HackerPapers

arXiv:2404.15758cs.CL

Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models

Jacob Pfau, William Merrill, Samuel R. Bowman

Abstract

Chain-of-thought responses from language models improve performance across most benchmarks. However, it remains unclear to what extent these performance gains can be attributed to human-like task decomposition or simply the greater computation that additional tokens allow. We show that transformers can use meaningless filler tokens (e.g., '......') in place of a chain of thought to solve two hard algorithmic tasks they could not solve when responding without intermediate tokens. However, we find empirically that learning to use filler tokens is difficult and requires specific, dense supervision to converge. We also provide a theoretical characterization of the class of problems where filler tokens are useful in terms of the quantifier depth of a first-order formula. For problems satisfying this characterization, chain-of-thought tokens need not provide information about the intermediate computational steps involved in multi-token computations. In summary, our results show that additional tokens can provide computational benefits independent of token choice. The fact that intermediate tokens can act as filler tokens raises concerns about large language models engaging in unauditable, hidden computations that are increasingly detached from the observed chain-of-thought tokens.

arXiv comments
17 pages, 10 figures
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 17 identifiable commenters in 19 comments across 17 threads, from May 2024 to Oct 2026. Found in 1 HN submission from Apr 2024 to Apr 2024. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments17 threads

    • My understanding is that the extra token vectors generated as reasoning are still useful, but that their surface form (tokens themselves) do not necessarily reflect the underlying reasoning. i.e. reading the reasoning traces could be complete gibberish, but the hidden-dim…

      thefxpersonView on HNParent context

    • I think this is a known phenomenon: even in non-reasoning models, adding useless/filler tokens before an answer improves task performance. The model is doing some computation during the filler. See: https://arxiv.org/html/2404.15758v1

      wren6991View on HNParent context

    • [2404.15758] Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758

      khalicView on HNParent context

  1. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 1 comment
    • You might already know this, but a large part of test-time compute / 'overthinking' is just letting the model do more passes, and refine its activation residuals more. For example, even if you make thinking tokens literally just '....' (absolutely meaningless; zero information)…

      dannywView on HNParent context

    • I was pretty happy with Depseek Pro in Opencode util I discovered I can see the thinking trace by clicking on the "thinking..." communicate. All those seemingly unnecessary "but wait" messages are frustrating to read. But at least to some extent it's just model taking time…

      neuroticnews25View on HNParent context

    • Are you sure about that? Chain of thought does not need to be semantically useful to improve LLM performance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758

      prodigycorpView on HNParent context

    • Let’s see, I think these pretty much map out a little chronology of the research: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00114 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06467 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758 https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12777 First that scratchpads matter, then why they matter, then that…

      Chance-DeviceView on HNParent context

    • Thinking happens in latent space, but the thinking trace is then the projection of that thinking onto tokens. Since autoregressive generation involves sampling a specific token and continuing the process, that sampling step is lossy. However, it is a genuine question whether the…

      MajromaxView on HNParent context

    • There are several such papers, off the top of my head one is https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758 It's a bit more subtle though, if I understand correctly this only works for parallelizable problems. Which makes intuitive sense since the model cannot pass information along with each…

      krackersView on HNParent context

  2. Claude 4 1 comment
    • There are several papers pointing towards 'thinking' output is meaningless to the final output, and using dots, or pause tokens enabling the same additional rounds of throughput result in similar improvements. So in a lot of regards the 'thinking' is mostly marketing. - "Think…

      layoricView on HNParent context

    • Here's one where just appending dots to the output improved quality: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758

      andaiView on HNParent context

    • There was a paper[1] from last year where the authors discovered getting the model to output anything during times of uncertainty, improved the generations overall. If all of the post-training alignment reasoning starts with the same tokens then I could see how it would…

      gardnrView on HNParent context

    • Has anyone done a benchmark on these reasoning models compared to simply prompting "non-reasoning" LLMs with massive chain of thought? For example, a go to test I've used (but will have to stop using soon) is: "Write some JS code to find the smallest four digit prime number…

      mistercowView on HNParent context

    • Absolutely. I'm just making a more general point that "the same information in fewer tokens" does not mean "more comprehensible to an LLM". And we have more practical evidence that that's not the case, like the recent "Let's Think Dot by Dot" paper, which found that you can get…

      mistercowView on HNParent context

    • > A LLM is not busy humming away, thinking on it's own. Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758 A LLM will readily hum away, thinking on its own, if given the option.

      FeepingCreatureView on HNParent context

    • https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758

      spencerchubbView on HNParent context

    • The tokens don't have to be related to the task at all. (From an outside perspective. The connections are internal in the model. That might raise transparency concerns.) A single designated 'compute token' repeated over and over can perform as well as traditional 'chain of…

      zargonView on HNParent context

    • Saying that LLMs should be able to do problems without CoT is a bit like saying that humans should be able to write programs without thinking though. CoT is fundamentally an architectural necessity owed to the finite cognitive effort possible per token. Let it be CoT, let it be…

      FeepingCreatureView on HNParent context

    • Related? "Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models" https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758 > Chain-of-thought responses from language models improve performance across most benchmarks. However, it remains unclear to what extent these performance gains…

      richdoughertyView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.