Knee-Deep in C-RASP: A Transformer Depth Hierarchy
Andy Yang, Michaël Cadilhac, David Chiang
Abstract
It has been observed that transformers with greater depth (that is, more layers) have more capabilities, but can we establish formally which capabilities are gained?
We answer this question with a theoretical proof followed by an empirical study. First, we consider transformers that round to fixed precision except inside attention. We show that this subclass of transformers is expressively equivalent to the programming language C-RASP and this equivalence preserves depth. Second, we prove that deeper C-RASP programs are more expressive than shallower C-RASP programs, implying that deeper transformers are more expressive than shallower transformers (within the subclass mentioned above). The same is also proven for transformers with positional encodings (like RoPE and ALiBi). These results are established by studying a temporal logic with counting operators equivalent to C-RASP. Finally, we provide empirical evidence that our theory predicts the depth required for transformers without positional encodings to length-generalize on a family of sequential dependency tasks. ↼ # , ⇀ # ] and MAJ 2 [<], which paved the way towards the results proven here, and Gavin Dooley, Peter Cholak, and Anand Pillay for insightful conversations about TL[ ↼ # ]. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 03ccb7db-c11d-401d-81e8-0ec38c9957b7Cited by top-tier papers11
- A Little Depth Goes a Long Way: The Expressive Power of Log-Depth TransformersWilliam Merrill, Ashish SabharwalNeurIPS 2025 · 62 citations
- Quantitative Bounds for Length Generalization in TransformersZachary Izzo, Eshaan Nichani, Jason D. LeeICLR 2026 · 8 citations
- The Counting Power of TransformersMarco Sälzer, Chris Köcher, Alexander Kozachinskiy, Georg Zetzsche et al.ICLR 2026 · 7 citations
- Discovering Interpretable Algorithms by Decompiling Transformers to RASPXinting Huang, Aleksandra Bakalova, Satwik Bhattamishra, William Merrill et al.ICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Revisiting Padded Transformer Expressivity: Which Architectural Choices Matter and Which Don'tAnej Svete, William Merrill, Ryan Cotterell, Ashish SabharwalICML 2026 · 3 citations
Builds on13
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Train Short, Test Long: Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length ExtrapolationOfir Press, Noah A. Smith, Mike LewisICLR 2022 · 1,168 citations
- Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial ProblemsZhiyuan Liu, Hong Liu, Denny Zhou, Tengyu MaICLR 2024 · 259 citations
- The Expressive Power of Transformers with Chain of ThoughtWilliam Merrill, Ashish SabharwalICLR 2024 · 243 citations
- Thinking Like TransformersGail Weiss, Yoav Goldberg, Eran YahavICML 2021 · 183 citations
Related papers
- Characterizing the Expressivity of Fixed-Precision Transformer Language ModelsJiaoda Li, Ryan CotterellNeurIPS 2025 · 18 citations
- Length Generalization Bounds for TransformersAndy Yang, Pascal Bergsträßer, Georg Zetzsche, David Chiang et al.ICML 2026
- What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length GeneralizationHattie Zhou, Arwen Bradley, Etai Littwin, Noam Razin et al.ICLR 2024 · 189 citations
- Masked Hard-Attention Transformers Recognize Exactly the Star-Free LanguagesAndy Yang, David Chiang, Dana AngluinNeurIPS 2024 · 58 citations
- On the Ability of Transformers to Verify PlansYash Sarrof, Yupei Du, Katharina Stein, Alexander Koller et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
