Sampling multiple chain-of-thought rationales from a language model can uncover correct solutions missed by a single attempt. However, these rationales are typically lengthy, making repeated autoregressive generation costly. Continuous latent reasoning offers a compact alternative, but point-valued methods condition repeated answer sampling on a single rationale, which can limit exploration of diverse paths and answer coverage. We thus propose rationale distribution distillation (RDD), training a conditional flow over fixed-length latent sequences by distilling from multiple textual reasoning paths. Furthermore, we expand the distillation targets through within-query mixup, interpolating between complete latent rationales for the same query. The flow nonautoregressively generates the entire latent sequence, and a frozen language model autoregressively decodes answers from sampled rationale contexts. Empirically, the resulting distributional reasoner achieves higher answer coverage than the evaluated point-valued latent reasoning baselines, particularly on advanced mathematical tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of reasoning representations. (a) Textual reasoning samples multiple rationales and generates an answer for each. (b) Point-valued reasoning samples multiple answers conditioned on one answer context. (c) Our flow induces a distribution over answer contexts, enabling diverse answer generation.
Figure 2: Rationale compression and within-query mixup. (a) Position-weighted embedding pooling maps each text chunk to one D -dimensional vector ( S=3 shown). (b) A shared λ mixes corresponding vectors of the two complete latent sequences. Original and mixed sequences serve as targets for flow matching. Cell colors depict schematic latent values.
Figure 3: Rationale sampling, contextualization, and answer decoding. The sampler produces z^1 with an ODE solver; the contextualizer forms KV context u^ at t=1 . Both share ϕ and χ , while the answer decoder generates a^ with the reasoning adapter disabled. ALM weights and vocabulary projections W are frozen; teal parameter blocks are trainable. Dashed arrows indicate training supervision for rationale generation, local content, and answer prediction.
Arithmetic benchmarks
Advanced benchmarks
Method
# Token
GSM8K
SVAMP
GSMHard
TAL
MATH500
Gaokao23
CoT
27.4 †
89.5 / 47.5
76.9 / 50.8
23.2 / 10.7
46.0 / 8.1
43.5 / 2.8
30.6 / 1.8
CoT ST
27.2 †
48.5 / 48.4
53.3 / 52.4
11.4 / 11.4
10.4 / 9.9
4.2 / 3.0
3.3 / 2.2
Coconut ‡
6
59.7 / 32.5
54.3 / 35.2
14.2 / 7.5
20.4 / 5.1
13.2 / 0.8
6.5 / 0.2
CODI
6
76.3 / 37.9
61.9 / 40.3
18.6 / 8.9
33.5 / 6.9
30.7 / 2.5
21.1 / 2.1
PCCoT
6
78.2 / 42.8
64.0 / 46.3
18.8 / 9.9
38.9 / 6.6
35.6 / 1.7
17.5 / 0.9
Table 1: Main results for GPT-2-0.1B on GSM8K-Aug. # Token denotes rationale length. Each result cell reports pass@512 / pass@1 . Excluding CoT , bold-underlined and underlined values respectively denote the best and second-best results for each metric; ties share the same marking. † Averaged across all benchmarks. ‡ Adopted public checkpoint ( Dilgren and Wiegreffe, 2026 , connordilgren/gpt2-gsm8k-coconut ; MIT license;) .
Arithmetic benchmarks
Advanced benchmarks
Method
# Token
GSM8K
SVAMP
GSMHard
TAL
MATH500
Gaokao23
CoT
27.4 †
89.5 / 47.5
76.9 / 50.8
23.2 / 10.7
46.0 / 8.1
43.5 / 2.8
30.6 / 1.8
CoT SST
27.6 †
81.6 / 48.4
68.3 / 51.6
21.2 / 11.1
37.1 / 8.7
34.6 / 2.9
27.2 / 1.9
CODI MCD
6
65.0 / 37.7
56.3 / 40.0
15.6 / 8.8
27.9 / 7.4
20.0 / 2.8
16.3 / 2.3
RDD (ours)
6
78.6 / 40.5
66.0 / 41.2
19.4 / 9.2
44.4 / 5.6
43.4 / 1.5
31.5 / 1.1
Table 2: Distributional rationale results for GPT-2-0.1B on GSM8K-Aug. # Token denotes rationale length. Each result cell reports pass@512 / pass@1 . † Averaged across all benchmarks.
