Σ*→Δ(Σ), whose one-step probabilities p_g(s) are iterated M times to induce the end-to-end final-token probability $q^{{e2e-M}}$_g(x). The key quantitative fact is a coupling bound: |$q_g^{{e2e-M}}$(x)−q_{bg}^{e2e-M}(x)| ≤ E[∑_{t=1}^M |p_g(S_t)−p_bg(S_t)| | X=x], so one-step squared error at scale ε/M² suffices for final-token squared error ε, giving the base-to-CoT comparison. For the CoT-to-e2e bound, the paper packs the induced e2e predictors, applies Fano's inequality using that each length-M trajectory carries only M binary bits, and then invokes a standard fat-shattering regression bound; the lower bounds are built from root-blocker gadgets whose hidden signs move one-step probabilities by Θ(√ε) but accumulate to Θ(√ε) shifts in final-token probabilities.

What would settle it

Run the root-blocker constructions of Sections 4 and 6 at a concrete small ε (say ε = $2^{{-10}}$, M = 5) and compute m_base, m_CoT, and m_e2e by exhaustive search over learners; finding m_CoT(ε) > m_base(ε/M²) or m_e2e(ε) ≫ (M/ε)m_CoT(cε) would refute the claimed shifted-scale bounds, while finding both ratios bounded by M/ε for all large M would refute Theorem 4.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a sample-complexity taxonomy for stochastic autoregressive learning that differs fundamentally from the deterministic theory. At scale ε, both m_CoT/m_base and m_e2e/m_CoT can be made simultaneously arbitrarily larger than M/ε, the natural analogue of the deterministic rates, so no universal comparison holds at the same accuracy scale. Nevertheless, for every class, CoT learning at scale ε is upper bounded by base learning at scale ε/M², and e2e learning at scale ε is upper bounded, up to logarithmic factors, by (M/ε)·m_CoT(cε), with both bounds shown essentially tight. For the logistic class with dimension d, e2e learning needs Õ(d² log M/ε) samples information-theoretically, an efficient proper CoT learner achieves the same bound, and no efficient proper e2e learner exists under the LPN assumption, yielding a concrete statistical and computational separation between CoT and end-to-end supervision.

Load-bearing premise

The general sample-complexity theorems require the realizable PAC setting — the true generator lies in the class F and the prompt distribution is fixed but arbitrary — and the computational CoT-e2e separation additionally assumes the LPN prediction hardness assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bounds are correct, no same-scale comparison of base, CoT, and e2e sample complexity exists for stochastic classes; any universal statement must change the accuracy scale.
  • CoT supervision is never more expensive than base learning at scale ε/M², and this scale cannot be improved to a coarser base scale in general.
  • e2e learning is at most (M/ε)-times the CoT sample complexity up to logarithmic factors and a constant scale shift, and the factor M/ε is necessary.
  • The e2e sample complexity of any class is governed by the fat-shattering dimension of the one-step class at scale √ε/M, with near-matching lower bounds and optimality of the margin scale.
  • For logistic autoregressive generators, e2e learning is statistically easy but computationally hard for proper learners under LPN, while CoT supervision admits an efficient proper learner, giving a concrete separation between the two supervision models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the realizable assumption — the true generator lies in the class F and the prompt distribution is fixed but arbitrary — is essential; for misspecified generators the stated taxonomy does not apply, so these theorems do not directly transfer to arbitrary untrained language models.
  • Editorial inference: the ε/M² scale shift suggests that stochastic noise accumulates quadratically through trajectories; if so, treating chain-of-thought samples as exact intermediate labels overstates what they reveal.
  • Editorial inference: the paper conjectures L1-loss analogues with correspondingly different scales (for example m_CoT,1(ε) ≤ m_base,1(ε/M)), but these are unproved extensions stated in the discussion rather than results.
  • Editorial inference: the e2e information-vs-computation gap for logistic classes suggests similar statistical-computational separations may hold for other parametric next-token families, and the LPN reduction is a template for testing them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a PAC-learning model for binary stochastic autoregressive generation, in which a single generator assigns a next-token Bernoulli distribution to every prompt string and iterated sampling produces length-M trajectories. Three supervision models are compared: base one-step samples, chain-of-thought (CoT) samples revealing full trajectories, and end-to-end (e2e) samples revealing only the final token. The main contribution is a sample-complexity taxonomy for these three tasks under squared loss. Theorems 4.1, 5.1, and 6.3 show that at the same accuracy scale there is no universal ordering of m_base, m_CoT, and m_e2e, but shifted-scale comparisons hold for every class: m_CoT(eps) is at most m_base(eps/M^2), and m_e2e(eps) is at most O~(M(1∨m_CoT(c eps))/eps), with matching constructions showing these shifts are essentially necessary. The paper also proves fat-shattering bounds for e2e learning (Theorem 7.6), a logistic-regression case study with an efficient proper CoT learner and an LPN-conditional hardness result for proper e2e learning (Theorems 8.1--8.3), and a detailed Section 10 on KL-based trajectory sampling, including margin-free lower bounds and an impossibility result for e2e sampling. All main results are proven in the realizable PAC setting, a limitation stated explicitly in Section 1.1.

