Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su
Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, Yuandong Tian
2024 · arXiv
Large language models (LLMs) are typically constrained to reason in the language space, where they express the reasoning process through a chain-of-thought (CoT) to solve complex problems. However, the language space may not always be optimal for reasoning. Most word tokens primarily ensure textual coherence and are not essential for reasoning, while some critical tokens require complex planning and pose challenges to LLMs. To explore the potential of reasoning beyond language, we introduce a new paradigm called Coconut (Chain of Continuous Thought). Coconut utilizes the last hidden state of the LLM as a representation of the reasoning state, termed "continuous thought." Instead of decoding this state into words, we feed it back to the model as the next input embedding directly in the continuous space. This latent reasoning paradigm enables an advanced reasoning pattern, where continuous thoughts can encode multiple alternative next steps, allowing the model to perform a breadth-first search (BFS) rather than committing prematurely to a single deterministic path as in CoT. Coconut outperforms CoT on logical reasoning tasks that require substantial search during planning and achieves a better trade-off between accuracy and efficiency.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
16 selected excerpts · 16 total mentions
"Latent" means it (the space) is there all the time but usually not exposed or apparent. Latent space is a high-dimensional space that is not legible to humans, so normally reasoning gets constrained to progress in tokens instead so that it can be evaluated. I think https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 is a good description of the premise of reasoning in latent space, although https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15726 argues it's already what really happens.
I saw that idea described as a step in AI 2027 (they call it "neuralese" and eyeballing the site, it's still labeled a hypothetical/future development), but AFAIK no one implemented/deployed this yet. EDIT: They link to a Meta paper from 2024/2025 though: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06769/.
> If that's true, then we're following the timeline Literally just a citation of Meta's Coconut paper[1]. Notice the 2027 folk's contribution to the prediction is that this will have been implemented by "thousands of Agent-2 automated researchers...making major algorithmic advances". So, considering that the discussion of latent space reasoning dates back to 2022[2] through CoT unfaithfulness, looped transformers, using diffusion for refining latent space thoughts, etc, etc, all published before ai 2027, it seems like to be "following the timeline of ai-2027" we'd actually need to verify that not only was this happening, but that it was implemented by major algorithmic advances made by thousands of automated researchers, otherwise they don't seem to have made a contribution here. [1] https://ai-2027.com/#:~:text=Figure%20from%20Hao%20et%20al.%... [2] https://arxiv.org/html/2412.06769v3#S2
natural language may provide part of the scaffolding for reasoning, but the capability itself seems to depend more on learned transformations over internal representations than on language alone refs: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.17819 https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769
> extra attention head were added that queried the KV data from lower layers Isn't this sort of similar to latent looping? E.g. [1]. But actually as [2] argues, even that wasn't a good experiment because it used the very last hidden state, which is too close to the logits and loses most of the rich embedding structure. Perhaps you don't even need access to the state of anything except the penultimate hidden layer, since based on my vague reading of [3] the residual stream doesn't "lose information" as it passes deeper down the attention layers, so each block maybe manipulates a different subspace of the residual stream. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 [2] https://snimu.github.io/2025/03/30/multi-layer-language-head... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45758093
There’s the coconut paper by meta, which kind of does a similar thing by reasoning in the latent space instead of doing it in tokens: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 Given that anthropic’s interpretability work finds that CoT does not reliably predict the model’s internal reasoning process, I think approaches like the one above are more likely to succeed.
Unfortunately I think the competitive pressures to improve model performance makes this kind of monitor-ability is short-lived. It's just not likely that textual reasoning in english ismost optimal. Researchers are already pushing in this direction: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05171 "We study a novel language model architecture that is capable of scaling test-time computation by implicitly reasoning in latent space. Our model works by iterating a recurrent block, thereby unrolling to arbitrary depth at test-time. This stands in contrast to mainstream reasoning models that scale up compute by producing more tokens. Unlike approaches based on chain-of-thought, our approach…
does not require any specialized training data, can work with small context windows, and can capture types of reasoning that are not easily represented in words. We scale a proof-of-concept model to 3.5 billion parameters and 800 billion tokens. We show that the resulting model can improve its performance on reasoning benchmarks, sometimes dramatically, up to a computation load equivalent to 50 billion parameters." https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 Can't monitor the chain of thought if it's no longer in a human legible format.
