CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningTopic ModelingArtificial Intelligence Applications

Hierarchical Reasoning Model

Open access
Wang, Guan, Li, Jin, Sun, Yuhao, Chen, Xing, Liu, Changling, Wu, Yue, Lu, Meng, Song, Sen +1 more·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2506.21734arXiv 2506.21734
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reasoning, the process of devising and executing complex goal-oriented action sequences, remains a critical challenge in AI. Current large language models (LLMs) primarily employ Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques, which suffer from brittle task decomposition, extensive data requirements, and high latency. Inspired by the hierarchical and multi-timescale processing in the human brain, we propose the Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM), a novel recurrent architecture that attains significant computational depth while maintaining both training stability and efficiency. HRM executes sequential reasoning tasks in a single forward pass without explicit supervision of the intermediate process, through two interdependent recurrent modules: a high-level module responsible for slow, abstract planning, and a low-level module handling rapid, detailed computations. With only 27 million parameters, HRM achieves exceptional performance on complex reasoning tasks using only 1000 training samples. The model operates without pre-training or CoT data, yet achieves nearly perfect performance on challenging tasks including complex Sudoku puzzles and optimal path finding in large mazes. Furthermore, HRM outperforms much larger models with significantly longer context windows on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), a key benchmark for measuring artificial general intelligence capabilities. These results underscore HRM's potential as a transformative advancement toward universal computation and general-purpose reasoning systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.21734

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Pure neural methods fail earliest as compositional demands increase.

    “suggesting that pure neural methods fail earliest as compositional demands increase [Wang et al. 2025].”

    From The ARC of Progress towards AGI: A Living Survey of Abstraction and Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2025

    Section 3.1 describes ARC-AGI-2 as demanding deeper compositional reasoning than ARC-AGI-1, and the paper’s reported results show the direct-prediction Transformer baseline falling from 21.0% to 0.0% accuracy. That supports the narrower point that one neural baseline struggles as compositional demands increase. The paper does not establish that pure neural methods generally fail earliest; its own HRM is a neural model that retains some performance on ARC-AGI-2. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recurrent mechanisms have been incorporated into Transformer architectures by reusing weights across layers.

    “As an important extension, recurrent mechanisms have been incorporated into Transformer architectures [131-133] by reusing weights across layers.”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [133]

  • Looped Transformer approaches have been shown to improve the performance of smaller models on certain reasoning tasks such as ARC-AGI.

    “This approach has been shown to improve the performance of smaller models on certain reasoning tasks such as ARC-AGI.”

    From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [133]

  • Wang's hierarchical neural approach shows the sharpest decline from 40.3% on ARC-AGI-1 to 5% on ARC-AGI-2.

    “Wang's hierarchical neural approach shows the sharpest decline (40.3% → 5%), suggesting that pure neural methods fail earliest as compositional demands increase [Wang et al. 2025].”

