Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) develop coherent internal world models remains a core debate. While conventional Next-Token Prediction (NTP) focuses on one-step-ahead supervision, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) has shown promise in learning more structured representations. In this work, we provide a theoretical perspective analyzing the gradient inductive bias of MTP, supported by empirical evidence, showing that MTP promotes the convergence toward internal belief states by inducing representational contractivity via gradient coupling. However, we reveal that standard MTP often suffers from structural hallucinations, where discrete token supervision encourages illegal shortcuts in latent space that violate environmental constraints. To address this, we propose a novel method Latent Semantic Enhancement MTP (LSE-MTP), which anchors predictions to ground-truth hidden state trajectories. Experiments on synthetic graphs and real-world Manhattan Taxi Ride show that LSE-MTP effectively bridges the gap between discrete tokens and continuous state representations, enhancing representation alignment, reducing structural hallucinations, and improving robustness to perturbations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of LSE-MTP. Given a backbone hidden state hn , horizon-specific transition layers produce multi-step predictive representations. Training combines multi-step token prediction with latent consistency and semantic anchoring losses. All transition layers are discarded at inference time.
Model
ER (Erdős–Rényi Graph)
USG (Urban Street Graph)
k=2
k=3
k=4
k=2
k=3
k=4
Sim(F)
Gain
Sim(F)
Gain
Sim(F)
Gain
Sim(F)
Gain
Sim(F)
Gain
Sim(F)
Gain
1TP
0.051
0.027
0.054
0.022
0.078
0.036
0.055
-0.005
0.082
0.018
0.072
0.005
2TP
0.232
0.210
0.102
0.074
0.094
0.062
0.264
0.214
0.126
0.066
0.112
0.048
3TP
0.229
0.195
0.194
0.167
0.136
0.107
0.249
0.197
0.244
0.186
0.148
0.083
4TP
0.223
0.176
0.201
0.162
0.204
0.171
0.230
0.178
0.235
0.180
0.222
0.163
Table 1: Representation alignment on ER and USG graphs. Sim(F) and Gain denote cosine similarity and structure gain (Sim(F) - random baseline) for k -step future equivalent states.
Figure 2: Two independent paths ( A→C→E and B→D→E ) converging at a shared future E .
Figure 3: Visualization of learned weights. Under 2TP, unobserved cross-path transitions ( A→D , B→C ) are strengthened relative to 1TP.
Model
K
ER (Erdős–Rényi Graph)
USG (Urban Street Graph)
G=,P=
G=,P=
G=,P=
Baseline
G=,P=
G=,P=
G=,P=
Baseline
NTP (1TP)
1
0.29
0.11
0.09
0.01
0.22
0.09
0.10
0.03
MTP
2
0.39
0.23
0.11
0.05
0.28
0.10
0.11
0.02
MTP
3
0.43
0.28
0.14
0.07
0.30
0.11
0.10
0.02
MTP
4
0.44
0.30
0.15
0.08
0.32
0.12
0.09
0.03
LSE-MTP
2
0.40
0.25
0.12
0.05
0.34
0.13
0.16
0.05
Table 2: Belief compression on ER and USG graphs. Values report hidden-state similarity for trajectories sharing the same goal G and next-step position P under different control conditions; = denotes “same” and = denotes “different”.
Model
K
ER (Erdős–Rényi Graph)
USG (Urban Street Graph)
ISP ↓
Legal Prob ↑
ISP ↓
Legal Prob ↑
NTP (1TP)
1
2.7×10−5
0.995
2.2×10−5
0.998
MTP
2
4.2×10−5
0.994
4.9×10−5
0.996
MTP
3
7.8×10−5
0.992
7.3×10−5
0.994
MTP
4
1.04 ×10−4
0.985
1.33 ×10−4
0.989
LSE-MTP
2
3.0×10−5
0.995
4.1×10−5
0.997
Table 3: Next-step probability coupling on ER and USG graphs. ISP and Legal Prob report the probability of illegal shortcuts and valid actions for trajectories sharing a common future.
Model
Valid Trajectories
Current State Probe
State-wise Similarity
Compression Precision
Distinction Precision
Distinction Recall
Detour Robustness
Sample Size
1000 trials
1000 seqs
5000 trials
1000 trials
1000 trials
1000 trials
1000 trials
1TP (baseline)
0.993 (0.003)
0.926 (0.001)
0.693 (0.139)
0.108 (0.011)
0.357 (0.015)
0.210 (0.010)
0.692 (0.016)
4TP
0.997 (0.002)
0.964 (0.000)
0.722 (0.119)
0.119 (0.011)
0.298 (0.014)
0.195 (0.010)
0.708 (0.014)
8TP
0.995 (0.002)
0.964 (0.000)
0.820 (0.098)
0.114 (0.011)
0.293 (0.014)
0.182 (0.009)
0.716 (0.014)
LSE-4TP
0.997 (0.002)
0.943 (0.001)
0.791 (0.127)
0.135 (0.012)
0.327 (0.015)
0.213 (0.011)
0.727 (0.014)
LSE-8TP
0.998 (0.001)
0.967 (0.000)
0.851 (0.091)
0.143 (0.012)
0.285 (0.014)
0.201 (0.010)
0.733 (0.014)
Table 4: Evaluation results on real-world Manhattan Taxi Ride Modeling. Values are reported as mean (standard deviation).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
K
Hyperparams (λl,λs)
ER (Erdős–Rényi Graph)
USG (Urban Street Graph)
Suc ↑
Disc ↓
WT ↓
Suc ↑
Disc ↓
WT ↓
NTP (1TP)
1
-
91.80
5.95
2.25
96.22
2.57
1.21
MTP
-
91.99
6.44
1.57
97.13
1.70
1.17
LSE-MTP
(0.1, 0.1)
92.68
5.43
1.89
97.98
1.31
0.71
LSE-MTP
2
(0.3, 0.3)
91.22
6.33
2.45
98.36
1.13
0.51
LSE-MTP
(0.5, 0.5)
91.05
6.66
2.30
97.92
1.33
0.75
Appendix
Table 5: Detailed navigation performance metrics across different horizons ( K ) and LSE hyperparameter configurations ( λl,λs ). Suc, Disc, and WT represent Success rate, Disconnection rate, and Wrong Target rate, respectively.
