In recent years, the performance of large language models (LLMs) on reasoning tasks has been remarkable, even surpassing human capabilities on various benchmarks. However, there remains a lack of clear understanding in the academic community regarding how the structure and internal parameters of LLMs progressively solve complex reasoning problems. In this study, we investigate the inference process of LLMs on cross-linguistic materials and propose the hypothesis that LLM layers exhibit a structured division of labor across conceptualization, reasoning, and textualization. Based on this hypothesis, we introduce a bottleneck identification mechanism using sensitivity analysis to pinpoint the most critical functional stage for a specific task. Leveraging this insight, we propose a novel approach, Layer-Informed Fine-Tuning (LIFT), which achieves efficient and effective fine-tuning by selectively updating only these functionally critical layers. We then conduct extensive experiments to show that the LIFT method not only accelerates the training process but also significantly improves model performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The upper part of the figure illustrates how an LLM processes a simple question under the Three-Stage Functional Segmentation hypothesis. The lower part presents a toy experiment validating this hypothesis by comparing hidden state similarities across conceptualization, reasoning, and textualization layers. We have also added a curve showing the cosine similarity between adjacent layers, with higher values indicating greater redundancy in those layers. In the figure, Q2 and O2 are the Chinese expressions of Q1 and O1, respectively.
Figure 2: Cosine similarity between Hidden States in the Same Layer.
Figure 3: Cosine Similarity between Hidden Stated in Adjacent Layers
Llama-3-8B-Instruct (Drop)
Datasets
conceptualization layers
active reasoning layers
idle reasoning layers
textualization layers
ProofWriter
44.04% ( ± 2.03%)
42.44% ( ± 1.70%)
44.95% ( ± 1.54%)
44.18% ( ± 1.89%)
FOLIO
52.88% ( ± 0.97%)
51.33% ( ± 0.83%)
52.80% ( ± 1.36%)
52.48% ( ± 1.17%)
LogicalDeduction
47.48% ( ± 0.76%)
43.18% ( ± 1.45%)
48.86% ( ± 1.43%)
48.58% ( ± 0.89%)
gsm8k
60.30% ( ± 1.73%)
58.95% ( ± 2.48%)
61.96% ( ± 1.00%)
61.39% ( ± 1.50%)
Table 1: Performance of quantization probing (Drop and Recovery) over Various Layer Ranges of Llama-3-8B-Instruct (Averaged over 8 Seeds).
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Qwen2-7B-Instruct
ProofWriter
Base model
FullFT
AdaLoRA
LIFT[2,20)
Base model
FullFT
AdaLoRA
LIFT[3,26)
Accuracy
45.67%
56.12% (±2.02%)
47.83% (±0.49%)
57.67% (±0.36%)
48.00%
53.17% (±3.10%)
48.25% (±1.68%)
53.46% (±2.36%)
Training Time(s)
-
1383
1923
1215
-
1288
1839
1180
FOLIO
Base model
FullFT
AdaLoRA
LIFT[2,20)
Base model
FullFT
AdaLoRA
LIFT[3,26)
Accuracy
55.39%
52.08% (±1.67%)
57.11% (±2.21%)
58.21% (±2.35%)
34.31%
44.98% (±0.74%)
18.01% (±1.57%)
44.73% (±1.98%)
Training Time(s)
-
332
516
290
-
310
496
284
Table 2: Performance and Training Time Comparison of Fine-Tuning Methods over 4 Seeds
Appendix figures & tables34 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Layers
Model
Layers
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
32
Qwen2-7B-Instruct
28
Appendix
Table 3: Number of layers in each LLM
Figure 4: Performance of Llama-3-8B-Instruct across languages and datasets.
Figure 5: Performance of Qwen2-7B-Instruct across languages and datasets.
