Soft tokens have so far been used to replace discrete chain-of-thought in latent reasoning methods. These approaches typically require multi-stage training and, in some cases, auxiliary modules, yet they still underperform supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on <input, chain-of-thought, output> triples. In this paper, we ask whether soft tokens can be used to improve SFT itself, instead of as an avenue for latent reasoning. We introduce Soft Teacher Forcing (Soft-TF), a simple training algorithm that combines teacher-forced embeddings with soft tokens through random convex combinations. The soft tokens are computed in a single parallel forward pass over the ground-truth sequence. Soft-TF adds no parameters, no external model and no curriculum, and leaves inference unchanged. Experiments show that Soft-TF improves over SFT on GSM8K, MATH, MathQA and AQuA, by +2.1 to +4.1 points on GSM8K across seven Gemma, Llama and Mistral models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ( Left ) Teacher-forced soft sequence computation. Given an initial input sequence, we forward it through the LLM to obtain output probability vectors. These are used as weights for convex combinations of vocabulary tokens, forming soft tokens. ( Right ) Training with Soft-TF. We train the LLM with the next-token prediction objective on convex combinations of the original sequence embeddings and soft sequence embeddings. We call this framework Soft Teacher Forcing (Soft-TF).
Method
GSM8K
MATH
MathQA
AQuA
TF (no CoT)
14.00 ± 0.28
12.40 ± 0.32
49.92 ± 0.49
40.71 ± 1.94
TF (CoT)
44.70 ± 0.89
14.44 ± 0.91
59.86 ± 0.80
38.19 ± 4.30
CoCoNut (Stage 1)
26.03 ± 0.69
9.32 ± 1.07
46.55 ± 1.01
32.13 ± 2.06
CoCoNut (Stage 2)
19.36 ± 0.78
6.80 ± 0.47
48.17 ± 0.88
31.18 ± 0.85
CoCoNut ( Hao et al., 2025 )
13.59 ± 0.56
10.08 ± 1.01
45.16 ± 1.12
34.96 ± 1.98
CoCoNut † ( Hao et al., 2025 )
21.00 ± 1.25
0.92 ± 0.77
12.14 ± 2.28
12.05 ± 2.58
Table 1: Performance (accuracy %) of Soft-TF compared against baselines on GSM8K, MATH, MathQA and AQuA datasets. All methods fine-tune Gemma2-2B pretrained checkpoint, except SoftThinking, which is an inference-only method using the TF (CoT) checkpoint. For CoCoNut † , we report the best decoding strategy per dataset (see Appendix B.2 ).
Method
TF (no CoT)
TF (CoT)
Soft-TF (Ours)
Gemma3-1B
6.82 ± 0.42
16.77 ± 0.50
19.38 ± 0.60 ↑+2.61
Gemma2-2B
14.00 ± 0.28
44.70 ± 0.89
48.52 ± 1.24 ↑+3.82
Gemma3-4B
18.54 ± 0.48
54.86 ± 0.50
57.95 ± 1.23 ↑+3.09
Gemma2-9B
30.37 ± 0.44
73.89 ± 0.77
77.07 ± 1.19 ↑+3.18
Llama3.2-1B
5.90 ± 0.26
28.23 ± 0.88
30.33 ± 0.59 ↑+2.10
Llama3.2-3B
13.18 ± 0.26
48.58 ± 1.20
52.66 ± 1.12 ↑+4.08
Table 2: Accuracy (%) on the GSM8K dataset using different models.
Method
GSM8K
MATH
TF (CoT)
44.70 ± 0.89
14.44 ± 0.91
hidden
46.81 ± 1.11
14.40 ± 0.94
argmax
48.35 ± 1.06
13.76 ± 1.11
convex-full
48.52 ± 1.24
15.48 ± 1.50
convex-top-5
49.28 ± 0.59
16.20 ± 1.33
Table 3: Ablation study on soft tokens in Soft-TF.
Figure 2: Ablation on the number of forward passes K for soft sequence computation. The x-axis is on a log scale.
