cs.LGAug 4, 2026

The Ignition Is Real, and It Lives at the Readout: Latent composition, difficulty-clocked ignition, and the interface-constituted commit in a recurrent-depth reasoner

Authors: Simon Lam-Muir

Abstract

We test whether the "compositional ignition" reported in latent-reasoning models is real computation, an instrument artifact, or inherited from verbal training data. We grow an independent realization of a published 30M-parameter recurrent-depth reasoner from scratch (same recipe and seed), film its development, certify fidelity through a pre-registered whole-signature gate, and measure resolution in two channels at once: the vocabulary readout and the hidden state. The ignition is real and lives at the readout: arrival time rises lawfully with problem depth, resolution is sharp and holds, and the signature reproduces across two same-seed realizations with divergent training trajectories. At commitment the decision margin jumps 5.8-8.0 logits in one iteration, exceeding the 90th percentile of near-threshold non-event steps in 96% of cases; the signed margin's zero-crossing there is definitional and carries no evidential weight, so the evidence is that conditioned magnitude. The hidden-state direction snaps in raw geometry, meeting its pre-registered criterion (in the decoder's LayerNorm coordinates it attenuates just below our bar, so the composite decoder-coordinate claim is not confirmed), and then freezes in both (descriptively so in decoder coordinates; angular steps 52.9 to 1.2 degrees over eight iterations), while subsequent displacement is predominantly radial (0.961 of squared-norm) and readout-null to a measured bound (radial logit effect <=5.7e-6). An earlier velocity-trough claim is withdrawn: pre-registered normalization controls showed it coordinate-dependent. Intermediates were never recoverable through the tied readout (relay 0.00). All criteria were frozen before their data; the predictions ledger, including this paper's own withdrawn headline, ships in the companion repository.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 7, 2026cs.LG

Final Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Analyzing Latent Reasoning Faithfulness Along Training Trajectories

Latent reasoning performs multi-step inference in continuous hidden states, promising more compact and efficient reasoning. However, these opaque states raise a question of faithfulness: whether the latent reasoning steps drive the final answer. Prior work studies this question at selected checkpoints and reports several unfaithful behaviors. This endpoint view leaves how evidence of faithfulness evolves during training unexamined. We track behavioral and activation-based evidence across training using verified counterfactual edits and interventions on the latent reasoning states. We find that high task accuracy can coexist with low counterfactual responsiveness: as accuracy improves, responsiveness can decline, and different latent reasoning approaches follow distinct trajectories. On ProsQA, output sensitivity to norm-noise replacement declines alongside counterfactual responsiveness, although the result depends on the replacement. Across separately trained binary-choice and open-ended GSM settings, intervention sensitivity follows opposite trajectories. These results show that evaluating only a final checkpoint can obscure both when counterfactual responsiveness changes and what the latent states contribute.
Hengyu Jin, Shu Yang, Di Wang
Latent ReasoningExplanation FaithfulnessIntermediate Checkpoints
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2026cs.AI

Closing the Loop on Latent Reasoning via Test-Time Reconstruction

Recent work moves intermediate reasoning from natural-language traces into latent or cache-level representations to reduce token overhead and avoid a discrete communication bottleneck. However, this shift also removes a key advantage of textual reasoning: intermediate states are no longer inspectable, making it difficult to determine whether a latent state still preserves the constraints of the original query. As a result, latent reasoning typically operates in an open loop, where a latent state is produced and consumed without an input-anchored fidelity check. We propose ReLAT (Reconstruction-Guided Latent Reasoning At Test Time), a self-supervised test-time training method that closes this loop using the query itself as the reference. Our key observation is that if a latent state faithfully represents a query, the query should be recoverable from it; if the query cannot be recovered, the latent state has lost task-relevant information. ReLAT operationalizes this principle by constructing a differentiable Question -> Latent Thought -> Question cycle and optimizing query reconstruction loss through the latent thought before answer generation. This anchors opaque latent computation to the problem specification it is supposed to represent. Across mathematical reasoning, knowledge QA, and code generation benchmarks on the Qwen family, ReLAT consistently improves over single-model inference, text-based collaboration, open-loop latent collaboration, and alternative test-time training objectives. On Qwen3-8B, ReLAT raises AIME 2024 accuracy from 56.7% to 73.3%, a 16.6-point gain over the strongest open-loop latent baseline.
Xiaopeng Yuan, Haibo Jin, Ye Yu +4
Latent ReasoningReconstruction-Driven FrameworkFull-Context BaselinesLoop
AskPDF
May 27, 2026cs.LG

When and How Long? The Readout-Mediator Angle in Temporal Reasoning

A linear probe can decode a representation almost perfectly and yet be completely irrelevant to how the model uses it. On calendar-date duration reasoning in language models, a sin⁡\sin/cos⁡\cos probe recovers day-of-year from a layer's activations, yet ablating its direction has no effect on the model's answers -- while ablating a four-dimensional subspace found by Distributed Alignment Search (DAS) at the same layer collapses performance entirely. We measure the angle between these two subspaces -- the \emph{readout-mediator angle} -- and find it indistinguishable from the angle between two random subspaces (the Haar-uniform null), meaning the probe has learned a direction orthogonal to the model's actual computation. Reverse-engineering the circuit reveals why: attention heads route month-grained context through learned QK offsets at ±30{\pm}30 and ±61{\pm}61 days, and MLPs then convert \emph{when} (absolute date) into \emph{how long} (duration) -- all downstream of the causal subspace the probe never touches. Sparse-autoencoder decomposition confirms the split: probe-aligned and DAS-aligned features encode semantically disjoint concepts with negligible causal overlap. The dissociation replicates across four scales (1.51.5-9 9\,B) and two model families, with preliminary evidence on two further domains (spatial displacement, symbolic arithmetic), suggesting that readout-mediator orthogonality is a general failure mode of probe-based interpretability. This directly undermines proposals to deploy probes as runtime safety monitors: the probe can report high confidence on a direction the model has silently abandoned.
Shreyas Fadnavis, Praitayini Kanakaraj, Felix Wyss
ReadoutModel Interpretability Methods
AskPDF