The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Language Models are Hidden Reasoners: Unlocking Latent Reasoning Capabilities via Self-Rewarding
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities, but still struggle with complex reasoning tasks requiring multiple steps. While prompt-based methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) can improve LLM reasoning at inference time, optimizing reasoning capabilities during training remains challenging. We introduce LaTent Reasoning Optimization (LaTRO), a principled framework that formulates reasoning as sampling from a latent distribution and optimizes it via variational approaches. LaTRO enables LLMs to concurrently improve both their reasoning process and ability to evaluate reasoning quality, without requiring external feedback or reward models. We validate LaTRO through experiments on GSM8K and ARC-Challenge datasets using multiple model architectures. On GSM8K, LaTRO improves zero-shot accuracy by an average of 12.5% over base models and 9.6% over supervised fine-tuning across Phi-3.5-mini, Mistral-7B, and Llama-3.1-8B. Our findings suggest that pre-trained LLMs possess latent reasoning capabilities that can be unlocked and enhanced through our proposed optimization approach in a self-improvement manner. The code of LaTRO is available at \url{https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/LaTRO}.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LaTRO shows the self-training loop can run with no external reward at all, treating the model's own likelihood as a latent-variable objective and 'unlocking' reasoning already hidden in the base model.
“LaTRO shows the loop can run with no external reward at all, treating the model's own likelihood as a latent-variable objective and 'unlocking' reasoning already hidden in the base model [97].”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [97]
Citations
Cites
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340
Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators
Saunders, W., Yeh, C., Wu, J., Bills, S., Ouyang, L., Ward, J., & Leike, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.05802 · Cited by 50
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning
Han, T., Wang, Z., Fang, C., Zhao, S., Ma, S., & Chen, Z. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1274 · Cited by 31
Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning
Han, T., Wang, Z., Fang, C., Zhao, S., Ma, S., & Chen, Z. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 31
“Different colors denote different samples randomly selected from MathBench-College (Liu et al., 2024).”
InfluentialRecursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…PRefLexOR recasts the loop as recursive preference optimization over intermediate reasoning steps [96]; LaTRO shows the loop can run with no external reward at all, treating the model’s own likelihood as a latent-variable objective and “unlocking” reasoning already hidden in the base model [97].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, H., Feng, Y., Liu, Z., Yao, W., Prabhakar, A., Heinecke, S., Ho, R., Mui, P., Savarese, S., Xiong, C., & Wang, H.
- Affiliations
- Salesforce (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.04282
- OpenAlex
- W4404396425
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- large language models, latent reasoning, variational inference, multi-step reasoning, GSM8K, ARC-Challenge, zero-shot reasoning, human development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review