Figure 6: Cosine Similarity between Hidden Stated in Adjacent Layers of Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Figure 7: Cosine Similarity between Hidden Stated in Adjacent Layers of Qwen2-7B-Instruct
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Datasets
conceptualization layers
active reasoning layers
idle reasoning layers
textualization layers
ProofWriter
[0,2)
[2,20)
[20,30)
[30,32)
FOLIO
[0,2)
[2,20)
[20,30)
[30,32)
LogicalDeduction
[0,2)
[2,22)
[22,30)
[30,32)
GSM8K
[0,2)
[2,22)
[22,30)
[30,32)
Appendix
Table 4: Functional Layer Segmentation of Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Qwen2-7B-Instruct
Datasets
conceptualization layers
active reasoning layers
idle reasoning layers
textualization layers
ProofWriter
[0,3)
[3,26)
-
[26,28)
FOLIO
[0,3)
[3,26)
-
[26,28)
LogicalDeduction
[0,3)
[3,24)
[24,26)
[26,28)
GSM8K
[0,3)
[3,26)
-
[26,28)
Appendix
Table 5: Functional Layer Segmentation of Qwen2-7B-Instruct
Qwen2-7B-Instruct (Drop)
Datasets
conceptualization layers
active reasoning layers
idle reasoning layers
textualization layers
ProofWriter
48.45% ( ± 1.51%)
43.15% ( ± 2.05%)
-
46.68% ( ± 1.83%)
FOLIO
42.18% ( ± 1.45%)
41.71% ( ± 3.67%)
-
42.16% ( ± 1.17%)
LogicalDeduction
50.50% ( ± 1.54%)
49.51% ( ± 0.86%)
50.31% ( ± 1.56%)
49.56% ( ± 0.78%)
gsm8k
84.16% ( ± 0.78%)
82.79% ( ± 0.54%)
84.03% ( ± 0.76%)
Appendix
Table 6: Performance of quantization probing (Drop and Recovery) over Various Layer Ranges of Qwen2-7B-Instruct (Averaged over 8 Seeds)
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Datasets
conceptualization layers
active reasoning layers
idle reasoning layers
textualization layers
ProofWriter
37.25% (±1.04%)
57.67% (±0.36%)
48.08% (±0.75%)
46.38% (±0.89%)
FOLIO
53.43% (±1.65%)
58.21% (±2.35%)
56.74% (±1.29%)
55.51% (±2.31%)
LogicalDeduction
45.67% (±0.72%)
53.58% (±2.47%)
46.83% (±1.67%)
45.25% (±0.88%)
GSM8K
73.96% (±0.98%)
67.87% (±0.64%)
65.22% (±0.53%)
56.48% (±0.58%)
Appendix
Table 7: Performance of Fine-Tuning over Various Layer Ranges of Llama-3-8B-Instruct
Qwen2-7B-Instruct
Datasets
conceptualization layers
active reasoning layers
idle reasoning layers
textualization layers
ProofWriter
45.50% (±0.93%)
53.46% (±2.36%)
-
47.46% (±0.85%)
FOLIO
27.08% (±4.19%)
44.73% (±1.98%)
-
28.55% (±1.62%)
LogicalDeduction
48.08% (±0.83%)
57.08% (±3.29%)
49.00% (±0.47%)
52.58% (±2.15%)
GSM8K
75.34% (±0.66%)
75.78% (±0.24%)
-
72.29% (±0.72%)
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of Fine-Tuning over Various Layer Ranges of Qwen2-7B-Instruct
Figure 8: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the GSM8K dataset.
Figure 9: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the FOLIO dataset.
Figure 10: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the LogicalDeduction dataset.
Figure 11: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the ProofWriter dataset.
Figure 12: PCA visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the GSM8K dataset.
Figure 13: PCA visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the FOLIO dataset.
Figure 14: PCA visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the LogicalDeduction dataset.
Figure 15: PCA visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the ProofWriter dataset.
Figure 16: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the GSM8K dataset.
Figure 17: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the FOLIO dataset.
Figure 18: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the LogicalDeduction dataset.
Figure 19: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-32 of Llama-3-8B-Instruct on the ProofWriter dataset.
Figure 20: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the GSM8K dataset.
Figure 21: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the FOLIO dataset.
Figure 22: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the LogicalDeduction dataset.
Figure 23: T-SNE visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the ProofWriter dataset.
Figure 24: PCA visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the GSM8K dataset.
