Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to generate a long reasoning chain when solving complex tasks. However, as the reasoning chain extends, critical intermediate steps and the original prompt will be buried in the context, receiving insufficient attention and leading to errors. In this work, we present ATAR, a novel reasoning method that leverages the inherent reasoning structure to steer LLM attention. Our experiments show that ATAR outperforms SOTA methods across six benchmarks, achieving up to 15.39% absolute improvement. Furthermore, with ATAR, "non-reasoning" models achieve comparable or even better performance compared to reasoning models of the same size in most benchmarks. Finally, our ablation studies show that the attention alignment component contributes significantly, and that these improvements are persist under different attentionsteering backends.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Atar . By interleaving planning and action steps, our method explicitly steers attention to balance the global objective (the original question) and the local objective (the current plan step).
Figure 2: An example in Tree-of-Thought. ToT successfully generates a correct plan. The corresponding action is separated from the plan by a large amount of intervening context, thus deviating from the plan’s instruction.
Model
Method
Math
CommonSense
BBH
GSM8K
AQuA
MATH-500
StrQA
T4D
Llama3.2-3B
CoT
73.16
46.06
40.80
66.64
32.98
35.09
PS+
76.95 (+3.79)
38.58 (-7.48)
42.20 (+1.40)
62.79 (-3.85)
31.81 (-1.17)
40.51 (+5.42)
RE2
74.68 (+1.52)
47.28 (+1.22)
41.00 (+0.20)
65.03 (-1.61)
30.32 (-2.66)
38.02 (+2.93)
ToT
70.89 (-2.27)
35.04 (-11.02)
32.80 (-8.00)
60.44 (-6.20)
40.80 (+7.82)
41.32 (+6.23)
Atar
78.32 (+5.16)
48.43 (+2.37)
42.40 (+1.60)
67.55 (+0.91)
43.79 (+10.81)
50.48 (+15.39)
Table 1: Evaluation results on six benchmarks. Best results are shown in bold , and those indicating a performance gain compared to Chain-of-Thought are shown in green .
Model
BBH
DQA
CJ
DU
LD
STED
Snarks
Llama3.2-3B
52.10
54.01
52.40
40.40
38.40
74.47
Phi4-mini
60.80
62.03
69.60
51.20
56.00
79.78
Qwen3-4B
74.00
61.50
77.20
89.60
64.40
84.27
Llama3.1-8B
60.80
53.48
64.00
51.20
52.80
71.35
Phi-4
70.40
65.24
87.20
81.20
59.20
90.45
Table 2: Performance of Atar across BBH task categories. Full task names are provided in Sec. 3.1 .
Model
Math
CommonSense
BBH
GSM8K
AQuA
MATH-500
StrQA
T4D
Phi-4-mini-reasoning
85.37
67.97
87.80
66.38
45.04
59.85
Phi-4-mini (w/ Atar )
88.02
68.50
62.60
68.69
49.47
62.42
Qwen3-4B-Thinking
92.27
67.32
93.20
68.31
73.40
75.34
Qwen3-4B (w/ Atar )
93.56
79.92
88.60
70.13
71.56
75.31
Phi-4-reasoning
91.20
83.20
91.20
77.61
74.11
74.98
Table 3: Evaluation comparison with reasoning models within the same family and size.
Method
Math
CommonSense
BBH
CoT
24.17
57.59
31.67
PS+
23.66
55.02
32.89
RE2
24.96
58.38
33.60
ToT
22.56
49.46
28.74
Atar (w/ SPA)
29.17
59.77
35.01
Atar (w/ PASTA)
26.53
60.43
33.71
Table 4: Performance of Atar under different backends, including SPA ( Tian and Zhang, 2025 ) , and PASTA ( Zhang et al., 2024a ) .
