ActivationReasoning: Logical Reasoning in Latent Activation Spaces

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18184v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:21:04 GMT
• Title: ActivationReasoning: Logical Reasoning in Latent Activation Spaces
• Authors: Lukas Helff, Ruben Härle, Wolfgang Stammer, Felix Friedrich, Manuel Brack, Antonia Wüst, Hikaru Shindo, Patrick Schramowski, Kristian Kersting,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating fluent text, but their internal reasoning remains opaque and difficult to control.<n>We introduce ActivationReasoning (AR), a framework that embeds explicit logical reasoning into the latent space of LLMs.<n>AR scales robustly with reasoning complexity, generalizes to abstract and context-sensitive tasks, and transfers across model backbones.
• Score: 43.17973499652433
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating fluent text, but their internal reasoning remains opaque and difficult to control. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) make hidden activations more interpretable by exposing latent features that often align with human concepts. Yet, these features are fragile and passive, offering no mechanism for systematic reasoning or model control. To address this, we introduce ActivationReasoning (AR), a framework that embeds explicit logical reasoning into the latent space of LLMs. It proceeds in three stages: (1) Finding latent representations, first latent concept representations are identified (e.g., via SAEs) and organized into a dictionary; (2) Activating propositions, at inference time AR detects activating concepts and maps them to logical propositions; and (3)Logical reasoning, applying logical rules over these propositions to infer higher-order structures, compose new concepts, and steer model behavior. We evaluate AR on multi-hop reasoning (PrOntoQA), abstraction and robustness to indirect concept cues (Rail2Country), reasoning over natural and diverse language (ProverQA), and context-sensitive safety (BeaverTails). Across all tasks, AR scales robustly with reasoning complexity, generalizes to abstract and context-sensitive tasks, and transfers across model backbones. These results demonstrate that grounding logical structure in latent activations not only improves transparency but also enables structured reasoning, reliable control, and alignment with desired behaviors, providing a path toward more reliable and auditable AI.

Related papers

• Fantastic Reasoning Behaviors and Where to Find Them: Unsupervised Discovery of the Reasoning Process [66.38541693477181]
  We propose an unsupervised framework for discovering reasoning vectors, which we define as directions in the activation space that encode distinct reasoning behaviors.<n>By segmenting chain-of-thought traces into sentence-level'steps', we uncover disentangled features corresponding to interpretable behaviors such as reflection and backtracking.<n>We demonstrate the ability to control response confidence by identifying confidence-related vectors in the SAE decoder space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-30T05:09:11Z)
• Laser: Governing Long-Horizon Agentic Search via Structured Protocol and Context Register [38.329346729947304]
  We introduce Laser, a framework for stabilizing and scaling agentic search.<n>Laser organizes agent behaviors into three spaces: planning, task-solving, and retrospection.<n>Laser consistently outperforms existing agentic search baselines under both prompting-only and fine-tuning settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T15:53:33Z)
• ARCHE: A Novel Task to Evaluate LLMs on Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction [70.53044880892196]
  We introduce a novel task named Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction (ARCHE), in which models must decompose complex reasoning arguments into combinations of standard reasoning paradigms in the form of a Reasoning Logic Tree (RLT)<n>To facilitate this task, we release ARCHE Bench, a new benchmark derived from 70 Nature Communications articles, including more than 1,900 references and 38,000 viewpoints.<n> Evaluations on 10 leading LLMs on ARCHE Bench reveal that models exhibit a trade-off between REA and EC, and none are yet able to extract a complete and standard reasoning chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T07:37:09Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• Explainable Rule Application via Structured Prompting: A Neural-Symbolic Approach [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in complex reasoning tasks but struggle with consistent rule application, exception handling, and explainability.<n>This paper introduces a structured prompting framework that decomposes reasoning into three verifiable steps: entity identification, property extraction, and symbolic rule application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T14:14:01Z)
• Dissecting Logical Reasoning in LLMs: A Fine-Grained Evaluation and Supervision Study [40.143148197878354]
  We introduce FineLogic, a fine-grained evaluation framework that assesses logical reasoning across three dimensions.<n>We study how different supervision formats in fine-tuning shape reasoning abilities.<n>We find a key trade-off: natural language supervision excels at generalization, whereas symbolic supervision is superior at instilling structurally sound, atomic reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:34:12Z)
• Proof of Thought : Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis allows Robust and Interpretable Reasoning [1.3003982724617653]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning. This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs. Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T18:35:45Z)
• Logic Agent: Enhancing Validity with Logic Rule Invocation [24.815341366820753]
  Chain-of-Thought prompting has emerged as a pivotal technique for augmenting the inferential capabilities of language models during reasoning tasks.<n>This paper introduces the Logic Agent (LA), an agent-based framework aimed at enhancing the validity of reasoning processes in Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-28T10:02:28Z)
• Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
  In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training. We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion. The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)
• elBERto: Self-supervised Commonsense Learning for Question Answering [131.51059870970616]
  We propose a Self-supervised Bidirectional Representation Learning of Commonsense framework, which is compatible with off-the-shelf QA model architectures. The framework comprises five self-supervised tasks to force the model to fully exploit the additional training signals from contexts containing rich commonsense. elBERto achieves substantial improvements on out-of-paragraph and no-effect questions where simple lexical similarity comparison does not help.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-17T16:23:45Z)

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.