arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.09942

When Chain-of-Thought Helps and When It Hurts: An Empirical Investigation of the Serial-Depth Bottleneck in LLM Reasoning

Tughanbulut Kurtulush
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It is widely assumed that chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting universally improves LLM reasoning. We investigate this through the conceptual framework of the H_dp bandwidth bound (Chen et al., 2024): although the formal bound binds only asymptotically (at astronomically large prompt lengths), it identifies a real architectural bottleneck -- serial computation exceeding a transformer's single-pass capacity must be externalised, which is what CoT does. Our central finding is a within-benchmark serial-depth gradient: single-pass (no-CoT) accuracy degrades monotonically with per-item serial depth, while CoT is approximately depth-invariant. We measure CoT effects across three instruction-tuned models (Qwen-2.5-7B/32B, Llama-3.1-8B) and five standard NLP benchmarks at practical context lengths. On high-depth P-complete tasks (GSM8K, MATH), CoT gives a +54 to +68 pp recovery gap across all models. On shallow TC^0 tasks (MMLU, ARC), CoT is structurally redundant (Delta in [0.0, +4.6] pp, no significant negative effect) -- though high no-CoT baselines (up to 95% on ARC) may reflect contamination, so this null is not a clean architectural test. The intermediate class L (HumanEval) shows a model-size-dependent transition: +23.2 pp (32B), +9.1 pp (8B), -28.7 pp (7B). The cross-benchmark depth-recovery correlation is Spearman rho = 0.661 (p = 0.007, n = 15); 9 of 15 benchmark-level McNemar tests are significant after Bonferroni correction. Pre-registered on OSF, our results indicate that CoT is not a universal reasoning enhancer but acts as a bandwidth bypass: it helps serial computation that strains single-pass capacity and is redundant for tasks that already fit.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tughanbulut Kurtulush. 2026-06-23. When Chain-of-Thought Helps and When It Hurts: An Empirical Investigation of the Serial-Depth Bottleneck in LLM Reasoning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09942

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