Think Deep, Speak Once: Relit, A Recursive Latent Implicit Transformer Framework

Abhishek Panwar; Maheep Singh; Saksham Bansal

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Think Deep, Speak Once: Relit, A Recursive Latent Implicit Transformer Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ReLIT places a small trainable recursive block inside a frozen 1.1B language model and uses it to match or beat far larger models on logical reasoning benchmarks by iterating a latent 'thinking' state instead of generating…

desk verdict Plausible architecture, unsupported headline: the evaluation compares supervised training to few-shot prompting and never isolates the recursion. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08113 v1 pith:UKFRDZCC submitted 2026-08-08 cs.AI

Abhishek Panwar , Maheep Singh , Saksham Bansal This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords latentreasoningrecursivetransformerchain-of-thoughtlogicalfrozenLLMbackboneparameterefficiencyGLoREbenchmarkadaptivecomputationtime

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ReLIT is a hybrid architecture that places a lightweight, trainable recursive block inside a frozen large language model, allowing the model to 'think' by iteratively refining a continuous latent vector before emitting a single answer token. The paper's central claim is that this latent reasoning loop can carry out multi-step logical deduction on natural-language inputs as well as or better than far larger models that generate explicit chain-of-thought text, at a fraction of the trainable parameters and without the latency of token-by-token reasoning. The supporting evidence is the GLoRE benchmark, where ReLIT reports 98.6% on ProofWriter, 97.6% on RuleTaker, and 55.2% on NaN-NLI trained on only 200 examples, matching or surpassing significantly larger models on those tasks. If the claim holds, reasoning capability can be added to an LLM by increasing recurrent depth in a small module instead of scaling parameter count.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ReLIT block, a transformer-style cell (RMSNorm, multi-head attention, RMSNorm, SwiGLU feed-forward) inserted between the frozen layers and the frozen head of a decoder-only LLM. Its job is to compute a residual 'delta' that is added to the latent scratchpad $z_t$ and the answer state $y_t$, so each recursion step edits the existing hypothesis instead of regenerating it. The argument is carried by the three-state dynamical system—$x$ (semantic anchor), $y_t$ (answer state), $z_t$ (latent scratchpad)—together with the Recall-Then-Learn protocol, which runs $T-1$ recursion steps with gradients disabled and one gradient-enabled step to approximate the fixed point without backprop-through-time memory costs, and adaptive halting, which lets the model stop at a per-sample depth.