Table 4: Choice of α . ( 4(a) ) Constant vs. random α : Soft-TF with constant α∈]0,1] . The dashed horizontal line shows accuracy (%) with α∼Beta(0.1,0.1) as a reference. Shaded regions show the standard deviation over 5 runs. ( 4(b) ) Sampling distribution of α : Beta (0.1,0.1) vs. Uniform [0,1] vs. Bernoulli (0.5) with α∈{0,1} , with the TF (CoT) baseline as reference.
Method
TF (no CoT)
TF (CoT)
Soft-TF (Ours)
Standard ( γ=0 )
14.00 ± 0.28
44.70 ± 0.89
48.52 ± 1.24
Soft ( γ=1 )
13.62 ± 0.41
41.62 ± 1.21
43.31 ± 0.84
Mixed ( γ=0.5 )
14.10 ± 0.26
43.99 ± 1.05
46.50 ± 1.00
Hybrid
14.06 ± 0.27
44.49 ± 1.29
48.72 ± 1.46
Table 5: Accuracy (%) on the GSM8K dataset for different sampling strategies.
Method
GSM8K
MATH
TF (CoT)
44.70 ± 0.89
14.44 ± 0.91
Noisy TF (CoT)
Noise level ( σ )
0.1
44.50 ± 1.13
14.04 ± 1.02
0.3
45.23 ± 0.30
14.44 ± 0.41
0.5
45.44 ± 0.65
14.12 ± 0.84
0.7
45.55 ± 1.03
13.72 ± 1.79
Table 6: Comparison to Noisy TF. Accuracy (%) is reported across different noise levels σ .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Iterations
TF (no CoT)
TF (CoT)
Soft-TF
5k
6.82 ± 0.42
16.77 ± 0.50
16.24 ± 0.70
10k
6.07 ± 0.46
15.63 ± 0.74
19.38 ± 0.60
15k
5.70 ± 0.66
16.41 ± 0.83
17.30 ± 1.00
Appendix
Table 7: Gemma3-1B on GSM8K: accuracy (%) at different total iteration budgets ( 5 seeds). Each method is trained separately at each budget using its corresponding learning-rate schedule and evaluated at the final iteration. Bold marks the budget selected for each method.
Method
Sec/step
Peak mem/device
Throughput
TF (CoT)
0.882
21.42 GiB
9.07 samp/s
Soft-TF
1.255
24.47 GiB
6.38 samp/s
Overhead
+42%
+14%
0.70×
Appendix
Table 8: Measured training cost of Soft-TF against TF (CoT) on Gemma2-2B, GSM8K.
Dataset
TF (CoT)
Soft-TF
Δ
p
95% CI
GSM8K
44.70 ± 0.89
49.28 ± 0.59
+4.58
0.0002
[ +3.56 , +5.60 ]
MATH
14.44 ± 0.91
16.20 ± 1.33
+1.76
0.0053
[ +0.88 , +2.64 ]
MathQA
59.86 ± 0.80
61.49 ± 0.96
+1.63
0.058
[ −0.09 , +3.34 ]
AQuA
38.19 ± 4.30
42.06 ± 1.95
+3.87
0.0405
[ +0.27 , +7.47 ]
Appendix
Table 9: Two-sided paired t -tests over 5 seeds for Soft-TF against TF (CoT) on Gemma2-2B.
Method
GSM8K
MATH
MathQA
AQuA
TF (no CoT)
14.00 ± 0.28
12.40 ± 0.32
49.92 ± 0.49
40.71 ± 1.94
TF (CoT)
44.70 ± 0.89
14.44 ± 0.91
59.86 ± 0.80
38.19 ± 4.30
CoCoNut † (hybrid)
20.68 ± 1.71
0.52 ± 0.44
0.96 ± 0.51
11.89 ± 4.48
CoCoNut † (standard ( γ=0 ))
21.00 ± 1.25
0.92 ± 0.77
0.94 ± 0.69
11.18 ± 3.81
CoCoNut † (Mixed ( γ=0.5 ))
1.00 ± 0.38
0.04 ± 0.09
12.14 ± 2.28
12.05 ± 2.58
CoCoNut † (soft ( γ=1 ))
1.00 ± 0.38
0.04 ± 0.09
12.14 ± 2.28
12.05 ± 2.58
Appendix
Table 10: Performance (accuracy %) of CoCoNut † with different sampling strategies on GSM8K, MATH, MathQA, and AQuA datasets. Mixed and soft decoding yield identical results on all four datasets.