    From The ARC of Progress towards AGI: A Living Survey of Abstraction and Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016. http://www.deeplearningbook.org.
  2. Kaiming He, X. Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770-778, 2015.
  3. Tom Bylander. Complexity results for planning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence -Volume 1, IJCAI'91, page 274-279, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. ISBN 1558601600.
  4. William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. A logic for expressing log-precision transformers. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
  5. David Chiang. Transformers in DLOGTIME-uniform TC 0 . Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025.
  6. Lucas Lehnert, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Qinqing Zheng, Paul McVay, Michael Rabbat, and Yuandong Tian. Beyond a*: Better planning with transformers via search dynamics bootstrapping. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024.
  7. Wilfried Bounsi, Borja Ibarz, Andrew Dudzik, Jessica B. Hamrick, Larisa Markeeva, Alex Vitvitskyi, Razvan Pascanu, and Petar Velivckovi'c. Transformers meet neural algorithmic reasoners. ArXiv, abs/2406.09308, 2024. · arXiv
  8. William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The parallelism tradeoff: Limitations of log-precision transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:531-545, 2023. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00562. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2022. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. · arXiv
  10. William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The expressive power of transformers with chain of thought. In ICLR, 2024.
  11. Xinyun Chen, Ryan A. Chi, Xuezhi Wang, and Denny Zhou. Premise order matters in reasoning with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2402.08939, 2024. · arXiv
  12. Rongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, and Wei Xu. Preemptive answer "attacks" on chain-of-thought reasoning. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024.
  13. Pablo Villalobos, Anson Ho, Jaime Sevilla, Tamay Besiroglu, Lennart Heim, and Marius Hobbhahn. Will we run out of data? limits of llm scaling based on human-generated data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.04325, 2022. · arXiv
  14. Xuan Shen, Yizhou Wang, Xiangxi Shi, Yanzhi Wang, Pu Zhao, and Jiuxiang Gu. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07423, 2024. · arXiv
  15. Evelina Fedorenko, Steven T Piantadosi, and Edward AF Gibson. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature, 630(8017):575-586, 2024.
  16. Hongyu Wang, Shuming Ma, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Dongdong Zhang, and Furu Wei. Deepnet: Scaling transformers to 1,000 layers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024.
  17. Timothy P Lillicrap and Adam Santoro. Backpropagation through time and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 55:82-89, 2019. ISSN 0959-4388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. conb.2019.01.011. · DOI
  18. John D Murray, Alberto Bernacchia, David J Freedman, Ranulfo Romo, Jonathan D Wallis, Xinying Cai, Camillo Padoa-Schioppa, Tatiana Pasternak, Hyojung Seo, Daeyeol Lee, et al. A hierarchy of intrinsic timescales across primate cortex. Nature neuroscience, 17(12):1661- 1663, 2014.
  19. Roxana Zeraati, Yan-Liang Shi, Nicholas A Steinmetz, Marc A Gieselmann, Alexander Thiele, Tirin Moore, Anna Levina, and Tatiana A Engel. Intrinsic timescales in the visual cortex change with selective attention and reflect spatial connectivity. Nature communications, 14(1):1858, 2023.
  20. Julia M Huntenburg, Pierre-Louis Bazin, and Daniel S Margulies. Large-scale gradients in human cortical organization. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(1):21-31, 2018.
  21. Victor AF Lamme and Pieter R Roelfsema. The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in neurosciences, 23(11):571-579, 2000.
  22. Andre M Bastos, W Martin Usrey, Rick A Adams, George R Mangun, Pascal Fries, and Karl J Friston. Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron, 76(4):695-711, 2012.
  23. Klara Kaleb, Barbara Feulner, Juan Gallego, and Claudia Clopath. Feedback control guides credit assignment in recurrent neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:5122-5144, 2024.
  24. Timothy P Lillicrap, Adam Santoro, Luke Marris, Colin J Akerman, and Geoffrey Hinton. Backpropagation and the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21(6):335-346, 2020.
  25. François Chollet. On the measure of intelligence (abstraction and reasoning corpus), 2019. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547. · arXiv
  26. Francois Chollet, Mike Knoop, Gregory Kamradt, and Bryan Landers. Arc prize 2024: Technical report. ArXiv, abs/2412.04604, 2024. · arXiv
  27. Francois Chollet, Mike Knoop, Gregory Kamradt, Bryan Landers, and Henry Pinkard. Arc- agi-2: A new challenge for frontier ai reasoning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11831, 2025. · arXiv
  28. György Buzsáki. Gamma, alpha, delta, and theta oscillations govern cognitive processes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 39:241-248, 2000.
  29. György Buzsáki. Rhythms of the Brain. Oxford university press, 2006.
