Compositional Reasoning with Transformers, RNNs, and Chain of Thought
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866915758212120576 |
|---|---|
| author | Yehudai, Gilad Amsel, Noah Bruna, Joan |
| author_facet | Yehudai, Gilad Amsel, Noah Bruna, Joan |
| contents | It is well understood that different neural network architectures are suited to different tasks, but is there always a single best architecture for a given task? We compare the expressive power of transformers, RNNs, and transformers with chain of thought tokens on a simple and natural class of tasks we term Compositional Reasoning Questions (CRQ). This family captures multi-step problems with tree-like compositional structure, such as evaluating Boolean formulas. We prove that under standard hardness assumptions, \emph{none} of these three architectures is capable of solving CRQs unless some hyperparameter (depth, embedding dimension, and number of chain of thought tokens, respectively) grows with the size of the input. We then provide constructions for solving CRQs with each architecture. For transformers, our construction uses depth that is logarithmic in the problem size. For RNNs, logarithmic embedding dimension is necessary and sufficient, so long as the inputs are provided in a certain order. For transformers with chain of thought, our construction uses $n$ CoT tokens for input size $n$. These results show that, while CRQs are inherently hard, there are several different ways for language models to overcome this hardness. Even for a single class of problems, each architecture has strengths and weaknesses, and none is strictly better than the others. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2503_01544 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Compositional Reasoning with Transformers, RNNs, and Chain of Thought Yehudai, Gilad Amsel, Noah Bruna, Joan Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence Computation and Language It is well understood that different neural network architectures are suited to different tasks, but is there always a single best architecture for a given task? We compare the expressive power of transformers, RNNs, and transformers with chain of thought tokens on a simple and natural class of tasks we term Compositional Reasoning Questions (CRQ). This family captures multi-step problems with tree-like compositional structure, such as evaluating Boolean formulas. We prove that under standard hardness assumptions, \emph{none} of these three architectures is capable of solving CRQs unless some hyperparameter (depth, embedding dimension, and number of chain of thought tokens, respectively) grows with the size of the input. We then provide constructions for solving CRQs with each architecture. For transformers, our construction uses depth that is logarithmic in the problem size. For RNNs, logarithmic embedding dimension is necessary and sufficient, so long as the inputs are provided in a certain order. For transformers with chain of thought, our construction uses $n$ CoT tokens for input size $n$. These results show that, while CRQs are inherently hard, there are several different ways for language models to overcome this hardness. Even for a single class of problems, each architecture has strengths and weaknesses, and none is strictly better than the others. |
| title | Compositional Reasoning with Transformers, RNNs, and Chain of Thought |
| topic | Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01544 |