Method
MPS
Arithmetic
Advanced
CoT
63.2 / 36.3
40.0 / 4.2
CODI
52.3 / 29.0
28.4 / 3.8
CODI
✓
52.0 / 27.4
37.0 / 3.5
RDD (ours)
✓
54.7 / 30.3
39.8 / 2.7
Table 3: Multi-path supervision results for GPT-2-0.1B on GSM8K-Aug. MPS denotes our multi-path supervision protocol. Each cell reports pass@512 / pass@1 , averaged over the three benchmarks in each group.
Arithmetic benchmarks
Advanced benchmarks
Method
# Token
GSM8K
SVAMP
GSMHard
TAL
MATH500
Gaokao23
CoT
87.9 †
96.7 / 55.3
94.0 / 61.9
46.1 / 16.2
77.0 / 22.4
69.2 / 7.1
52.2 / 5.0
CoT ST
77.9 †
57.5 / 54.6
61.7 / 61.4
17.4 / 16.2
28.7 / 22.6
18.2 / 7.1
10.9 / 4.7
CoT SST
78.8 †
94.2 / 54.2
91.7 / 62.0
42.8 / 16.0
74.6 / 22.0
66.4 / 6.9
52.2 / 5.1
CODI
6
84.8 / 27.4
77.3 / 38.9
22.7 / 6.6
61.0 / 12.0
52.0 / 3.6
33.7 / 3.9
MUX
6
87.6 / 27.6
76.0 / 39.1
24.3 / 6.9
62.0 / 13.1
55.0 / 5.0
32.6 / 4.8
Table 4: Additional results for SLM-2-1.7B on GSM8K-Aug-NL. # Token denotes rationale length. Each result cell reports pass@512 / pass@1 . Excluding CoT , bold-underlined and underlined values respectively denote the best and second-best results for each metric; ties share the same marking. † Averaged across all benchmarks.
Figure 4: Answer-distribution fidelity to textual CoT. Query-level JSD ( ↓ ) and TSC ( ↑ ) pooled by group; see Figure 5 for per-benchmark results.
Ablation
Arithmetic
Advanced
Per-rollout rationale sampling
Fixed
54.0 / 30.5
38.5 / 2.7
Sampled
54.7 / 30.3
39.8 / 2.7
Number of function evaluations
NFE=3
54.6 / 22.7
40.7 / 3.0
NFE=6
54.7 / 30.3
39.8 / 2.7
Table 5: Ablation results for GPT-2-0.1B. Each cell reports pass@512 / pass@1 , averaged over the three benchmarks in each group.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Resource
Reference
Hugging Face repository
Reported license
Model backbones
GPT-2-0.1B
Radford et al. (2019)
openai-community/gpt2
MIT
SLM-2-1.7B
Ben Allal et al. (2025)
HuggingFaceTB/SmolLM2-1.7B
Apache-2.0
Training data sources
GSM8K-Aug
Deng et al. (2023) ; Wu et al. (2025)
whynlp/gsm8k-aug
Not stated †
GSM8K-Aug-NL
Deng et al. (2023) ; Wu et al. (2025)
whynlp/gsm8k-aug-nl
Not stated †
Appendix
Table 6: Model backbones and dataset sources. References, public Hugging Face releases, and reported licenses are listed for each resource. Licenses are those declared by the linked release; “not stated” means no license declaration was found in its card or repository metadata.
Hyperparameter
Value
Optimization
Global batch size
128
Optimizer
AdamW
(β1,β2)
(0.9,0.95)
Weight decay
0.1
Peak learning rate
10−3 ( A ), 4×10−3 ( B )
Appendix
Table 7: Training hyperparameters. Values shared across methods and backbones.
Figure 5: Answer-distribution fidelity by benchmark. Per-question JSD (top), TV (middle), and TSC (bottom). Lower JSD and TV and higher TSC indicate better fidelity. Boxes show the interquartile range with median lines; whiskers extend to observations within 1.5 times the interquartile range, and dots denote outliers.
