Skip to content
Preprint

Present but Hard to Read: Probing Latent Reasoning with Minimal Pairs

Oct 2026 · 1 citation · 59 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

A protocol, including a synthetic null for generic mixing, is given for testing computed values against copies and mixtures of the inputs, and in pre-registered studies of two-step problems it finds a small signal for the unwritten intermediate a+b just before Ouro writes the answer's last digit.

Abstract

Probing studies of latent reasoning often read a model's state where the answer begins and take a failed probe as evidence that a value is absent. We test this with a digit copied from the question, in the looped model Ouro-1.4B and the standard transformer Qwen 2.5-1.5B. Comparing prompts that differ only in that digit shows it is present at the last prompt token, in a code shared across questions (readout about 0.9). A probe that sees one prompt at a time, the usual setting, barely reads it: 0.36 in Ouro and 0.19 in Qwen even after 5,249 training questions. The digit's change is small rather than crowded: random noise lands on equally busy directions, while a random word in its place moves the state far more and is readable. Since every varied token leaves a trace, a successful probe is ambiguous too. We give a protocol, including a synthetic null for generic mixing, for testing computed values against copies and mixtures of the inputs. In pre-registered studies of two-step problems it finds a small signal for the unwritten intermediate a+b just before Ouro writes the answer's last digit, and its sign follows the operation, though mixing alone produces much of that sign-following part. Holding that value at another problem's from the first loop on does not move the written digit toward the other problem's, while the same patch of the answer does: the value is readable but not used.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models

Chain-of-thought (CoT) instructions can distort multiple-choice VLM evaluation when a scorer appends a reasoning cue but reads answer-label logits before the model generates any rationale. We call this CoT-prefix scoring. On ScienceQA, Qwen2.5-VL-7B drops from 80.76% to 45.48%, and across five option-content permutatio...

Zeyan Li, Si-Yuan Qiu, Jian-Feng Xu · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Nov 2026

Length Is Cheap, Competition Is Not: Attention Predicts Context Rot in Retrieval

Why do language models fail on long inputs? The common answer is length. We show that, for retrieval, length is cheap and competition is not. On five open models (0.5B to 3B parameters, four families), neutral filler costs nothing: accuracy stays at 0.97 to 1.00, up to 32K tokens on Qwen2.5-1.5B. Statements in the form...

Yi-Nuo Liu · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models

When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the guessing. Two model...

Arman Nik Khah · 0 citations
Preprint Nov 2026

See, Think, Use: Diagnosing Perception and Reasoning Failures in VLMs

We present See, Think, Use, a protocol that traces each answer of a vision-language model to perception, reasoning or the use of perception. The diagnosis shows a developer which stage to improve and directs test-time compute to the stage that fails. Benchmarks score the final answer, and an answer that rests on the im...

Jia-Cheng Ding, Yan-Liang Qi, Cong-Yu Guo et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.