Beyond Chains of Thought: Benchmarking Latent-Space Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10615v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:15:27 GMT
• Title: Beyond Chains of Thought: Benchmarking Latent-Space Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models
• Authors: Thilo Hagendorff, Sarah Fabi,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can perform reasoning computations both internally within their latent space and externally.<n>This study introduces a benchmark designed to quantify model-internal reasoning in different domains.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can perform reasoning computations both internally within their latent space and externally by generating explicit token sequences like chains of thought. Significant progress in enhancing reasoning abilities has been made by scaling test-time compute. However, understanding and quantifying model-internal reasoning abilities - the inferential "leaps" models make between individual token predictions - remains crucial. This study introduces a benchmark (n = 4,000 items) designed to quantify model-internal reasoning in different domains. We achieve this by having LLMs indicate the correct solution to reasoning problems not through descriptive text, but by selecting a specific language of their initial response token that is different from English, the benchmark language. This not only requires models to reason beyond their context window, but also to overrise their default tendency to respond in the same language as the prompt, thereby posing an additional cognitive strain. We evaluate a set of 18 LLMs, showing significant performance variations, with GPT-4.5 achieving the highest accuracy (74.7%), outperforming models like Grok-2 (67.2%), and Llama 3.1 405B (65.6%). Control experiments and difficulty scaling analyses suggest that while LLMs engage in internal reasoning, we cannot rule out heuristic exploitations under certain conditions, marking an area for future investigation. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs can "think" via latent-space computations, revealing model-internal inference strategies that need further understanding, especially regarding safety-related concerns such as covert planning, goal-seeking, or deception emerging without explicit token traces.

Related papers

• LINGOLY-TOO: Disentangling Memorisation from Reasoning with Linguistic Templatisation and Orthographic Obfuscation [1.2576388595811496]
  We introduce a framework for producing linguistic reasoning problems that reduces the effect of memorisation in model performance estimates.<n>We apply this framework to develop LINGOLY-TOO, a challenging benchmark for linguistic reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T19:57:47Z)
• Towards Reasoning Ability of Small Language Models [3.732224317444325]
  We show that small language models (SLMs) can achieve competitive reasoning performance. We systematically survey, benchmark, and analyze 72 SLMs from six model families across 14 reasoning benchmarks. Our findings challenge the assumption that scaling is the only way to achieve strong reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T08:59:16Z)
• Critical Tokens Matter: Token-Level Contrastive Estimation Enhances LLM's Reasoning Capability [53.51560766150442]
  Critical tokens are elements within reasoning trajectories that significantly influence incorrect outcomes.<n>We present a novel framework for identifying these tokens through rollout sampling.<n>We show that identifying and replacing critical tokens significantly improves model accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T18:58:22Z)
• Can adversarial attacks by large language models be attributed? [1.3812010983144802]
  Attributing outputs from Large Language Models in adversarial settings presents significant challenges that are likely to grow in importance. We investigate this attribution problem using formal language theory, specifically language identification in the limit as introduced by Gold and extended by Angluin. Our results show that due to the non-identifiability of certain language classes it is theoretically impossible to attribute outputs to specific LLMs with certainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T18:28:57Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• CUE: An Uncertainty Interpretation Framework for Text Classifiers Built on Pre-Trained Language Models [28.750894873827068]
  We propose a novel framework, called CUE, which aims to interpret uncertainties inherent in the predictions of PLM-based models. By comparing the difference in predictive uncertainty between the perturbed and the original text representations, we are able to identify the latent dimensions responsible for uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T11:37:46Z)
• Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Models [37.63939774027709]
  Large language models (LLMs) specializing in natural language generation (NLG) have recently started exhibiting promising capabilities. We propose and compare several confidence/uncertainty measures, applying them to *selective NLG* where unreliable results could either be ignored or yielded for further assessment. Results reveal that a simple measure for the semantic dispersion can be a reliable predictor of the quality of LLM responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T16:31:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.