What would settle it

A direct control would train the same ReLIT block with $T=1$ (no recursion) on ProofWriter's 5,000-sample training split and compare held-out accuracy with the reported 98.6%; the paper reports no such control. If the single-pass version matches the 98.6%, iterative latent refinement is not the source of the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that logical reasoning can be decomposed into a static semantic anchor $x$, a dynamic answer state $y_t$, and a latent scratchpad $z_t$, and that iterating a single trainable transformer block over these three vectors—using residual updates $z_{t+1} = \mathrm{Norm}(z_t + R_\theta([x; y_t; z_t]))$ and $y_{t+1} = \mathrm{Norm}(y_t + W_y[y_t; z_{t+1}])$—produces a stable 'logical fixed point' that can be decoded through the frozen LLM's output head. Rather than generating intermediate reasoning tokens, the block refines the latent hypothesis over $T$ recursion steps with gradients disabled during a recall phase and enabled during a single learn step, then uses adaptive halting to decide when the state has converged. The reported result is that this small trainable module, attached to a frozen TinyLlama-1.1B backbone, achieves 98.6% accuracy on ProofWriter, 97.6% on RuleTaker, 56.30% on TaxiNLI, and 55.2% on NaN-NLI from only 200 training samples, matching or beating models with far more parameters on the GLoRE benchmark. In an appendix the paper itself notes a hard boundary of the design: because the anchor $x$ is a fixed projection of the input, recursive depth cannot recover information the frozen backbone discarded, so the attainable accuracy is capped by the mutual information between the prompt and $x$; the paper proposes trainable injection or cross-attention as relaxations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fine-tuning a small block on each dataset's training split is comparable to the few-shot prompting of the large models it is measured against, and that any accuracy gain comes from recursive latent depth rather than from task-specific supervision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported accuracies hold, a frozen LLM can gain logical reasoning by training only a small recursive block, avoiding the cost of full-model fine-tuning.
Explicit chain-of-thought tokens are not required for multi-step deduction; iterating continuous hidden states can carry the same logical work with lower generation latency.
Adaptive halting gives a per-sample measure of thinking time: average halting depths reported in the paper rise from 3.6 on ProofWriter to 7.8 on NaN-NLI, consistent with harder tasks needing more latent steps.
Deep supervision across recursion steps keeps intermediate answer states aligned with the target, which the paper reports stabilizes training and prevents semantic drift.
Because the backbone and output head remain frozen, the recursive block can be inserted into an existing decoder-only language model without retraining the base.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct test of the asymptotic mapping claim would swap the frozen backbone and check whether the accuracy ceiling moves with the backbone's representation quality; the appendix's information bottleneck predicts that it should.
Because the current design decodes a single token, the natural stress test is multi-token autoregressive generation with the same recursive block at every step; the paper lists this as future work, but its stability across a long output is an open question.
If the bottleneck analysis is correct, letting the recursive state cross-attend to the prompt at each step (the paper's proposed relaxation) should lift the NLI tasks more than the already-saturated proof tasks, since those are where the static anchor loses task-relevant information.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a plausible latent-reasoning architecture with an empirical section that doesn't support its headline claims. The combination of a frozen decoder, a residual recursive block, deep supervision, and a frozen head is a reasonable new mix of known pieces. The code is public and the writing is clear. Credit where due: the appendix contains an honest information-bottleneck analysis showing y† is a function of the single forward pass x and I(s;y†)≤I(s;x). The authors seem to think this is a side remark, but it actually exposes the central weakness—the recursion can only reparameterize what's in x.

The main problem is Table 1. Every ReLIT row comes from supervised training on that dataset's train split, while every LLM baseline is few-shot prompting numbers taken from GLoRE. So "beating GPT-4 on HELP" is not the same game, and "matching o1-mini on ProofWriter" is not apples-to-apples. There is also no ablation. No T=1 control, no probe on x directly, no supervised fine-tune of TinyLlama under the same data. With z0 random and no seed variance, the 98.6% and 97.6% are just point estimates. The halting-depth story is post-hoc.

The per-dataset hyperparameters (Table 2) vary Nsup from 3 to 16 and heads from 1 to 16; that's fine, but it makes the "few samples" claim harder to generalize. The appendix's own convergence analysis makes the T=1 collapse plausible. A one-step linear or small MLP map from x to logits might match these accuracies, and then the "deep thinking" is epiphenomenal.

One more oddity: the header says "Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026" on an August 2026 arXiv post. That doesn't hold together and should be clarified.

Bottom line: the paper is worth a serious referee because the architecture is sensible and the questions are real, but as written the evidence is insufficient. I'd ask for fair baselines, a T=1 control, and variance reporting before accepting. It would be a useful reading-group case study in evaluation pitfalls.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ReLIT (Recursive Latent Implicit Transformer), a hybrid architecture that keeps a frozen TinyLlama-1.1B backbone and adds a small trainable recursive block. The block refines a latent scratchpad z and an answer state y over several recursive steps before a single projection to vocabulary space, with an optional adaptive halting mechanism. The authors report accuracy on five GLoRE logical reasoning datasets and claim that ReLIT matches or outperforms much larger models despite minimal supervision, concluding that reasoning can be scaled through recurrent depth rather than parameter width. The paper also includes a convergence and information-bottleneck analysis in Appendix A, which the authors use to state limitations of the frozen-anchor design.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, this would be a striking result: a small trainable recursive block on a frozen 1.1B model matching or beating much larger models on logical reasoning would suggest that recurrence in latent space is a highly sample- and parameter-efficient route to reasoning. The authors deserve credit for providing a code link and for including an explicit information-theoretic limitation analysis (A.2–A.3), which is more transparent than typical papers in this area. However, the current evaluation does not isolate the mechanism that the paper credits for its results, so the central claim is not yet substantiated. The information-bottleneck analysis, while a strength, also highlights exactly why additional control experiments are needed.

