# CALR: Continuous Anchored Latent Reasoning via Render-of-Thought Compression

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07175 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07175/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [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)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [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)
- [From Explicit CoT to Implicit CoT: Learning to Internalize CoT Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14838/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-OCR: Contexts Optical Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18234/) (2025)
- [Implicit Chain of Thought Reasoning via Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.01460/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-OCR 2: Visual Causal Flow](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20552/) (2026)
- [SIM-CoT: Supervised Implicit Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20317/) (2025)
- [Language Modelling with Pixels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.06991/) (2022)
- [SoftCoT++: Test-Time Scaling with Soft Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11484/) (2025)
- [Continuous Chain of Thought Enables Parallel Exploration and Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23648/) (2025)
- [ReGuLaR: Variational Latent Reasoning Guided by Rendered Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.23184/) (2026)
- [Are Latent Reasoning Models Easily Interpretable?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04902/) (2026)
- [UniVLR: Unifying Text and Vision in Visual Latent Reasoning for Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.11856/) (2026)
- [Why Struggle with Continuous Latents? Interpretable Discrete Latent Reasoning via Rendered Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29712/) (2026)
- [Structural Process Supervision for Latent Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09928/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Visual latent reasoning compresses rendered derivations into compact intermediate states, reducing textual reasoning overhead. Existing approaches differ in how they represent these states: continuous methods avoid vocabulary constraints, whereas discrete methods improve accuracy through quantization into a finite codebook. Our analysis of representative continuous and discrete systems identifies two functional requirements: answers must rely on latent states, and those states must carry valid, problem-specific reasoning. Continuous latents influence answers despite collapsed reasoning content, whereas discrete latents retain recoverable intermediate reasoning that answer prediction largely bypasses. To address these challenges, we propose Continuous Anchored Latent Reasoning (CALR), which connects latent formation with answer use through functional anchoring. With reference latents from information-balanced compression, CALR couples latent-mediated answer supervision with derivation-level semantic anchoring: the former routes answer supervision through intermediate states, while the latter grounds their decoded content in problem-specific derivations. A parallel-to-autoregressive curriculum develops sequential reasoning by conditioning subsequent latent blocks on generated prefixes. Evaluations on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks across model families show substantial accuracy gains. Under matched budgets, CALR gains 26.0 percentage points over a comparable continuous latent reasoning method. Further analyses show that its latents support answer prediction and carry problem-specific intermediate reasoning.