Significance. The paper is a substantial contribution to the theory of stochastic autoregressive learning. If the results hold as stated, they fundamentally revise the deterministic picture of Joshi et al. and Hanneke et al.: the stochastic setting forbids exact-scale universal comparisons and instead requires accuracy-shifted comparisons, with both upper and lower bounds proved. The authors provide full proofs of the main reductions, and the constructions are self-contained against external benchmarks. The paper is careful about its assumptions: the realizable PAC condition is stated in Section 1.1, the LPN hardness result in Section 8.3 is explicitly conditional, and Section 10 sharply separates margin-free facts from margin-dependent transfers. The proof sketches in Section 2 are unusually informative, and the lower-bound techniques (Assouad, Fano, packing, rate-distortion) are used correctly. I found no internal contradiction or circular dependence in the central claims.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7, proof of Theorem 7.2] In the first paragraph of the proof, the bound on |U| is stated as n ≤ |U| ≤ n(2M−1), but the set U = {x_i z : z ∈ {0,1}^{<M}} has n(2^M−1) elements. Since the subsequent line correctly uses |U| ≤ n2^M, this is only a typo, but it should be corrected to n(2^M−1) or simply n2^M.
  2. [Section 1.2, L1 loss paragraph] The paragraph beginning 'We believe that our techniques can generally be adapted' explicitly disclaims proofs for the L1 analogues. This is an honest limitation, but as written it sits in the results section and could be misread as proven. I recommend moving the L1 discussion to a clearly labeled conjecture/remark in Section 11, or adding an explicit sentence that these statements are conjectural and not part of the formal results.
  3. [Section 10.4, Corollary 10.8] The corollary states a Hellinger/total-variation guarantee for the logistic class with sample complexity eO((d^2 log M + log(1/δ))/ε^2), but the cited Theorem 8.2 is stated for squared-loss final-token accuracy ε with sample complexity eO((d^2 log M + log(1/δ))/ε). The proof mentions 'run at Hellinger accuracy ε^2', which is the correct mechanism, but the sample-complexity display should be stated explicitly in the corollary or derived in one line to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 10.5, Proposition 10.12] The proof chooses a universal constant η < 1/8 and then sets c0 = η/2, but the particular value of η is left unspecified. Since the argument only needs any fixed η < 1/8, I suggest writing 'fix η = 1/16' for concreteness, which makes the quantitative claim immediately checkable.
  5. [Throughout] There are several minor typographical/OCR artifacts, such as 'whetheras' in Section 1.3 and a duplicated 'the' near the start of Section 2's proof sketch. These do not affect the mathematics but should be cleaned up in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stochastic-autoregressive taxonomy is derived self-contained; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