Figure 3: Sequential soft sequence computation with K=3 . In contrast to the teacher-forced soft sequence computation ( K=1 , cf. Figure 1 ) adopted in this paper, sequential soft sequence computation requires multiple forward passes through the transformer. K reflects the number of soft tokens exhibiting sequential dependency.
Figure 4: Inference strategies described in Section 2.4 . (a) Standard discrete inference, (b) Soft inference, (c) Mixed inference, (d) Hybrid inference. Note that, for illustration only, we use K=2 for hybrid inference, while the ablation in Table 5 uses K=1 .
Figure 5: The CoCoNut † variant, which does not perform compression. Hidden states are used to construct the teacher-forced soft sequence, which is then used for training without resorting to the original sequence.
Figure 6: The SoftThinking † variant extends the original SoftThinking ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) to training. The teacher-forced soft sequence is used for training without resorting to the original sequence.
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) applies a uniform cross-entropy loss to all target tokens, even though different tokens provide unequal learning signals for mathematical reasoning. This uniform treatment can over-sharpen already mastered tokens while amplifying learning pressure on uncertain, low-confidence tokens, leading to suboptimal training dynamics. We propose Trimmed Logit-Gap SFT (TrimSFT), a simple token-level reweighting method that scales the SFT loss according to the logit gap between the gold token and its strongest competitor. TrimSFT trims supervision away from both extremes: tokens already mastered (large logit gap) and tokens weakly supported by the current model (small or negative logit gap), concentrating learning within an intermediate logit-gap region between them. We instantiate this principle with a Gaussian weight centered at margin m with bandwidth τ, requiring no reference model or additional forward pass. We evaluate TrimSFT on six base models from the Llama, Qwen, and DeepMath families across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks. TrimSFT consistently improves over standard SFT, achieving the best average performance on five out of six models, with gains of up to +26.9 points over SFT on MATH500. Further analyses show that the bandwidth τ matters more than the exact margin location, and that half-trim variants that remove supervision pressure from only one side yield inferior trade-offs. A token-level logit-gap distribution analysis suggests that TrimSFT reshapes model confidence in a more balanced way than uniform SFT or monotonic reweighting methods. These results suggest that reasoning SFT can benefit from trimming both extremes rather than treating all tokens uniformly.
Large language models decode by projecting hidden states through a large vocabulary head at every step. This operation is computationally costly and forces all reasoning to be expressed in discrete tokens. We introduce Soft Latent Thinking, a method that replaces the LM head during reasoning with a lightweight projector, enabling autoregressive rollout in embedding space where reasoning steps remain continuous rather than tokenized. Experiments on DeepSeek-Qwen-1.5B and LLaMA-3.2-3B show that Soft Latent Thinking consistently improves pass@k across all k while reducing per-step compute during chain-of-thought. Our method achieves the highest pass@32 among all soft-thinking approaches, demonstrating that effective reasoning can be carried out in continuous space without discrete token generation.
Nikita Koriagin, Yaroslav Aksenov, George Bredis +3
Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is widely used for task-specific adaptation, yet recent work shows it systematically undermines reasoning generalization. We argue the root cause is not memorization itself, but its target: vanilla SFT drives models to exploit and memorize spurious surface correlations in problem-solution pairs, leaving them brittle to superficial input variations. To address this, we propose Theorem-SFT, which reorients supervision toward explicit theorem application by teaching models how rules are invoked rather than what answers look like. Theorem-SFT yields consistent gains across benchmarks and model families: +8.8% on MATH (LLaMA3.2-3B-Instruct) and +20.27% on GeoQA (Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct) without modality-specific re-training. Fine-tuning MLP layers alone matches full-layers performance, implicating feed-forward components as the primary locus of reasoning rules. Our findings reframe the debate: Generalization failures stem not from memorization as a mechanism, but from memorizing the wrong inductive targets.
Ruiying Peng, Mengyu Yang, Jing Lei +3
Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School · Huawei Technologies