Figure 25: PCA visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the FOLIO dataset.
Figure 26: PCA visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the LogicalDeduction dataset.
Figure 27: PCA visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the ProofWriter dataset.
Figure 28: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the GSM8K dataset.
Figure 29: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the FOLIO dataset.
Figure 30: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the LogicalDeduction dataset.
Figure 31: UMAP visualizations for layers 1-28 of Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the ProofWriter dataset.
Understanding how LLMs reason is hindered by a practical asymmetry: while their generated outputs are observable, the underlying reasoning patterns remain opaque. Relying on single probes, such as Mutual Information Peak (MIP) or Deep-Thinking Ratio (DTR), risks underestimating the genuine inferential structure. To response this deficiency, we present an Integrated, cross-Architecture Reasoning (IAR) framework, designed to provide a unified approach to LLM reasoning interpretability. Specifically, we first propose to use bandwidth-calibrated MIP coupled with Tukey IQR peak-detection to isolate reasoning-crucial tokens at the output layer. Second, we performed an overlap analysis between MIP-picked tokens and DTR-deep tokens to trace the cross-layer trajectories of those tokens. This also discloses whether reasoning-crucial tokens are computation-intensive as well, further facilitating to understand how reasoning patterns evolve across model layers. Finally, we apply a Jaccard stability metric over multi-domain problems to verify if the MIP-identified tokens are reasoning quality-guaranteed. Extensive experiments on six models across four domains (mathematics, code, logic, and common sense) demonstrate IAR's generalizable interpretation capabilities across architectures. Our code is available at https://github.com/LeonardoMatthew/IAR.
Leonardo Matthew Yauw, Wei-Bin Kou, Yujiu Yang
Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on intermediate reasoning, yet explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) suffers from a linguistic space bottleneck: each thought must be decoded into tokens, causing high inference overhead. Latent reasoning moves deliberation into continuous space, but existing methods mostly learn deterministic or reward-maximizing paths, lacking a principled way to allocate probability across trajectories with different correctness and costs. We propose Latent Thought Flow (LTF), which models reasoning as variable-length continuous trajectories and trains a sampler to match a reward-induced posterior over answer quality and computation cost. We instantiate this with a continuous GFlowNet using stochastic latent transitions. To handle sparse answer supervision, we introduce an Entropy-Weighted Subtrajectory Balance objective for intermediate rewards and a reference-prior regularizer to anchor exploration. Experiments under finetuning and transfer learning settings show that LTF outperforms explicit CoT and latent reasoning baselines, improving accuracy by 9.5% while reducing reasoning length by 27.2% on average compared with strong latent reasoning baselines.
Explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning substantially improves the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs), but incurs high inference cost due to lengthy autoregressive traces. Existing latent reasoning methods offer a promising alternative, yet they often treat reasoning as uniformly compressible, causing precision-critical intermediate steps to be overly compressed and thereby degrading reasoning accuracy. In this work, we propose Selective Latent Thinking (SLT), a framework that selectively compresses redundant reasoning spans into latent representations while preserving precision-critical spans as explicit CoT within the same reasoning trajectory. Specifically, SLT first uses a lightweight decoder to anticipate a short upcoming reasoning span, and then applies confidence-based gating to determine the longest span that can be reliably compressed. The accepted span is encoded into a compact latent representation to improve reasoning efficiency, while uncertain or precision-critical reasoning remains in explicit CoT form to preserve accuracy. To learn this selective compression policy, SLT adopts a three-stage training strategy that combines span-level latent compression, reliability-aware future reasoning prediction, and trajectory-level reinforcement learning to optimize the trade-off between answer correctness and reasoning cost. Extensive experiments across four mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SLT achieves 22.7% higher accuracy than latent reasoning baselines at comparable compression ratios, while reducing reasoning chain length by 58.4% with only 2.8% accuracy degradation compared to explicit CoT,Our code can be found in https://github.com/hunshi34/SLT.
Hui Xie, Jie Liu, Ziyue Qiao +1
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands · School of Computing and Information Technology, Great Bay University, China