Model
Method
Math
CommonSense
BBH
GSM8K
AQuA
MATH-500
StrQA
T4D
Llama3.1-8B
Atar (w/o attention steering)
79.01
53.15
47.60
71.17
35.28
52.77
Atar (w/o dynamic mechanism)
80.13
48.03
48.80
73.18
38.17
53.64
Atar
83.93
55.51
50.20
73.54
40.01
58.53
Phi-4-mini-4B
Atar (w/o attention steering)
78.77
58.66
55.40
68.60
38.83
57.44
Atar (w/o dynamic mechanism)
84.32
62.60
57.20
67.97
48.47
60.80
Table 5: Ablation study comparing Atar with and without attention steering. Results show that attention steering consistently improves performance. Best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 3: Analysis of chain length and task complexity.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Method
AQuA-RAT
T4D
Llama3.1-8B
CoT
50.79
26.77
Atar (Plan-only)
40.94
26.06
Atar (Plan history)
53.15
36.70
Periodic summarization (K=2)
46.06
39.82
Atar ( Ours )
55.51
40.01
Phi-4-mini
CoT
61.81
39.54
Appendix
Table 6: Alternative design on anchoring strategies. Results show accuracy (%) on AQuA-RAT and T4D benchmarks.
Model
Method
AQuA-RAT
T4D
Llama3.1-8B
CoT
50.79
26.77
Atar (Fixed Strength)
47.64
36.17
Atar (Entropy)
47.64
35.64
Atar (Arithmetic)
54.72
35.99
Atar (Geometric)
55.11
35.28
Atar (Harmonic)
55.51
40.01
Appendix
Table 7: Alternative design on confidence aggregation methods. “Fixed Strength" uses a constant anchor weight, while others calculate dynamic weights based on the mean token probability. Results show accuracy (%).
Model
Latency (Second/Task) ↓
CoT
PS+
RE2
ToT
Atar
Llama3.2-3B
34.96
35.20 (+0.24)
27.64 (-7.32)
193.55 (+158.59)
48.06 (+13.10)
Phi-4-mini-4B
26.26
21.58 (-4.68)
24.27 (-1.99)
278.70 (+252.44)
42.30 (+16.04)
Qwen3-4B
61.24
89.97 (+28.73)
50.40 (-10.84)
292.28 (+231.04)
74.29 (+13.05)
Llama3.1-8B
109.82
110.54 (+0.72)
101.31 (-8.51)
428.2 (+318.38)
89.71 (-20.11)
Phi-4-15B
108.44
108.69 (+0.25)
108.66 (+0.22)
482.48 (+374.04)
122.59 (+14.15)
Appendix
Table 8: Efficiency comparison
TASK INSTRUCTIONS
You are an expert problem solver. Your task is to decompose the given problem into a clear, step-by-step plan, reasoning the plan, and solve the problem step by step in JSON format.
For each plan step, provide a key-value pair: the key is the plan step (as stated), the value is the detailed reasoning and action for that step.
Now, implement a reasoning structure to follow step-by-step and arrive at correct answers in JSON format.
TASK
Original problem: {question}
Appendix
Table 9: Prompt used by Atar to elicit structured planning and step-wise reasoning in format.
Chain-of-Thought
Let’s think step by step.
Re-Reading.
{question}
Read the question again:
{question}
Appendix
Table 10: Prompt used by Chain-of-Thought and Re-Reading.
Mathematical Reasoning Tasks
Let’s first understand the problem, extract relevant variables and their corresponding numerals, and make and devise a complete plan. Then, let’s carry out the plan, calculate intermediate variables (pay attention to correct numerical calculation and commonsense), solve the problem step by step, and show the answer.
COMMONSENSE TASKS
Let’s first prepare relevant information and make a plan. Then, let’s answer the question step by step (pay attention to commonsense and logical coherence).
Appendix
Table 11: Prompts used for the Plan-and-Solve+ baseline under different task settings.
