跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2607.06648 · v3

Final Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Analyzing Latent Reasoning Faithfulness Along Training Trajectories

首次提交 2026-07-08 00:09
版本更新 2026-11-04 16:13
雷达观测 2026-11-05 11:10
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Latent reasoning performs multi-step inference in continuous hidden states, promising more compact and efficient reasoning. However, these opaque states raise a question of faithfulness: whether the latent reasoning steps drive the final answer. Prior work reports unfaithful behaviors at selected checkpoints, leaving their development during training unexamined. We track behavioral and activation-based evidence across training using verified counterfactual edits and interventions on the latent reasoning states. We find that accuracy can improve while models become less responsive to edits that change the required reasoning path and the correct answer. This counterfactual responsiveness follows distinct trajectories across latent reasoning approaches. On the graph reachability task ProsQA, output sensitivity to noise replacement declines alongside counterfactual responsiveness. Across separately trained binary-choice and open-ended versions of GSM8K math problems, interventions on all latent states show opposite sensitivity trajectories. Guided by these trajectories, we intervene on the training procedure and improve counterfactual responsiveness. These results show that evaluating only a final checkpoint can obscure both when counterfactual responsiveness changes and what the latent states contribute.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v3 · 2026-11-04 16:13 · 最新观测版本

Final Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Analyzing Latent Reasoning Faithfulness Along Training Trajectories

Latent reasoning performs multi-step inference in continuous hidden states, promising more compact and efficient reasoning. However, these opaque states raise a question of faithfulness: whether the latent reasoning steps drive the final answer. Prior work reports unfaithful behaviors at selected checkpoints, leaving their development during training unexamined. We track behavioral and activation-based evidence across training using verified counterfactual edits and interventions on the latent reasoning states. We find that accuracy can improve while models become less responsive to edits that change the required reasoning path and the correct answer. This counterfactual responsiveness follows distinct trajectories across latent reasoning approaches. On the graph reachability task ProsQA, output sensitivity to noise replacement declines alongside counterfactual responsiveness. Across separately trained binary-choice and open-ended versions of GSM8K math problems, interventions on all latent states show opposite sensitivity trajectories. Guided by these trajectories, we intervene on the training procedure and improve counterfactual responsiveness. These results show that evaluating only a final checkpoint can obscure both when counterfactual responsiveness changes and what the latent states contribute.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