Skip to content

Author

Idan Mehalel

1 paper indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Preprint Aug 2026

Stochastic Autoregressive Learning

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 $m_{base}(\varepsilon),m_{CoT}(\varepsilon), m_{e2e}(\varepsilon)$, 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~$\varepsilon$. We show that stochastic autoregressive learning fundamentally differs from the deterministic theory. At scale $\varepsilon$, 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 $M/\varepsilon$, the natural analogue for the existing deterministic results. Nevertheless, after altering scales, for every class, CoT learning at scale $\varepsilon$ is upper-bounded by base learning at scale $\varepsilon/M^2$, whereas e2e learning at scale $\varepsilon$ is upper-bounded, up to logarithmic factors, by $(M/\varepsilon) m_{CoT}(\Theta(\varepsilon))$. These dependencies and scales are essentially tight. We complement these bounds by studying dimension $d$ logistic functions in our model.

Ilan Doron-Arad, Idan Mehalel, Elchanan Mossel · 1 citation

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.