Ceiling of a Task: When Can a Transformer Succeed Without Its Chain of Thought?

TL;DR: Treat one forward pass of a transformer as a constant-depth circuit. Then every task has a ceiling: the best accuracy any constant-depth circuit can reach. The authors prove that on tasks whose ceiling sits below 1 ("serial" tasks), a chain of thought is not decoration but load-bearing for any transformer, no matter how it was trained: erase the chain (or replace it with anything that ignores its content) and accuracy provably falls back to the ceiling; no shallow process could have written the chain in the first place; and once the chain is finished, the answer is one shallow read away. On group word problems where the ceiling is known exactly, small trained transformers land on the predicted numbers to two decimal places, and the same intervention signatures show up in Qwen3 and R1-distill models on MATH-500 and AIME. Just as valuable: the framework explains why the standard erase/truncate/shuffle ablations have been so hard to interpret, and which of them actually tell you anything about the chain.

The debate this is aimed at

Reasoning models write long chains of thought and score better with them. But the chains are known to be unfaithful — they often don't state the real reason for the answer — and filler or pause tokens can reproduce some of the gains. So does the content of the chain do computational work, or is the model mostly buying extra compute-per-token and narrating something plausible on the side?

The obvious experiment — delete or scramble the chain and watch accuracy drop — has a confound the field has mostly waved past. When accuracy collapses after you shuffle a chain, you don't know whether the chain lost its information or whether the answer head simply chokes on out-of-distribution input it would never see during its own generation. The drop could be about the reader, not the text. This paper's cleanest contribution is a formal account of exactly when such interventions are informative, plus impossibility results that don't depend on training at all.

The one structural fact everything hangs on

Inside a single forward pass, information at layer \ell, position t can only depend on layer \ell-1 at positions \le t. With L layers, any input bit influences the output through a path of length at most L — a constant that does not grow with input length n. Feed the model a longer prompt and the computation gets wider, never deeper. The only way to deepen it is to emit a token and feed it back: generating T tokens chains T forward passes, giving depth T \cdot L.

Formally (following Merrill & Sabharwal), a log-precision, constant-depth transformer's forward pass lies in \mathsf{TC}^0: polynomial-size circuits of constant depth with threshold (counting) gates. The paper's Lemma 2.3 extends this modestly but usefully: any pipeline — a constant number of forward passes glued together with shallow pre/post-processing, sampling included — is still a \mathsf{TC}^0 circuit.

That motivates the central definition. For a task with target y(x) and input distribution \mathcal{D}_n, the ceiling is

the best accuracy of any randomized circuit of depth \le d and size \le n^s. (Fixing d,s before taking the sup matters — at any single n an unbounded circuit is a lookup table.) A task is average-case serial if the ceiling stays below 1-\varepsilon for all large n, and maximally serial if it equals the guessing baseline b up to negligible terms. Note this upgrades the usual worst-case notion ("no shallow circuit solves every input") to an average-case one — a crucial move, because a task can be worst-case hard while a shallow circuit aces 99.99% of typical inputs, in which case a chainless model can still look nearly perfect.

Three theorems, three one-line proofs

Everything below holds for every transformer at test time, regardless of training. The proofs are almost disappointingly short once the pipeline lemma is in hand — which is the point.

Necessity (Thm 3.1). Call an intervention erasing if the replacement chain \tilde c = \varphi(x) ignores the generated chain's content: filler tokens, random tokens, a restated question, an empty chain. Then the intervened model's answer distribution is identical to that of a two-stage pipeline (shallow map \varphi, then one answer pass) — the T passes that wrote the discarded chain are marginalized out. So its accuracy is \le \mathrm{shallow}_n, and the load-bearing gap satisfies \Delta_\Phi(\pi) \ge \mathrm{suc}_n(\pi) - \mathrm{shallow}_n. On a maximally serial task, everything above chance rests on the chain's content. No training method can produce a model that keeps its accuracy without reasoning.