I walked the main derivation chain: Theorem 4.1's simultaneous lower bound, Theorem 5.1's base-to-CoT comparison, Theorem 6.1/6.3's CoT-to-e2e comparison, Theorem 7.6's fat-shattering theory, and the logistic case study (Theorems 8.1-8.3). Each result is proved from the definitions by explicit constructions and standard external tools (Assouad's lemma, Fano, fat-shattering/covering bounds from Mendelson-Vershynin and Rudelson-Vershynin, finite-class aggregation from Lecué-Rigollet, Goldberg-Jerrum pseudo-dimension bounds, and LPN hardness). I found no step in which a quantity defined in terms of the target is later 'predicted' from itself. In Theorem 5.1, the random-time state S=XZ_1...Z_{T-1} is a valid prompt distribution for m_base, so the reduction m_CoT(ε) ≤ m_base(ε/M^2) follows from Jensen and Cauchy-Schwarz rather than from an equality-by-construction. In Theorem 6.1, m_CoT appears only as an upper-bound oracle in a Fano/packing argument; the resulting e2e learner still uses only e2e samples, so the bound is a genuine comparison. The lower bounds use blocker constructions, KL calculations, and Assouad arguments that do not presuppose the claimed sample complexities. The only self-citation of note is [9] (Hanneke, Mehalel, Moran), used in Related Work and the introduction as context for the deterministic taxonomy; it is not invoked as a premise in any proof. All load-bearing analytical tools are external and independently established. The paper also explicitly labels its L1 analogues as unproved beliefs ('we believe our techniques can generally be adapted'), which does not create circularity. Score 1 reflects the negligible self-citation overlap, not any circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard PAC and dimension theory, plus the realizable well-specified setting. No data-fitting parameters are introduced; universal constants in proofs are not fitted to data. The logistic hardness result inherits LPN as an external computational assumption. No invented entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Pointwise-measurability convention allowing measurable almost-minimizers
    Invoked in the footnote of Section 1.1 so that ERM and empirical-net arguments over arbitrary real-valued classes are well defined.
  • domain assumption Realizable PAC setting with target generator in F and arbitrary prompt distribution P
    All sample complexity definitions in Section 1.1 require uniform guarantees over q* in G and P, so misspecified targets are outside the model.
  • standard math Standard scale-sensitive learning bounds: Mendelson-Vershynin entropy theorem, Rudelson-Vershynin covering estimate, Goldberg-Jerrum pseudo-dimension bound
    Used in Lemma 2, Theorem 7.1, and Lemma 12 respectively; these are external results imported without proof.
  • domain assumption LPN prediction assumption for computational hardness
    Theorem 8.3 assumes no polynomial-time algorithm predicts noisy parities with non-trivial advantage; this assumption is explicitly stated in Section 8.3 and is load-bearing only for the hardness result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic Autoregressive Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFOPG2OT

@misc{pith2026260807224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic Autoregressive Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFOPG2OT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07224}
}
abstract

Motivated by LLMs, which generate outputs by iteratively sampling from next-token distributions, we introduce a PAC-learning model for binary stochastic autoregressive learning. This generalizes the deterministic autoregressive learning framework of Joshi et al., COLT 2025. In our model, one fixed generator assigns a Bernoulli next-token distribution to every prompt string. Starting from an input prompt, a token is sampled and appended to the prompt; the same generator is then applied again to this expanded prompt; this procedure is repeated for $M$ steps. Three forms of supervision are considered: base one-step samples, chain-of-thought (CoT) samples that reveal full random trajectories of length $M$, and end-to-end (e2e) samples that reveal only the final token of length $M$ trajectories. For a generator class, we study the minimum number of samples $m_{base}(\varepsilon),m_{CoT}(\varepsilon), m_{e2e}(\varepsilon)$, resp., required to learn the one-step probabilities in the base model, and the final-token probability in the CoT and e2e models, under squared loss error~$\varepsilon$. We show that stochastic autoregressive learning fundamentally differs from the deterministic theory. At scale $\varepsilon$, there is no universal comparison between the three learning tasks: both $m_{CoT}/m_{base}$ and $m_{e2e}/m_{CoT}$ can be made simultaneously arbitrarily larger than $M/\varepsilon$, the natural analogue for the existing deterministic results. Nevertheless, after altering scales, for every class, CoT learning at scale $\varepsilon$ is upper-bounded by base learning at scale $\varepsilon/M^2$, whereas e2e learning at scale $\varepsilon$ is upper-bounded, up to logarithmic factors, by $(M/\varepsilon) m_{CoT}(\Theta(\varepsilon))$. These dependencies and scales are essentially tight. We complement these bounds by studying dimension $d$ logistic functions in our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the lower bound construction in Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scale-sensitive dimen- sions, uniform convergence, and learnability.Journal of the ACM, 44(4):615–631, 1997

    Noga Alon, Shai Ben-David, Nicol` o Cesa-Bianchi, and David Haussler. Scale-sensitive dimen- sions, uniform convergence, and learnability.Journal of the ACM, 44(4):615–631, 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Bartlett.Neural Network Learning: Theoretical Foundations

    Martin Anthony and Peter L. Bartlett.Neural Network Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 1999

    1999

  3. [3]

