Leveraging Speech to Identify Signatures of Insight and Transfer in Problem Solving

Many SLT systems quietly assume that brief chunks of signing map directly to spoken-language words. That assumption breaks down because signers often create meaning on the fly using context, space, and movement. We revisit SLT and argue that it is mainly a cross-modal reasoning task, not just a straightforward video-to-text conversion. We thus introduce a reasoning-driven SLT framework that uses an ordered sequence of latent thoughts as an explicit middle layer between the video and the generated text. These latent thoughts gradually extract and organize meaning over time. On top of this, we use a plan-then-ground decoding method: the model first decides what it wants to say, and then looks back at the video to find the evidence. This separation improves coherence and faithfulness. We also built and released a new large-scale gloss-free SLT dataset with stronger context dependencies and more realistic meanings. Experiments across several benchmarks show consistent gains over existing gloss-free methods. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/fletcherjiang/SignThought.

Although LLMs have made significant progress in mathematical reasoning, determining whether a mathematical problem is solvable remains a fundamental yet challenging capability. While recent studies have probed internal representations of model solvability beliefs, verbalization has primarily been studied behaviorally rather than as an internal representation, limiting its analysis and manipulation. We address this gap by separately probing representations of solvability knowledge and verbalization, allowing us to disentangle the two within model hidden states. Across multiple LLMs, we show that knowledge and verbalization are encoded as distinct, linearly decodable representations and that fabrication is primarily associated with changes in verbalization rather than the underlying knowledge. Prompting with unsolvability cues reduces fabrication primarily by shifting verbalization, while activation steering demonstrates that these representations can be echanistically manipulated to improve model abstention.

When a hint turns a failing generated program into a passing one, does it provide missing information or merely steer the model toward a solution it could already produce? We test these hypotheses on HumanEval+ and MBPP+ using executable evaluation. For Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct, adaptive relevant hints rescue 36 of 79 selected failures; an unrelated hint rescues 19, while eight unhinted samples solve 46 and recover 31 of the 36 relevant-hint rescues. Phi-3.5-mini shows the same pattern: relevant hints rescue 42 of 101 failures, an unrelated hint rescues 17, and unhinted sampling solves 57, including 36 of the 42 relevant-hint rescues. Because the hint conditions use different attempt budgets, these comparisons do not isolate a purely semantic effect. Mechanistic tests on Qwen identify a stable activation direction shared by relevant and unrelated hints. Persistently adding this direction yields 14 rescues and 18 regressions, with no detectable net accuracy gain; learned low-rank interventions have a positive but imprecise estimated effect. Full textual specifications solve 22 of 24 context-defined problems, versus 5-11 for tested virtual-KV prefixes. Post-generation hidden-state probes transfer across benchmarks, with pooled AUROC 0.806 and 0.780, but their top-one selection advantage over token confidence is statistically unresolved. Overall, relevant hints can rescue failures, but most rescued solutions are already reachable through ordinary sampling, and the internal interventions tested here do not establish task-general capability transfer.