mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Reading Between the Dots: Decoding Hidden Computation across Filler Tokens

arXiv 2607.03502 ↗First posted 3 Jul 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking

Abstract (arXiv)

Frontier LLMs can perform multi-step reasoning over content-free filler tokens like dots or counting sequences, producing correct answers with no visible chain-of-thought (CoT). This is a limit case for behavioral oversight, where surface tokens carry no information about the underlying reasoning. But hidden from the output is not the same as hidden from us. On four task families (fact retrieval, parallel numeric composition, string manipulation, and in-context computation), two open-weights frontier models (DeepSeek V3, Kimi K2) compute over filler tokens in a legible way: attention routes the question through the filler region to the answer, logit-lens readouts show retrieved facts emerging early and their composition crystallizing in late layers, and KV-cache transplants at filler positions causally swap outputs between examples. We introduce an unsupervised decoding pipeline that takes only hidden states as input and recovers intermediate values with 82-94% accuracy (best LLM judge) across both models and all four tasks, without ground-truth labels or training. Even without a judge, the hidden values are already directly in the pipeline's top-2 tokens 35-85% of the time. The uplift persists whether the filler is prefilled or the model generates the filler itself. On these cleanly decomposable tasks, hidden computation that defeats behavioral CoT monitoring is readable from the residual stream, which suggests that monitorability is a property of the model's full computational trace rather than only its surface tokens.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 26 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.

Builds on

26 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Think before you speak: Training Language Models With Pause Tokens3 Oct

Other references · 25

  1. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  2. 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
  3. 2023AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for LLM Compression and Accelerationcited by 1,298
  4. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
  5. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  6. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
  7. 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
  8. 2026Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligencecited by 501
  9. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 415
  10. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
  11. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 249
  12. 2024Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language Modelscited by 235
13 more
  1. 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 214
  2. 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Modelscited by 191
  3. 2025Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithfulcited by 170
  4. 2024Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning?cited by 169
  5. 2023Future Lens: Anticipating Subsequent Tokens from a Single Hidden Statecited by 121
  6. 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitorscited by 88
  7. 2024Hopping Too Late: Exploring the Limitations of Large Language Models on Multi-Hop Queriescited by 78
  8. 2024Do Large Language Models Perform Latent Multi-Hop Reasoning without Exploiting Shortcuts?cited by 28
  9. 2025Knowing Before Saying: LLM Representations Encode Information About Chain-of-Thought Success Before Completioncited by 23
  10. 2025The Impact of Language Mixing on Bilingual LLM Reasoningcited by 12
  11. 2022Inferring Implicit Relations in Complex Questions with Language Modelscited by 9
  12. 2025Chain-of-Thought Tokens are Computer Program Variablescited by 6
  13. 2026Transformers Provably Learn to Internalize Chain-of-Thoughtcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Not All LLM Reasoning is Visible in the Chain-of-Thought
  2. 2026Masked diffusion LLMs can use EoS tokens for hidden reasoning
  3. 2025CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering
  4. 2024Understanding Hidden Computations in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
  5. 2025RaaS: Reasoning-Aware Attention Sparsity for Efficient LLM Reasoning
  6. 2025Expanding Computation Spaces of LLMs at Inference Time
  7. 2026CLAA: Cross-Layer Attention Aggregation for Accelerating LLM Prefill
  8. 2026Linear Probes Detect Task Format, Not Reasoning Mode in Language Model Hidden States