Reading Between the Dots: Decoding Hidden Computation across Filler Tokens

A key question for AI safety is whether a language model expresses all of its reasoning in its output tokens. We demonstrate a concrete failure mode where frontier models exhibit invisible reasoning by leveraging semantically irrelevant filler tokens to improve performance on synthetic reasoning tasks. We evaluate 13 frontier language models across three tasks and find that many models benefit significantly from filler tokens, with accuracy improvements of up to 13 percentage points. The benefit depends on which tokens are used and differs across models. We further show that filler tokens enable Claude Opus 4.5 to satisfy a hidden modular arithmetic constraint without sacrificing accuracy on its primary task, demonstrating that invisible reasoning can serve objectives entirely invisible to CoT monitoring. Reinforcement learning gives Qwen3-235B strong preferences over filler token content, but neither RL nor supervised fine-tuning produces a filler token benefit that persists at test time. Our results indicate that frontier models already perform consequential computation with no interpretable trace in their output tokens.

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking $+1.87$, $p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}$; Instruct $+1.41$, $p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within $0.08$ ($+1.80$ and $+1.45$), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting improves reasoning in large language models (LLMs) by externalizing intermediate computation as discrete text tokens, but this textual interface also introduces redundancy and inference overhead. Latent reasoning offers a promising alternative by carrying part of the computation in continuous representations. However, existing methods typically predefine when latent computation is invoked and how it is allocated during decoding, leaving a key problem unresolved: when to invoke latent computation, what type of computation to perform, and how much budget to allocate. We propose \textbf{Ty}ped \textbf{L}at\textbf{e}nt \textbf{R}easoning (Tyler), a typed and budget-aware framework for latent reasoning during autoregressive decoding. Tyler learns a policy that, at each decoding step, chooses between emitting a text token and switching to a latent computation module specialized for a particular reasoning function. Once invoked, an operator maps the current reasoning state into latent tokens that support global planning, local state updates, or reusable procedural abstraction. Across extensive experiments on three backbone LLMs, Tyler improves accuracy by up to 14.49 points over CoT and by up to 4.30 points over the strongest competing baseline. It further generalizes across diverse reasoning domains and achieves the best final-stage performance with the lowest forgetting.