  30. Adriano BL Tort, Robert W Komorowski, Joseph R Manns, Nancy J Kopell, and Howard Eichenbaum. Theta-gamma coupling increases during the learning of item-context associations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(49):20942-20947, 2009.
  31. Guillaume Bellec, Franz Scherr, Anand Subramoney, Elias Hajek, Darjan Salaj, Robert Legenstein, and Wolfgang Maass. A solution to the learning dilemma for recurrent networks of spiking neurons. Nature Communications, 11, 07 2020. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-020-17236-y. · DOI
  32. Shaojie Bai, J Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. Deep equilibrium models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 690-701, 2019.
  33. Zhengyang Geng, Xinyu Zhang, Shaojie Bai, Yisen Wang, and Zhouchen Lin. On training implicit models. ArXiv, abs/2111.05177, 2021. · arXiv
  34. Katarina Begus and Elizabeth Bonawitz. The rhythm of learning: Theta oscillations as an index of active learning in infancy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 45:100810, 2020. ISSN 1878-9293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100810. · DOI
  35. Shaojie Bai, Zhengyang Geng, Yash Savani, and J. Zico Kolter. Deep Equilibrium Optical Flow Estimation . In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 610-620, 2022.
  36. Zaccharie Ramzi, Florian Mannel, Shaojie Bai, Jean-Luc Starck, Philippe Ciuciu, and Thomas Moreau. Shine: Sharing the inverse estimate from the forward pass for bi-level optimization and implicit models. ArXiv, abs/2106.00553, 2021. · arXiv
  37. Shaojie Bai, Vladlen Koltun, and J. Zico Kolter. Stabilizing equilibrium models by jacobian regularization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021.
  38. Matthew D Lieberman. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 58(1):259-289, 2007.
  39. Randy L Buckner, Jessica R Andrews-Hanna, and Daniel L Schacter. The brain's default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1):1-38, 2008.
  40. Marcus E Raichle. The brain's default mode network. Annual review of neuroscience, 38(1): 433-447, 2015.
  41. Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018.
  42. Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin A. Riedmiller. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. ArXiv, abs/1312.5602, 2013. · arXiv
  43. Shuo Xie and Zhiyuan Li. Implicit bias of adamw: L inf norm constrained optimization. ArXiv, abs/2404.04454, 2024. · arXiv
  44. Lucas Prieto, Melih Barsbey, Pedro A. M. Mediano, and Tolga Birdal. Grokking at the edge of numerical stability. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025.
  45. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998-6008, 2017.
  46. Noam M. Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer. ArXiv, abs/2002.05202, 2020. · arXiv
  47. Biao Zhang and Rico Sennrich. Root mean square layer normalization. ArXiv, abs/1910.07467, 2019. · arXiv
  48. Günter Klambauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Andreas Mayr, and Sepp Hochreiter. Self- normalizing neural networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.
  49. Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Genevieve B Orr, and Klaus-Robert Müller. Efficient backprop. In Neural networks: Tricks of the trade, pages 9-50. Springer, 2002.
  50. Katie E Everett, Lechao Xiao, Mitchell Wortsman, Alexander A Alemi, Roman Novak, Peter J Liu, Izzeddin Gur, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Jaehoon Lee, and Jeffrey Pennington. Scaling exponents across parameterizations and optimizers. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
  51. Rasmus Berg Palm, Ulrich Paquet, and Ole Winther. Recurrent relational networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.
  52. Jieyi Long. Large language model guided tree-of-thought. ArXiv, abs/2305.08291, 2023. · arXiv
  53. Yilun Du, Jiayuan Mao, and Josh Tenenbaum. Learning iterative reasoning through energy diffusion. ArXiv, abs/2406.11179, 2024. · arXiv
  54. Jeffrey Seely, Yuki Imajuku, Tianyu Zhao, Edoardo Cetin, and Llion Jones. Sudoku-bench: Evaluating creative reasoning with sudoku variants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16135, 2025. · arXiv
  55. Luke Darlow, Ciaran Regan, Sebastian Risi, Jeffrey Seely, and Llion Jones. Continuous thought machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05522, 2025. · arXiv
  56. Lucas Lehnert, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Qinqing Zheng, Paul McVay, Michael Rabbat, and Yuandong Tian. Beyond a*: Better planning with transformers via search dynamics bootstrapping. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024.
  57. Mubbasir Kapadia, Francisco Garcia, Cory D. Boatright, and Norman I. Badler. Dynamic search on the gpu. In 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 3332-3337, 2013. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2013.6696830. · DOI
  58. Lorenzo Posani, Shuqi Wang, Samuel P Muscinelli, Liam Paninski, and Stefano Fusi. Rarely categorical, always high-dimensional: how the neural code changes along the cortical hierarchy. bioRxiv, pages 2024-11, 2025.