> Just because your sampler picks a sequence of tokens that contain incorrect reasoning doesn't mean a useful reasoning trace isn’t also contained within the latent space. That's essentially the core idea in Coconut[1][2], to keep the reasoning traces in a continuous space. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 [2]: https://github.com/facebookresearch/coconut
> It's interesting that there are no reasoning models yet This may be merely a naming distinction, leaving the name open for a future release based on their recent research such as coconut[1]. They did RL post-training, and when fed logic problems it appears to do significant amounts of step-by-step thinking[2]. It seems it just doesn't wrap it in <thinking> tags. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 "Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space" [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12lAM-xPvu8 (skip through this - it's recorded in real time)
> I suppose that raises another questions: Do LLMs "think" in language? Or do they think in a more abstract space, then translate it to language later? My money is on the latter. The processing happens in latent space and then is converted to tokens/token space. There is research into reasoning models which can spend extra compute in latent space instead of in token space: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769
Would be curious to know how this stacks up against Coconut [1] which also uses latent space for reasoning. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769
Explicit <eot> is only used in training. At inference time, the paper says: > A challenge lies in determining when to switch between latent and language modes. As we focus on the problem-solving setting, we insert a <bot> token immediately following the question tokens. For <eot>, we consider two potential strategies: a) train a binary classifier on latent thoughts to enable the model to autonomously decide when to terminate the latent reasoning, or b) always pad the latent thoughts to a constant length. We found that both approaches work comparably well. Therefore, we use the second option in our experiment for simplicity, unless specified otherwise. (the bottom of the…
page 4 in the paper pdf, which can be downloaded from https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769) Why this point in you summary caught my eye, because the article specifically emphasises non-verbal nature or aspect of reasoning. Internal representaions used by a thinking human are largely not words, and the COCONUT approach tries to model that. Also note, that a whole reasoning step in training data - easily a sentence or more of natural language - can be replaced by a single "Thought" element. (How many Thought elements replace a reasonong step is controlled by a hyperparameter ‘c’; the illustrations are made for ‘c=1’). BTW, one observation: the aipapersacademy.com article in the subject calls the Thought elements "thought tokens", but the original paper never calls them "tokens", just "Thoughts" or "latent thoughts". I suppose the paper carefully avoids that to prevent confusion, as "token" mainly means a linguistic unit in LLMs.
The official pdf for the paper is at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06769 I can find "Coconut" 54 times in the PDF. The movie does not look made up.
I think the wildest thing is actually Meta’s latest paper where they show a method for LLMs reasoning not in English, but in latent space https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06769 I’ve done research myself adjacent to this (mapping parts of a latent space onto a manifold), but this is a bit eerie, even to me.
I think you mean this: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769 From what I can see, presuming o3 is a progression of o1 and has good level of accountabiltiy bubbling up during 'inference' (i.e. "Thinking about ___") then I'd say it's just using up millions of old-school tokens (the 44 million tokens that are referenced). So not latent thinking per se.
Large language models (LLMs) are restricted to reason in the “language space”, where they typically express the reasoning process with a chain-of-thought (CoT) to solve a complex reasoning problem. However, we argue that language space may not always be optimal for reasoning. For example, most word tokens are primarily for textual coherence and not essential for reasoning, while some critical tokens require complex planning and pose huge challenges to LLMs. To explore the potential of LLM reasoning in an unrestricted latent space instead of using natural language, we introduce a new paradigm Coconut (Chain of Continuous Thought). We utilize the last hidden state of the LLM as a representation of the reasoning state (termed “continuous thought”). Rather than decoding this into a word token, we feed it back to the LLM as the subsequent input embedding directly in the continuous space... https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06769
More from the same topics.
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan +11
Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have been developing and refining large language models (LLMs) that exhibit remarkable capabilities across a variety of domains and tasks, challenging our understanding of learning and cognition.
Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder +28
Recent work has demonstrated substantial gains on many NLP tasks and benchmarks by pre-training on a large corpus of text followed by fine-tuning on a specific task.
Luca Beurer-Kellner, Beat Buesser, Ana-Maria Creţu +11
As AI agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly versatile and capable of addressing a broad spectrum of tasks, ensuring their security has become a critical challenge.
Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì +5
Language models (LMs) exhibit remarkable abilities to solve new tasks from just a few examples or textual instructions, especially at scale.