major comments (4)

[§5.1, Table 1] The headline comparison is not apples-to-apples. ReLIT is trained with supervision on each dataset's training split, whereas all LLM rows are few-shot prompt evaluations taken from GLoRE (liu et al., 2025). A claim of "matching or outperforming significantly larger models" requires either supervised fine-tuning baselines for the LLMs under the same data regime or a few-shot evaluation of ReLIT. Without such controls, the accuracy differences in Table 1 are confounded by training data and protocol, not explainable by the architecture.
[§3.2, Appendix A.2–A.3] No control isolates the contribution of recursive depth. The paper's own analysis shows that the fixed point y† is a deterministic function of the static anchor x alone (Eq. 14) and that I(s;y†) ≤ I(s;x) (Eq. 16). Consequently, a single-step trainable map from x to y could in principle reproduce all reported accuracies, making "deep thinking" epiphenomenal. The manuscript needs at least a T=1 variant of Eqs. (5)–(7), a linear probe on the frozen anchor x, or a single-pass ReLIT block trained with identical data to show that depth beyond one step changes accuracy.
[Table 1, §3.1 Eq. (3)] No estimate of variability is reported. The latent scratchpad is initialized as z0 ∼ N(0, σ²I) (Eq. 3), and training itself is stochastic; yet Table 1 reports single-point accuracies (e.g., 98.6% on ProofWriter, 97.6% on RuleTaker) with no error bars or number of seeds. With 200–5,000 training samples, the reported margins over baselines may be within run-to-run noise; at minimum, mean±std over several seeds is needed.
[Table 2, §5.2] The per-dataset hyperparameters (N_sup, T, layers, LR) vary widely and no ablations or sensitivity analyses are given. Since T and N_sup are exactly the "recursive depth" the paper credits for its results, the absence of a controlled sweep over these quantities—and the absence of an ACT versus fixed-T comparison—means the paper cannot attribute the reported performance to recurrent depth rather than to tuning of these hyperparameters.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] Typos such as "haulting", "prooves", "succesfully", "Intution", "ammendments", "explainations", and "MutliHead" should be corrected.
[Figure 6] The caption promises pseudocode of the ReLIT recursive update, but no pseudocode body is present in the provided manuscript; either include the actual pseudocode or remove the reference to it.
[Appendix A.5] The header appears as "EXPERIMENTSHYPERPARAMETERS"; add a space and a brief description of how the hyperparameters in Table 2 were selected, including optimizer, epochs, batch size, and seeds.
[Abstract] The phrase "structurally solving linguistic intuition from algorithmic processing" is unclear and should be rewritten for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central empirical claims rest on external held-out benchmark evaluations, though the deep-thinking attribution is under-supported by the missing T=1 control.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is architecture -> supervised training -> held-out accuracy on external GLoRE benchmark tasks. The reported ReLIT numbers are held-out evaluation accuracies after training on each dataset's training split; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the LLM baselines are quoted from the external GLoRE benchmark paper. The 'deep thinking' interpretation is not forced by the paper's own equations: Appendix A.2-A.3 explicitly proves y-dagger = Phi(x) and I(s; y-dagger) <= I(s; x), an internally stated limitation that recursion only reparameterizes information already present in the frozen backbone's anchor x. This undercuts the recurrent-depth narrative but is a self-contained limitation, not a circular step. The paper also lacks a T=1 or single-pass control and compares supervised training with few-shot baselines, but these are experimental validity threats, not logical circularity. The only self-referential flavor is the post-hoc use of ACT halting depth as evidence of task difficulty, which is not load-bearing for the main accuracy results and does not reduce any prediction to its input by construction. The derivation is therefore self-contained and no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The architecture is under-specified on a few load-bearing details: the noise scale for z0, the ACT threshold, and the per-dataset hyperparameter selection. The theoretical appendix makes unverified assumptions about contraction. No new physical or conceptual entities beyond the architecture itself.

