Organizations: School of New Media and Communication, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China · Independent Contributor, CA, USA · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Explicit Chain-of-Thought improves the reasoning performance of large language models but often incurs high inference cost due to verbose token-level traces. While recent approaches reduce this overhead via concise prompting or step pruning, they largely truncate what the model says rather than internalize what the model thinks. Latent reasoning offers a promising alternative by performing computation in the hidden space, yet prior methods face two critical challenges. Many existing approaches rely on rigid point-to-point alignment, forcing a latent token to approximate the final representation of a reasoning step, which can be insufficient to capture the dense, variable-length semantics of an entire reasoning segment. Furthermore, these methods often suffer from a lack of interpretability: latent states are commonly produced by unconstrained optimization or embedding mixing, yielding vectors that are difficult to decode or audit under the pretrained language head. We propose SPOT, a flexible framework that compresses explicit CoT into compact latent pause tokens without enforcing a fixed response template. At the core of SPOT is Span-level Semantic Alignment, a Sinkhorn optimal-transport objective that softly matches each pause token to the semantics of an entire reasoning segment, overcoming the rigidity of step-end alignment. To further improve interpretability, SPOT introduces a Frozen-Head Decoding Constraint that keeps latent states directly decodable as token distributions under the frozen pretrained LM head, enabling readable keyword interpretations of latent thoughts. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SPOT improves accuracy by 2.3 points on average while reducing generated tokens by 37.5% and provides faithful semantic interpretations of the latent reasoning process.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Representative coupling paradigms in hybrid/latent reasoning. Each gray block denotes a contiguous explicit reasoning span (a paragraph-level segment delimited by blank lines), and each orange block denotes a latent token.
Figure 2. Overview of the SPOT framework. Stage I trains the student on SpanDrop sequences by anchoring <pause> hidden states to the corresponding teacher span under the frozen LM head, using a Sinkhorn-based alignment loss. Stage II applies RFT by selecting correct completions and preferring shorter ones, improving stability under external <pause> insertion.
Method
GSM8K
MATH500
AIME 2024
AIME 2025
GPQA-Diamond
Average
Acc(%)
#L
Acc(%)
#L
Acc(%)
#L
Acc(%)
#L
Acc(%)
#L
Δ Acc
Δ #L
Vanilla
89.61
1,316
92.40
3,775
54.33
10,874
36.00
11,357
50.10
8,238
–
–
CCoT
89.83 +0.2%
1,226 -6.9%
92.26 -0.1%
3,133 -17.0%
52.33 -2.0%
9,884 -9.1%
35.33 -0.7%
10,842 -4.5%
50.83 +0.7%
7,869 -4.5%
-0.4%
-8.4%
DEER
91.05 +1.4%
985 -25.2%
92.60 +0.2%
2,486 -34.1%
52.67 -1.7%
9,306 -14.4%
35.67 -0.3%
10,124 -10.9%
50.65 +0.6%
5,323 -35.4%
+0.0%
-24.0%
ConciseHint
89.86 +0.3%
872 -33.7%
92.62 +0.2%
2,447 -35.2%
53.33 -1.0%
9,053 -16.8%
34.67 -1.3%
9,822 -13.5%
52.99 +2.9%
7,090 -13.9%
+0.2%
-22.6%
Step Entropy
90.46 +0.9%
1,269 -3.6%
92.80 +0.4%
2,649 -29.8%
53.33 -1.0%
8,567 -21.2%
34.67 -1.3%
9,637 -15.2%
51.98 +1.9%
7,167 -13.0%
+0.2%
-16.6%
Table 1. Main Results on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B. Results are averaged over 10 random seeds. Each cell reports the absolute metric value, with subscripts showing the difference vs. Vanilla (Acc: absolute percentage points; Length: relative %). Best and second-best results are in bold and underlined , respectively.
Figure 3. Controllability under external <pause> insertion. Bars report Pass@1 accuracy ( Acc , left axis) and lines report output length ( #L , right axis) when inserting one <pause> after every N spans within the <think> segment.
Method
GSM8K
AIME2025
GPQA-Diamond
Acc (%)
#L
Acc (%)
#L
Acc (%)
#L
Vanilla
89.61
1316
36.00
11357
50.10
8238
SPOT End_KL
87.30
1204 -8.49%
21.33
10223 -9.99%
48.48
6910 -16.12%
SPOT MSE
88.93
921 -29.99%
15.67
12785 +12.58%
43.43
8586 +4.22%
SPOT Sinkhorn
92.72
630 -52.13%
39.33
9568 -15.75%
54.55
4181 -49.25%
Table 2. Ablation on the alignment objective. Each #L cell reports the absolute length with a subscript showing relative change vs. Vanilla.
G
MATH500
AIME2025
GPQA-Diamond
Acc (%)
#L
Acc (%)
#L
Acc (%)
#L
Vanilla
92.40
3775
36.00
11357
50.10
8238
1
93.80
2154 -42.95%
39.33
9568 -15.75%
54.55
4181 -49.25%
2
90.62
1675 -55.64%
32.67
9478 -16.54%
48.49
3565 -56.73%
3
89.84
1606 -57.47%
30.67
9230 -18.72%
47.65
3426 -58.42%
Table 3. Spans per <pause> . Each <pause> compresses G consecutive reasoning spans.
λ
GSM8K
AIME2025
GPQA-Diamond
Acc (%)
#L
Acc (%)
#L
Acc (%)
#L
Vanilla
89.61
1316
36.00
11357
50.10
8238
0.0
86.66
1235 -6.12%
24.00
11606 +2.20%
34.34
8192 -0.55%
0.2
88.57
1057 -19.67%
28.00
10149 -10.63%
47.47
6861 -16.71%
0.4
89.23
1082 -17.77%
29.67
9796 -13.74%
47.98
6327 -23.20%
0.6
90.00
969 -26.35%
31.33
9621 -15.28%
48.99
5870 -28.74%
Table 4. Sensitivity to the alignment weight λ .
Figure 4. Training-time alignment diagnostics on SpanDrop examples. Left axis: span-level Sinkhorn OT alignment loss (lower is better). Right axis: frozen-head top- K coverage between tokens decoded from the <pause> hidden state and the token set of the paired teacher span (Eq. 18 , K=20 ; higher is better). The dashed line denotes the vanilla backbone with externally inserted <pause> tokens evaluated under the same computation.
Method
Local ↑
Util. ↑
Joint@4 ↑ (%)
Vanilla
3.59
1.71
17.2
SPOT (End_KL)
3.65
3.20
29.7
SPOT (MSE)
3.98
2.83
30.6
SPOT (Sinkhorn)
4.85
4.34
83.6
Table 5. LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation of <pause> boundaries. We report mean scores over all evaluated boundaries. Joint@4 is the percentage of boundaries where both Local and Util. are at least 4 (out of 5).
Figure 5. A successful <pause> compression example.