Model
K
Hyperparams (λl,λs)
ER (Erdős–Rényi Graph)
USG (Urban Street Graph)
G=,P=
G=,P=
G=,P=
Baseline
G=,P=
G=,P=
G=,P=
Baseline
NTP (1TP)
1
-
0.267
0.108
0.091
0.016
0.248
0.112
0.118
0.051
MTP
2
-
0.376
0.221
0.120
0.057
0.298
0.118
0.119
0.039
LSE-MTP
(0.1, 0.1)
0.396
0.263
0.129
0.069
0.346
0.152
0.176
0.078
LSE-MTP
(0.3, 0.3)
0.382
0.264
0.122
0.068
0.366
0.160
0.200
0.093
LSE-MTP
(0.5, 0.5)
0.380
0.270
0.133
0.086
0.369
0.176
0.216
0.107
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed representation similarity metrics across different horizons ( K ) and LSE hyperparameter configurations ( λl,λs ). G and P indicate Goal and current Position, with = and = representing identical or different conditions. Baseline refers to the G=,P= condition.
Model
K
Hyperparams (λl,λs)
ER (Erdős–Rényi Graph)
USG (Urban Street Graph)
ISP ↓
Legal Prob ↑
ISP ↓
Legal Prob ↑
NTP (1TP)
1
-
7.9×10−5
0.989
2.2×10−5
0.999
MTP
2
-
1.22×10−4
0.988
5.7×10−5
0.998
LSE-MTP
(0.1, 0.1)
4.6×10−5
0.990
2.5×10−5
0.998
LSE-MTP
(0.3, 0.3)
5.2×10−5
0.990
3.9×10−5
0.998
LSE-MTP
(0.5, 0.5)
6.2×10−5
0.989
3.1×10−5
0.998
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed next-step probability coupling and structural hallucinations across different horizons ( K ) and LSE hyperparameter configurations ( λl,λs ). ISP and Legal Prob denote illegal shortcut and valid action probabilities, respectively.
Next-token prediction (NTP) is the standard pretraining objective for large language models, yet it provides an explicit training signal only for the immediate next token, which can lead models to exploit local patterns instead of capturing longer-range structure and ideas. Multi-token prediction (MTP) addresses this by training models to predict several future tokens. However, existing MTP methods often introduce a large number of new parameters with limited improvements in downstream performance. Latent MTP approaches address this efficiency issue by encoding future tokens into a vector representation. However, these approaches usually rely on external helper models for future token encoding. We propose LightMTP, a lightweight, i.e., parameter-efficient, latent MTP approach that bootstraps the future token representations from the model's own hidden states. Our two LightMTP variants extend supervision to more future tokens without requiring the additional computational overhead of conventional MTP nor the external supervision latent MTP normally relies on. LightMTP adds at most 1% extra parameters, retains better performance on general language modeling benchmarks, and achieves similar gains in planning, coding, and reasoning.
Tamara Czinczoll, Julie Kallini, Gerard de Melo +1
Hasso Plattner Institute / University of Potsdam · Stanford University · Tel-Aviv University
Standard next-token prediction (NTP) supervises language models solely through discrete labels in the output logit space. We argue that this sparse one-hot supervision leaves the latent representation space under-constrained, allowing hidden states to drift into degenerate and anisotropic configurations that can limit generalization. To address this issue, we propose Next Implicit Token Prediction (NITP), which augments discrete prediction with dense continuous supervision directly in the representation space. NITP trains the model to predict the implicit semantic content of the next token, using shallow-layer representations from the same model as stable self-supervised targets. We provide theoretical analysis showing that NITP regularizes the optimization landscape by mitigating under-constrained degrees of freedom and encouraging a compact, structured representation geometry. Empirically, across dense and MoE models ranging from 0.5B to 9B parameters, NITP consistently improves downstream performance with negligible computational overhead. On a 9B MoE model, NITP achieves a 5.7% absolute improvement on MMLU-Pro, along with gains of 6.4% on C3 and 4.3% on CommonsenseQA, with approximately 2% additional training FLOPs and no additional inference cost. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/aHapBean/NITP.
Xiangdong Zhang, Debing Zhang, Shaofeng Zhang +3
School of AI, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Dots Studio, Xiaohongshu Inc. · University of Science and Technology of China +1
While standard Next-Token Prediction (NTP) lays the foundation of language model pre- training, its teacher-forced training paradigm may not be optimal for long-horizon reasoning and planning. Recent works such as Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) and Next-Latent prediction (NextLat) try to mitigate the problem through predicting multiple future tokens and self-supervised prediction in the latent space. However, those auxiliary objectives either have a limited horizon or suffer from compounding error from multi-step rollout. We introduce Hierarchical Latent Prediction (HiLP), which introduces an auxiliary higher-level abstract latent to help reduce the error accumulation effect in latent-space rollouts. Experiments show that HiLP can lead to longer-horizon coherent belief state representation and demonstrate the effectiveness of our method across coding and multi-step reasoning benchmarks, and offers more speculative decoding efficiency.
Chang Shi, Tim Pearce, Manan Tomar +2
University of Texas at Austin · Microsoft Research