# LLM Reasoning Is Latent, Not the Chain of Thought

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15726 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15726/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 52 of its 59 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 52)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06769/) (2024)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12295/) (2023)
- [Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13379/) (2023)
- [Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12875/) (2024)
- [Reasoning with Latent Thoughts: On the Power of Looped Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17416/) (2025)
- [Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15758/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08679/) (2025)
- [Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16837/) (2024)
- [Reasoning Models Know When They're Right: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05419/) (2025)
- [Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.14271/) (2022)
- [Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.11768/) (2023)
- [When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05246/) (2025)
- [A Survey on Latent Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06203/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Beyond Language: A Comprehensive Survey on Latent Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16782/) (2025)
- [Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.08156/) (2025)
- [Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.03461/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Latent World States in Language Models with Propositional Probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19501/) (2024)
- [When To Solve, When To Verify: Compute-Optimal Problem Solving and Generative Verification for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01005/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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 factorize surface traces, latent interventions, and matched budget expansions, we find that current evidence most strongly supports H1 as a default working hypothesis rather than as a task-independent verdict. We therefore make two recommendations: the field should treat latent-state dynamics as the default object of study for LLM reasoning, and it should evaluate reasoning with designs that explicitly disentangle surface traces, latent states, and serial compute.