Stochastic Autoregressive Learning
Ilan Doron-Arad, Idan Mehalel, Elchanan Mossel
cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-08-07
Updated: 2026-08-10
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Motivated by LLMs, which generate outputs by iteratively sampling from next-token distributions, we introduce a PAC-learning model for binary stochastic autoregressive learning.
Terminology
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(epsilon),m CoT(epsilon), m e2e(epsilon), 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 epsilon. We show that stochastic autoregressive learning fundamentally differs from the deterministic theory. At scale epsilon, 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/epsilon, the natural analogue for the existing deterministic results. Nevertheless, after altering scales, for every class, CoT learning at scale epsilon is upper-bounded by base learning at scale epsilon/M squared, whereas e2e learning at scale epsilon is upper-bounded, up to logarithmic factors, by (M/epsilon) m CoT((epsilon)). These dependencies and scales are essentially tight. We complement these bounds by studying dimension d logistic functions in our model.
Sources
- Sample Complexity of Autoregressive Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought vs. End-to-End
- Autoregressive Learning in Joint KL: Sharp Oracle Bounds and Lower Bounds
- A Theory of Online Learning with Autoregressive Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
- Let's Verify Step by Step
- The Expressive Power of Transformers with Chain of Thought
- Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models
- Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
- Learning to Think from Multiple Thinkers
- Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback
- The Optimal Sample Complexity of Learning Autoregressive Chain-of-Thought
Related papers
- Polynomial-Augmented Neural Networks (PANNs) with Weak Orthogonality Constraints for Enhanced Function and PDE Approximation
- AIRL-S: Unifying Reinforcement Learning and Search-Based Test-Time Scaling via Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning
- Transformers as Bayesian In-Context Experimenters: Smoothness-Adaptive Efficient ATE Estimation
- Convergence issues in Relational Concept Analysis based on AOC-posets
- Beliefs Beyond Posteriors: The Predictive Cost of ELBO Binding
- Understanding Diffusion Models via Ratio-Based Function Approximation with SignReLU Networks