Depth (Thm 4.1). Suppose a shallow map \varphi tries to imitate the model's own chain distribution, with average total-variation error \eta_n := \mathbb{E}_x\,\mathrm{TV}(\varphi(x), \pi_c(\cdot\mid x)). Swapping in the imitation changes accuracy by at most \eta_n, but the swapped version is an erasing intervention and hence capped by the ceiling. Therefore \eta_n \ge \mathrm{suc}_n(\pi) - \mathrm{shallow}_n: the chains of a successful reasoner are not even approximately producible by shallow computation. Their tokens must build on each other over a number of rounds that grows with the input. This kills, in one stroke, the hope of compressing serial reasoning into constant-length chains, a constant number of latent-vector steps, or a fixed number of diffusion denoising rounds (Appendix A works through each).

Locality (Thm 5.2). The answer head is itself one forward pass, hence a shallow decoder. So \mathrm{suc}_n(\pi) \le \mathrm{decode}(\pi): by the time the chain ends, the answer is readable from input + chain by a circuit with no reasoning ability of its own. All the serial work lives in the chain; none of it happens between the chain's last token and the answer. Notably, none of this requires the chain to be faithful or even human-readable — it's a bandwidth-and-depth argument, not a semantics argument.

The clean test bed: word problems over finite groups

To test predictions quantitatively you need tasks whose ceiling is known, and group theory hands you a beautiful dial. The word problem \mathrm{WP}_G asks for the product g_1 g_2 \cdots g_n of n uniformly random group elements. For solvable groups (\mathbb{Z}_{60}, A_4{\times}\mathbb{Z}_5) this is in \mathsf{TC}^0 — ceiling 1, no chain needed. For the simple nonsolvable group A_5 (the 60 even permutations of five objects), it is \mathsf{NC}^1-complete by Barrington's theorem, and by a result of Miles & Viola, under the standard conjecture \mathsf{TC}^0 \ne \mathsf{NC}^1, no shallow circuit beats the guessing baseline 1/60 \approx 0.0167 on uniform inputs: maximally serial. S_5 sits in between: a shallow circuit can count the parity of odd permutations to get the sign of the product (a \mathsf{TC}^0 shortcut through the abelian quotient), narrowing 120 answers to 60, so the ceiling is exactly 2/120 = 1/60 — average-case serial but not maximal. All four groups share vocabulary size and baseline, making a matched control panel.

The small-transformer results (decoder-only, 4 layers, hidden 512, trained from scratch) hit the predicted numbers with unusual precision:

Several details are more interesting than the headline bars:

• The collapse length scales with depth exactly as the circuit view predicts. Chainless models on A_5, even with dense supervision (the running product supplied as target at every position), collapse at n{=}16 with L{=}2, n{=}64 with L{=}4; L{=}8 still holds 0.886 at n{=}64. The measurable "tracked prefix" — how far into the input the model correctly maintains the running product in one pass — plateaus at ~8, ~30, ~110 for L=2,4,8.
• Chains of sublinear length are worthless. Models trained to emit every k-th running product (T=n/k chain steps) sit at the baseline for every T<n and jump to 1.000 only at T=n. Not a graceful degradation — a cliff.
• What survives erasure is precisely the counting part. On A_4{\times}\mathbb{Z}_5, chainless models score exactly 1/4: they compute the image of the product in the abelian quotient G/[G,G] (where |[G,G]|=4) and guess within the coset — the exact shortcut circuit of the theory. Amusingly, the task's true ceiling is 1 (the group is solvable), but SGD never finds the full shallow circuit. The ceiling is an upper bound; the abelianization shortcut is what training actually reaches.
• RL changes nothing structural. After GRPO/RLOO/PPO rewarding only the final answer, erasure still drops accuracy to 0.014–0.019. RL can only change what the model writes in the chain; the theorem forbids it from producing a model that keeps accuracy without one.

Posing the A_5 problem to Qwen3-4B through 32B in natural language (group elements named as object orientations) reproduces the picture at scale: 0.62 with full chain at n{=}4 for Qwen3-32B, \le 0.030 for every model under filler, and accuracy decaying with n under any bounded token budget — the Depth theorem in the wild.