Prompt
Question: A machine is set up in such a way that it will short circuit if both the black wire and the red wire touch the battery
at the same time. The machine will not short-circuit if just one of these wires touches the battery. The black wire is designated
as the one that is supposed to touch the battery, while the red wire is supposed to remain in some other part of the machine.
One day, the black wire and the red wire both end up touching the battery at the same time. There is a short circuit. Did the
black wire cause the short circuit?
Options: (A) Yes (B) No
Atar
{ "Step 1: Understand the scenario": "The machine is designed to short circuit only when both the black wire
Appendix
Table 12: An example of BBH causal reasoning. Incorrect causal inference is highlighted in red .
Prompt
Question: Anna is able to buy 5 more articles for $300 after the price of each article decreased by 15%.
What is the new selling price of each article?
Options: (A) 8(B)10 (C) 13.6(D)22.9 (E) $40
Atar
{ "Step 1: Establish variables": "Let the original price of each article be x .",
"Step 2: Apply price decrease": "After a 15% decrease, the new price becomes 0.85x .",
"Step 3: Set up the cost equation": "Anna buys 5 more articles for $300, so the total cost is represented as
6 ×0.85x=300 .",
Appendix
Table 13: An example of mathematical reasoning in Aqua. Incorrect numerical reasoning is highlighted in red .
Prompt
Sentence: The secretary came to the analyst’s office and helped her to book a flight.
Options: (A) Helped the secretary book a flight (B) Helped the analyst book a flight (C) Ambiguous
Atar
{ "Step 1: Identify the pronoun": "The pronoun is ’her’.",
(w/o attention steering)
"Step 2: Determine the antecedent of the pronoun": " The antecedent of ’her’ is the subject of the sentence, which is ’The secretary’ ",
"Step 3: Analyze the sentence structure": The subject of the sentence is ’The secretary’, and the verb is ’came’. The object of the
verb ’came’ is ’to the analyst’s office’. The verb ’helped’ has the pronoun ’her’ as its object.",
"Step 4: Determine the antecedent of the pronoun based on the sentence structure": "Based on the sentence structure, the antecedent
Appendix
Table 14: An example of BBH. Incorrect inferences are highlighted in red . Correct ones are highlighted in green .
Question:
Is the language used in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rooted in English?
Chain-of-Thought (CoT)
No, the official language of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is English, but the local Creole language,
Saint Vincentian Creole, is also widely spoken. Saint Vincentian Creole is a English-based Creole language that
incorporates elements of French, and African languages. It is the mother tongue of the majority of the population
and is used in everyday conversation, music, and literature. While English is the official language and is used in
government, education, and formal settings, Saint Vincentian Creole is the language of the people and is an
important part of the country’s cultural identity. So, while English is the official language, the local Creole
Appendix
Table 15: An example illustrating Chain-of-Thought’s reasoning process.
Question:
Is the language used in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rooted in English?
Plan-and-Solve (PS+)
Step 1: Understand the question
The question asks about the language used in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines being rooted in English.
This means we need to determine the primary language spoken in the country and its linguistic origins.
Step 2: Research
To answer this question, we need to research the languages spoken in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines is an island nation in the southern part of the Windward Islands in the Caribbean Sea.
Appendix
Table 16: An example illustrating Plan-and-Solve’s reasoning process.
Question:
Is the language used in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rooted in English?
Re-Reading (RE2)
No, the language used in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is primarily English, but it also includes
elements of French, African, and Indian languages due to its colonial history and diverse population.
Final answer: No
Appendix
Table 17: An example illustrating Re-Reading’s reasoning process.
Question:
Is the language used in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rooted in English?
Atar
{"Understand the question.": "
The question is asking whether the language spoken in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is based on English.",
"Research the official language of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.":
"Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is an island nation in the Caribbean, and its official language is English.",
"Confirm the linguistic roots of the official language.":
"English is a Germanic language, which means it has roots in Old English, a language spoken in parts of what is now England."}
Appendix
Table 18: An example illustrating Atar ’s reasoning process.
