Reasoning emerges from constrained inference manifolds in large language models

A defining feature of human intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing environments by inferring latent task structure from sparse observations. Neuroscientific research indicates that this capability relies on the hippocampus constructing abstract representations, expressed as low-dimensional, approximately orthogonal manifolds in neural state space. However, the internal mechanisms of large language models (LLMs) remain largely opaque, making it unclear whether they form comparable abstract representations or instead rely on task-specific statistical regularities when performing comparable reasoning tasks. Here we adapt a contextual reversal-learning paradigm to a text-based setting and compare humans and LLMs at both the Behavioural and representational levels. We report that although LLMs exhibit generalizable reasoning less frequently than humans, when such inference occurs, their internal states exhibit abstract geometric structures that resemble those reported in the hippocampus. Notably, this representational geometry is not uniformly distributed but is organized hierarchically across model depth: whereas lower layers show early, stable encoding of stimulus identity, higher layers form a hippocampal-like functional band enriched for abstract context geometry associated with inference. Furthermore, complementary intervention experiments mechanistically implicate geometry in reasoning: task-sequence language modelling induces geometric disentanglement, whereas geometric regularization of higher layers increases the emergence of generalizable inference. Together, these findings establish abstract representational geometry as a mechanistic principle supporting inference in large language models.

Recent work has sought to understand Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning, yet a principled, model-intrinsic signal that captures its layer-wise reasoning dynamics remains underexplored. We bridge this gap by demonstrating that the l2 norm of hidden states serves as an endogenous signal of the model's reasoning intensity. Using Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) as a diagnostic probe, we observe that LLMs' internal reasoning is marked by a sharp increase in reasoning feature activations concentrated in late layers. Motivated by this pattern, we establish a formal link between reasoning intensity and the model's latent geometry and theoretically prove that the l2 norm of hidden states bounds the activation strength of SAE reasoning features. Empirical correlation analysis and causal interventions further validate the l2 norm as a faithful indicator, where heightened norms consistently correspond to critical reasoning steps. We then introduce three test-time scaling techniques guided by l2 norms: (i) Adaptive Layer-wise Reasoning Recursion, (ii) Endogenous Reasoning State Steering, and (iii) l2-guided Response Selection, which requires no additional training or data and is compatible with advanced inference engines. Experiments across model architectures and benchmarks show that l2-norm-based techniques significantly improve reasoning performance, offering a principled yet simple lens to perceive and control LLM latent reasoning dynamics. Our code is available at https://github.com/zjy1298/The-Tell-Tale-Norm.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance through extended inference-time deliberation, yet how their reasoning failures arise remains poorly understood. By analyzing model-generated reasoning trajectories, we find that errors are not uniformly distributed but often originate from a small number of early transition points, after which reasoning remains locally coherent but globally incorrect. These transitions coincide with localized spikes in token-level entropy, and alternative continuations from the same intermediate state can still lead to correct solutions. Based on these observations, we introduce GUARD, a targeted inference-time framework that probes and redirects critical transitions using uncertainty signals. Empirical evaluations across multiple benchmarks confirm that interventions guided by these failure dynamics lead to more reliable reasoning outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding when and how reasoning first deviates, complementing existing approaches that focus on scaling inference-time computation.