Figure 6: Pass@ k curves for the methods in Table 1 . Results for GPT-2-0.1B on the arithmetic benchmarks (top row) and advanced benchmarks (bottom row). The horizontal axis uses a base-2 logarithmic scale; the vertical axis reports pass@ k (%). Markers indicate evaluated k values, with lines connecting adjacent points.
Figure 7: Pass@ k curves for the methods in Table 2 . Results for GPT-2-0.1B on the arithmetic benchmarks (top row) and advanced benchmarks (bottom row). The horizontal axis uses a base-2 logarithmic scale; the vertical axis reports pass@ k (%). Markers indicate evaluated k values, with lines connecting adjacent points.
Figure 8: Pass@ k curves for the methods in Table 4 . Results for SLM-2-1.7B on the arithmetic benchmarks (top row) and advanced benchmarks (bottom row). The horizontal axis uses a base-2 logarithmic scale; the vertical axis reports pass@ k (%). Markers indicate evaluated k values, with lines connecting adjacent points.
Reasoning problems often admit multiple valid ways to proceed. Continuous reasoning promises to move computation beyond language tokens into a more compact latent space, but representing several plausible ways to think next remains difficult. We introduce Autoregressive Thought Flow (ATF), which models the next continuous thought as a multimodal distribution. A causal autoregressive model performs the reasoning computation, while a lightweight diffusion head generates a plausible next thought from the resulting condition. The sampled thought is fed back into the model, allowing continuous reasoning to unfold for a variable number of steps while preserving the pretrained backbone. Across mathematical reasoning tasks, ATF improves accuracy with compact latent traces and benefits from reinforcement learning and additional test-time thinking. Multi-sample evaluation shows broader solution coverage, indicating that its multimodal predictions capture useful diversity among reasoning paths. Our results suggest that continuous reasoning is more effective when multiple possible next thoughts remain available rather than being collapsed into a single prediction.
Yang Li, Yi Wang, Shiyuan Huang +3
Rutgers University · Amazon · University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
When distilling reasoning from large language models (LLMs) into smaller ones, teacher rationales for similar problems often vary wildly in structure and strategy. Like a chef who makes the same dish differently each time, this inconsistency burdens the student with noisy supervision that is hard to internalize. We propose Distillation through Reasoning Path Compression (D-RPC), which constrains the teacher to follow a compact, dynamically maintained bank of reusable high-level reasoning paths. For each training question, D-RPC retrieves the most relevant path and conditions the teacher to follow it, producing rationales that are consistent across similar problems yet diverse enough to cover different problem types. A PAC-Bayes analysis formalizes the resulting trade-off between bank size and coverage: smaller banks reduce supervision entropy but risk coverage gaps, and the generalization bound identifies an optimal intermediate size confirmed by our ablations. Across five math and commonsense reasoning benchmarks with two student models, D-RPC consistently outperforms chain-of-thought distillation, freeform rationale generation, direct distillation, and structured-supervision baselines, while using fewer tokens than template-heavy alternatives.
Jialin Yang, Jiankun Wang, Jiajun Wu +3
University of Calgary · Calgary, Canada · University of Michigan +1
Chain-of-thought reasoning unfolds in discrete token space: each step is committed as text, errors propagate, and eliciting good traces presupposes traces to imitate. Reasoning instead in a model's continuous representation space - where intermediate states are vectors rather than words - sidesteps these constraints, but leaves open how those latent states should be computed. We approach this along two axes. First, we keep a large language model (LLM) frozen and use it for what it is already good at - modeling and decoding sequences - while a small auxiliary network supplies continuous latent thoughts as input. Second, we produce those latents by recurrence: a tiny recurrent reasoner refines them over many steps, decoupling the depth of computation from the size of the model, so that the latents are a product of iterative processing rather than a single forward pass. We instantiate this as Latent Recurrent Thoughts (LRT): a task-dedicated proposer supplies base latents, a recurrent reasoner refines them through bounded residual corrections, and the frozen LLM decodes the answer. On symbolic reasoning with answer supervision but no reasoning traces (Countdown-4, Sudoku) and on natural-language reasoning (HumanEval, MBPP, StrategyQA), LRT substantially outperforms prior frozen-decoder continuous-space reasoning methods under an identical decoder, prompt, data, and training budget, and outperforms non-thinking-mode chain-of-thought prompting on the same backbone at a small fraction of its inference compute.