    Bartlett, Philip M

    Peter L. Bartlett, Philip M. Long, and Robert C. Williamson. Fat-shattering and the learn- ability of real-valued functions.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 52(3):434–452, 1996

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2006

    Nicol` o Cesa-Bianchi and G´ abor Lugosi.Prediction, Learning, and Games. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2006

    2006

  5. [5]

    Cover and Joy A

    Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas.Elements of Information Theory. Wiley-Interscience, 2nd edition, 2006

    2006

  6. [6]

    Freedman

    David A. Freedman. On tail probabilities for martingales.The Annals of Probability, 3(1):100– 118, 1975

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    Joel A. Tropp. User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices.Foundations of Com- putational Mathematics, 12(4):389–434, 2012

    2012

  8. [8]

    Edgar N. Gilbert. A comparison of signalling alphabets.Bell System Technical Journal, 31(3):504–522, 1952

    work page 1952

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Sample complexity of autoregressive reasoning: chain-of-thought vs

    Steve Hanneke, Idan Mehalel, and Shay Moran. Sample complexity of autoregressive reasoning: chain-of-thought vs. end-to-end. Preprint, arXiv:2604.12013, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Decision theoretic generalizations of the PAC model for neural net and other learning applications.Information and Computation, 100(1):78–150, 1992

    David Haussler. Decision theoretic generalizations of the PAC model for neural net and other learning applications.Information and Computation, 100(1):78–150, 1992

    1992

  3. [11]

    Autoregressive learning in joint KL: Sharp oracle bounds and lower bounds

    Yunbei Xu, Yuzhe Yuan, and Ruohan Zhan. Autoregressive learning in joint KL: Sharp oracle bounds and lower bounds. Preprint, arXiv:2605.12316, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A theory of learning with autoregressive chain of thought

    Nirmit Joshi, Gal Vardi, Adam Block, Surbhi Goel, Zhiyuan Li, Theodor Misiakiewicz, and Nathan Srebro. A theory of learning with autoregressive chain of thought. InProceedings of the Thirty Eighth Conference on Learning Theory, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, volume ...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Entropy and the combinatorial dimension.Inven- tiones Mathematicae, 152(1):37–55, 2003

    Shahar Mendelson and Roman Vershynin. Entropy and the combinatorial dimension.Inven- tiones Mathematicae, 152(1):37–55, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Combinatorics of random processes and sections of convex bodies.Annals of Mathematics, 164(2):603–648, 2006

    Mark Rudelson and Roman Vershynin. Combinatorics of random processes and sections of convex bodies.Annals of Mathematics, 164(2):603–648, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Tsybakov.Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation

    Alexandre B. Tsybakov.Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation. Springer Series in Statis- tics. Springer, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    van de Geer.Empirical Processes in M-Estimation

    Sara A. van de Geer.Empirical Processes in M-Estimation. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    A game of prediction with expert advice.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 56(2):153–173, 1998

    Vladimir Vovk. A game of prediction with expert advice.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 56(2):153–173, 1998. 74

    1998

  10. [18]

    Optimal learning with Q-aggregation.The Annals of Statistics, 42(1):211–224, 2014

    Guillaume Lecu´ e and Philippe Rigollet. Optimal learning with Q-aggregation.The Annals of Statistics, 42(1):211–224, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Noise-tolerant learning, the parity problem, and the statistical query model.Journal of the ACM, 50(4):506–519, 2003

    Avrim Blum, Adam Kalai, and Hal Wasserman. Noise-tolerant learning, the parity problem, and the statistical query model.Journal of the ACM, 50(4):506–519, 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    Assouad, Fano, and Le Cam

    Bin Yu. Assouad, Fano, and Le Cam. In David Pollard, Erik Torgersen, and Grace L. Yang, editors,Festschrift for Lucien Le Cam, pages 423–435. Springer, 1997

    1997

  13. [21]

    Springer, 2004

    Yurii Nesterov.Introductory Lectures on Convex Optimization: A Basic Course. Springer, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 2025

    Awni Altabaa, Omar Montasser, and John Lafferty.CoTinformation: Improved sample com- plexity under chain-of-thought supervision. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Learning probabilistic automata: A study in state distinguishability.Theoretical Computer Science, 473:46–60, 2013

    Borja Balle, Jorge Castro, and Ricard Gavald` a. Learning probabilistic automata: A study in state distinguishability.Theoretical Computer Science, 473:46–60, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    PAC-learnability of probabilistic deterministic finite state automata.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5:473–497, 2004

