LLM Reasoning Is Latent, Not the Chain of Thought
Wenshuo Wang

TL;DR
This paper advocates for studying LLM reasoning as latent-state trajectory formation rather than surface chain-of-thought, emphasizing the importance of disentangling different reasoning representations.
Contribution
It formalizes three hypotheses about LLM reasoning, argues for the primacy of latent states, and recommends new evaluation designs to better understand reasoning processes.
Findings
Current evidence most strongly supports reasoning as latent-state trajectories.
Empirical and mechanistic work should focus on latent-state dynamics.
Evaluation methods should disentangle surface traces, latent states, and compute.
Abstract
This position paper argues that large language model (LLM) reasoning should be studied as latent-state trajectory formation rather than as faithful surface chain-of-thought (CoT). This matters because claims about faithfulness, interpretability, reasoning benchmarks, and inference-time intervention all depend on what the field takes the primary object of reasoning to be. We ask what that object should be once three often-confounded factors are separated and formalize three competing hypotheses: H1, reasoning is primarily mediated by latent-state trajectories; H2, reasoning is primarily mediated by explicit surface CoT; and H0, most apparent reasoning gains are better explained by generic serial compute than by any privileged representational object. Reorganizing recent empirical, mechanistic, and survey work under this framework, and adding compute-audited worked exemplars that…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