MATH and AIME: the ceiling is unknown, but the signatures match

On real benchmarks nobody knows \mathrm{shallow}_n, so these are consistency checks rather than sharp tests — but the pattern of predictions holds. Erasing the chain costs R1-distill-1.5B/7B/14B and Qwen3-32B 0.52–0.60 accuracy on MATH-500 and Qwen3-32B 0.82 on AIME24, with all four erasing variants agreeing within 0.11. The surviving floor (0.13–0.33 on MATH-500) grows with model size, but the chain-carried portion stays roughly constant — bigger models solve more problems in one pass, yet the number of problems that need the chain doesn't shrink.

The intervention taxonomy pays off in the shuffle results. Sentence shuffle changes accuracy by at most 0.045 anywhere: by Locality, this certifies the answer is shallowly readable from the bag of sentences (select the sentence stating it — a shallow operation). Token shuffle drops to the empty-chain level (0.000 on AIME) even though the answer string is still literally present in 33–45% of shuffled chains — reassembling a bag of tokens is itself serial work a shallow answer head cannot do. And truncation tracks a mundane variable with striking fidelity:

The answer enters the chain progressively; wherever accuracy survives truncation, the answer was already written down. The same signatures hold across 19 GRPO checkpoints — trained with a correct reward or a random one. Even reward noise cannot produce a model whose accuracy floats free of its chain.

The part I'd actually internalize: how to read an ablation

The framework's asymmetry is the sharpest practical takeaway, and it corrects how erase/shuffle experiments (à la Lanham et al.) have been read:

• Erasing interventions are informative in both directions: a drop means the chain content was needed (forced by Theorem 3.1 on serial tasks); no drop means a shortcut exists.
• Content-dependent interventions (truncation, shuffling, paraphrase) are informative only when accuracy survives — that certifies shallow readability of what was kept. A drop tells you about the answer head, not the chain. Proposition F.3 makes this vivid: two transformers generating identical chains, both at accuracy 1, one keeping 1.0 under token shuffle and the other falling to \approx 1/60 — while a decoder reads the answer from the second model's shuffled chains perfectly. The authors realize both constructions empirically (Table 4).

There's also an honest surprise in Appendix H that underlines the asymmetry: on the solvable control groups and on a retrieval task — ceiling 1, chain theoretically unnecessary — replacing the chain with filler still tanked Qwen3's accuracy. The theorems bound intervened accuracy from above; they never promised a chain-reliant model degrades gracefully when the ceiling permits success. Anyone running erasure ablations should keep this failure mode in view: a big drop does not by itself prove the task is serial.

What to be skeptical about

The A_5 ceiling is conditional on \mathsf{TC}^0 \ne \mathsf{NC}^1 in an almost-everywhere form — universally believed, unproven (the constant-precision/parity version in Appendix B.1 is unconditional, if you want a conjecture-free anchor). The whole formalism is asymptotic: "constant depth, growing n" statements applied to fixed-size models at fixed n, where strictly speaking the ceiling framework needs the fixed-(d,s) caveat to avoid lookup-table trivialities. The remarkable numerical agreement on the group tasks is the evidence that the idealization bites at practical scales. On MATH/AIME, since the ceiling is unknown, "erasure cost = 0.52–0.82" is consistent with the theory but can't confirm the tasks are serial rather than the models being chain-dependent readers (see the control-group surprise above). And there's a deflationary reading of the sentence-shuffle and truncation results: they jointly suggest the answer head on math is largely an extraction circuit copying an answer the chain already states — true to the Locality theorem, but a reminder that "the chain does the work" and "the chain contains genuine step-by-step derivation" are different claims; this paper establishes the first, deliberately agnostic on the second.

Where to spend your time: Section 6.1 with Figure 3 for the exact-ceiling experiments (the empirical heart), then Appendix A plus Table 3 — the discussion of what the theorems imply for latent reasoning, diffusion decoders, chain compression, and process reward models is the most transferable material in the paper, and Table 3's "how to read an intervention" grid should probably be pinned above the desk of anyone doing CoT ablations. The proof of Lemma C.3 in Appendix C is a nice self-contained piece of average-case circuit complexity if you enjoy that flavor, but it's optional for the message.