Model
Method
BBH
disambiguation_qa
causal_judgement
date_understanding
logical_deduction
salient_translation_error_detection
snarks
Llama3.2-3B
CoT
88
71
102
34
95
89
PS+
104
63
97
86
98
105
re-read
74
84
127
40
89
105
ToT
81
90
120
73
93
107
Atar
131
101
131
101
96
129
Appendix
Table 19: BBH task categories and the number of correct cases in each category.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making. Inspired by the theory of inattentional blindness in human cognition, we investigate whether LLMs, trained on human-preferred corpora that embed attentional biases, exhibit a similar limitation: failing to attend to subtle yet important contextual cues under explicit task instructions. To evaluate this, we introduce the task of explicit-implicit reasoning and present MixRea, a benchmark of 2,246 multiple-choice questions across 9 reasoning types with varying distributions of explicit and implicit information. Evaluation of 21 advanced LLMs shows that even the best-performing reasoning model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieves only 42.8% consistency, revealing widespread inattentional blindness. To mitigate this, we propose Potential Relation Completion Prompting (PRCP), a prompting method that improves reasoning by recovering overlooked causal relations. Further analysis shows that this limitation persists across diverse multi-source reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for more cognitively aligned models.
Yuanqing Cai, Ziyi Huang, Minhao Liu +3
Shenzhen Institute for Advanced Study, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on intermediate reasoning, yet explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) suffers from a linguistic space bottleneck: each thought must be decoded into tokens, causing high inference overhead. Latent reasoning moves deliberation into continuous space, but existing methods mostly learn deterministic or reward-maximizing paths, lacking a principled way to allocate probability across trajectories with different correctness and costs. We propose Latent Thought Flow (LTF), which models reasoning as variable-length continuous trajectories and trains a sampler to match a reward-induced posterior over answer quality and computation cost. We instantiate this with a continuous GFlowNet using stochastic latent transitions. To handle sparse answer supervision, we introduce an Entropy-Weighted Subtrajectory Balance objective for intermediate rewards and a reference-prior regularizer to anchor exploration. Experiments under finetuning and transfer learning settings show that LTF outperforms explicit CoT and latent reasoning baselines, improving accuracy by 9.5% while reducing reasoning length by 27.2% on average compared with strong latent reasoning baselines.
Explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning substantially improves the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs), but incurs high inference cost due to lengthy autoregressive traces. Existing latent reasoning methods offer a promis- ing alternative, yet they often treat reasoning as uniformly compressible, causing precision-critical intermediate steps to be overly compressed and thereby degrading reasoning accuracy. In this work, we propose Selective Latent Thinking (SLT), a reasoning paradigm that selectively compresses redundant reasoning spans into latent representations while preserving precision-critical spans as explicit CoT within the same reasoning trajectory. Our primary instantiation uses a lightweight decoder to anticipate a short upcoming reasoning span and applies confidence- based gating to determine the longest span that can be reliably compressed; the resulting selective compression policy is further optimized with trajectory-level reinforcement learning to balance answer correctness against reasoning cost. Ex- periments across four mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that which spans are compressed is critical: with the same compressor, compressing arbitrary spans reduces the GSM-Hard accuracy of Qwen3-4B from 54.7% to 17.3%, whereas keeping numerical tokens explicit retains 51.8%. SLT reduces explicit reasoning length by 58.4% with only a 2.8-point accuracy drop compared to explicit CoT on Llama-3.2-1B. Notably, the principle extends beyond this design: instantiated within existing latent reasoning models via a learned compression gate, it improves accuracy at equal reasoning length (+2.6 points over Latent-SFT) and at shorter length (+5.6 points over Latent-GRPO with 13% fewer tokens).
Hui Xie, Jie Liu, Ziyue Qiao +1
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands · School of Computing and Information Technology, Great Bay University, China