    Alexander Clark and Franck Thollard. PAC-learnability of probabilistic deterministic finite state automata.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5:473–497, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    A theory of online learning with au- toregressive chain-of-thought reasoning

    Ilan Doron-Arad, Idan Mehalel, and Elchanan Mossel. A theory of online learning with au- toregressive chain-of-thought reasoning. Preprint, arXiv:2605.06819, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Efficient noise-tolerant learning from statistical queries

    Michael Kearns. Efficient noise-tolerant learning from statistical queries. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 392–401, 1993

    1993

  19. [27]

    Kearns and Robert E

    Michael J. Kearns and Robert E. Schapire. Efficient distribution-free learning of probabilistic concepts.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 48(3):464–497, 1994

    1994

  20. [28]

    Kearns and Leslie G

    Michael J. Kearns and Leslie G. Valiant. Cryptographic limitations on learning Boolean for- mulae and finite automata.Journal of the ACM, 41(1):67–95, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Tight sample complexity of transformers

    Chenxiao Yang, Nathan Srebro, and Zhiyuan Li. Tight sample complexity of transformers. InProceedings of Thirty Ninth Conference on Learning Theory, volume 336 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 6887–6923, 2026

    2026

  23. [31]

    Chain of thought empowers transformers to solve inherently serial problems

    Zhiyuan Li, Hong Liu, Denny Zhou, and Tengyu Ma. Chain of thought empowers transformers to solve inherently serial problems. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. Preprint, arXiv:2305.20050, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The expressive power of transformers with chain of thought

    William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The expressive power of transformers with chain of thought. Preprint, arXiv:2310.07923, 2023. 75

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models

    Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, Charles Sut- ton, and Augustus Odena. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. Prep...

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information.Neural Networks, 22(5–6):544–557, 2009

    Vladimir Vapnik and Akshay Vashist. A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information.Neural Networks, 22(5–6):544–557, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. Preprint, arXiv:2203.11171, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Le, and Denny Zhou

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. STaR: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    van der Vaart and Jon A

    Aad W. van der Vaart and Jon A. Wellner.Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. Springer, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Foster, Adam Block, and Dipendra Misra

    Dylan J. Foster, Adam Block, and Dipendra Misra. Is behavior cloning all you need? Under- standing horizon in imitation learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 120602–120666, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhari- wal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jef...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, ...

    2022

  36. [44]

    The curious case of neural text degeneration

    Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. The curious case of neural text degeneration. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Anselm Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht, David Haussler, and Manfred K. Warmuth. Learn- ability and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension.Journal of the ACM, 36(4):929–965, 1989. doi:10.1145/76359.76371

    1989

  38. [46]

    Wiley, 1986

    Alexander Schrijver.Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. Wiley, 1986. 76

    1986

  39. [47]

    P. W. Goldberg and M. R. Jerrum. Bounding the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of concept classes parameterized by real numbers.Machine Learning, 18:131–148, 1995

    1995

  40. [48]

    Learning to think from multiple thinkers

    Nirmit Joshi, Roey Magen, Nathan Srebro, Nikolaos Tsilivis, and Gal Vardi. Learning to think from multiple thinkers. Preprint, arXiv:2604.24737, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback

    Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, An- tonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback. Preprint, arXiv:2211.14275, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    From sparse dependence to sparse attention: Unveiling how chain-of-thought enhances transformer sample efficiency

    Kaiyue Wen, Huaqing Zhang, Hongzhou Lin, and Jingzhao Zhang. From sparse dependence to sparse attention: Unveiling how chain-of-thought enhances transformer sample efficiency. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Dhruv Rohatgi, Adam Block, Audrey Huang, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Dylan J. Foster. Computational-statistical tradeoffs at the next-token prediction barrier: Autoregressive and imitation learning under misspecification (extended abstract). InProceedings of Thirty Eighth Confer...

    2025

  45. [53]

    Auto-regressive next-token predictors are universal learners

    Eran Malach. Auto-regressive next-token predictors are universal learners. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 235:34417–34431, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    The Optimal Sample Complexity of Learning Autoregressive Chain-of-Thought

    Zhiyuan Li. The Optimal Sample Complexity of Learning Autoregressive Chain-of-Thought. Preprint, arXiv:2607.07423, 2026. 77

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.