  59. Mattia Rigotti, Omri Barak, Melissa R. Warden, Xiao-Jing Wang, Nathaniel D. Daw, Earl K. Miller, and Stefano Fusi. The importance of mixed selectivity in complex cognitive tasks. Nature, 497:585-590, 2013. doi: 10.1038/nature12160. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Valerio Mante, David Sussillo, Krishna V. Shenoy, and William T. Newsome. Context- dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature, 503(7474):78-84, 2013. doi: 10.1038/nature12742. · DOI
  61. Earl K. Miller and Jonathan D. Cohen. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1):167-202, 2001. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Wolfgang Maass. Real-time computing without stable states: a new framework for neural computation based on perturbations. Neural Computation, 14(11):2531-2560, 2002. doi: 10.1162/089976602760407955. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Ege Altan, Sara A. Solla, Lee E. Miller, and Eric J. Perreault. Estimating the dimensionality of the manifold underlying multi-electrode neural recordings. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(11):e1008591, 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008591. · DOI
  64. Vardan Papyan, X. Y. Han, and David L. Donoho. Prevalence of neural collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(40):24652-24663, 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2015509117. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Cong Fang, Hangfeng He, Qi Long, and Weijie J. Su. Exploring deep neural networks via layer-peeled model: Minority collapse in imbalanced training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(43):e2103091118, 2021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2103091118. · DOI
  66. Zhihui Zhu, Tianyu Ding, Jinxin Zhou, Xiao Li, Chong You, Jeremias Sulam, and Qing Qu. A geometric analysis of neural collapse with unconstrained features. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34 of NeurIPS, pages 29820-29834, 2021.
  67. Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, Malcolm Reynolds, Tim Harley, Ivo Danihelka, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwińska, Sergio Gómez Colmenarejo, Edward Grefenstette, Tiago Ramalho, John Agapiou, et al. Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory. Nature, 538(7626):471-476, 2016.
  68. Lukasz Kaiser and Ilya Sutskever. Neural GPUs learn algorithms. In ICLR, 2016.
  69. Tiedong Liu and Kian Hsiang Low. Goat: Fine-tuned llama outperforms gpt-4 on arithmetic tasks. ArXiv, abs/2305.14201, 2023. · arXiv
  70. Alex Graves. Adaptive computation time for recurrent neural networks. ArXiv, abs/1603.08983, 2016. · arXiv
  71. Andrea Banino, Jan Balaguer, and Charles Blundell. Pondernet: Learning to ponder. ArXiv, abs/2107.05407, 2021. · arXiv
  72. Chris Eliasmith, Terrence C Stewart, Xuan Choo, Trevor Bekolay, Travis DeWolf, Yichuan Tang, and Daniel Rasmussen. A large-scale model of the functioning brain. science, 338 (6111):1202-1205, 2012.
  73. James CR Whittington, Timothy H Muller, Shirley Mark, Guifen Chen, Caswell Barry, Neil Burgess, and Timothy EJ Behrens. The tolman-eichenbaum machine: unifying space and relational memory through generalization in the hippocampal formation. Cell, 183(5):1249- 1263, 2020.
  74. Lars Buesing, Johannes Bill, Bernhard Nessler, and Wolfgang Maass. Neural dynamics as sampling: a model for stochastic computation in recurrent networks of spiking neurons. PLoS computational biology, 7(11):e1002211, 2011.
  75. Salah Hihi and Yoshua Bengio. Hierarchical recurrent neural networks for long-term dependencies. In D. Touretzky, M.C. Mozer, and M. Hasselmo, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 8. MIT Press, 1995.
  76. Jan Koutník, Klaus Greff, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. A clockwork rnn. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2014.
  77. Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. Universal transformers, 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03819. · arXiv
  78. Yiping Wang, Qing Yang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Liliang Ren, Lucas Liu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Xuehai He, Kuan Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Weizhu Chen, Shuohang Wang, Simon Shaolei Du, and Yelong Shen. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in large language models with one training example, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20571. · arXiv
  79. Niklas Muennighoff. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.23456, 2025. · arXiv
  80. Xuefeng Li, Haoyang Zou, and Pengfei Liu. Limr: Less is more for rl scaling, 2025. 100. Tri Dao and Albert Gu. Transformers are ssms: Generalized models and efficient algorithms through structured state space duality. ArXiv, abs/2405.21060, 2024. 101. Han Guo, Songlin Yang, Tarushii Goel, Eric P Xing, Tri Dao, and Yoon Kim. Log-linear attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04761, 2025. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, G., Li, J., Sun, Y., Chen, X., Liu, C., Wu, Y., Lu, M., Song, S., & Yadkori, Y. A.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2506.21734
arXiv
2506.21734
OpenAlex
W4417156095
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
hierarchical reasoning, recurrent neural networks, task decomposition, abstract planning, Sudoku solving, Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, large language models

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