free parameters (3)

z0 noise scale sigma = not reported
The latent scratchpad is initialized as z0 ~ N(0, sigma^2 I); sigma is never specified or learned, and the final result may depend on it.
per-dataset recursion hyperparameters (N_sup, T, layers, LR) = see Table 2
Each benchmark uses a different number of supervision steps and latent recursions, selected by the authors; this per-task tuning is part of what produces the reported adaptive halting behavior.
ACT halting threshold = not reported
The Halt Head and its confidence threshold determine when the model stops; no value or calibration method is given.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The frozen backbone's last hidden state x is a sufficient statistic for the task (H(y*|x) is small)
Appendix Eq. (A.7) states convergence to the correct answer requires H(y*|x) -> 0, but this is not verified empirically for any dataset.
domain assumption The recursive transition F_theta has spectral radius rho < 1 so the sequence converges to a unique fixed point
Invoked at Eq. (12) to apply the Banach Fixed-Point Theorem; no evidence is given that a trained ReLIT block satisfies this contraction condition.
domain assumption The Markov chain s -> x -> y_dagger holds, so y_dagger is a deterministic function of x
Section A.2 claims the random z0 noise does not affect the fixed point; this only follows under contraction, which is unverified.
domain assumption The frozen LM head W_lm can linearly decode the correct answer token from y_T
Used in Eq. (10) for final prediction; no validation that the learned y_T stays in the linear probe regime of the frozen head.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Think Deep, Speak Once: Relit, A Recursive Latent Implicit Transformer Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKFRDZCC

@misc{pith2026260808113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Think Deep, Speak Once: Relit, A Recursive Latent Implicit Transformer Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKFRDZCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08113}
}

read the original abstract

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the dominant paradigm for eliciting reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it creates substantial computational overhead by forcing models to externalize intermediate reasoning steps as discrete tokens. Recent latent reasoning approaches attempt to internalize this process within continuous hidden states. One of the latest advancements in the field of latent reasoning, Tiny Recursive Models (TRMs) excel at symbolic reasoning but struggle to preserve semantic coherence in natural language settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReLIT (Recursive Latent Implicit Transformer), a hybrid framework that grounds deep recursive reasoning within the rich semantic representations of a foundational model. ReLIT augments a frozen LLM backbone (TinyLlama-1.1B) with a lightweight, trainable recursive block that iteratively refines its latent thinking (z) before committing to a final output, structurally solving linguistic intuition from algorithmic processing and enabling "deep thinking" via gradient-isolated recurrent loops without the latency of explicit token generation. Empirically, ReLIT achieves high parameter efficiency on the GLoRE logical reasoning benchmark, matching or outperforming significantly larger models on challenging tasks such as ProofWriter and RuleTaker despite minimal supervision. These results demonstrate that reasoning capability can be scaled efficiently through recurrent depth rather than parameter width, offering a principled framework for semantically grounded implicit reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08113 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The ReLIT Pipeline. An overview of the proposed architecture featuring a tripartite structure: (1) Semantic Grounding via a frozen LLM backbone, (2) Recursive Refinement within the latent ReLIT block, and (3) Hypothesis Decoding via the frozen head. Furthermore, we deliberately employ a Decoder-only backbone (TinyLlama-1.1B) instead of a bidirectional Encoder to extract the semantic intuition . While Encoders often… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Latent Reasoning Trajectories and Adaptive Halting. Visualization of N supervision steps during ReLIT inference on RuleTaker (left) and NaN-NLI (right). The trajectories illustrate the iterative refinement of the state vector v. The blue highlights denote the dynamically identified halting steps, where the latent state achieves numerical stability, indicating logical convergence before final answer projection [PITH… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Latent Reasoning Trajectory on ProofWriter. This visualization depicts the iterative evolution of the state vector within the continuous latent space. Starting from the initial grounding (Anne), the model continuously updates its output vector ⃗y across T steps, transi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Training Dynamics and Convergence Profiles. Visualization of the optimization process across multiple benchmarks. The left and center panels show the task loss and ACT loss for ProofWriter and RuleTaker, respectively, demonstrating a sharp initial descent followed by …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Pseudocode of the ReLIT Recursive Update Process. The algorithm details the initialization of the latent scratchpad z, the T-step recurrent loop, and the final decoding phase. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[3]

Yihang Gao, Chuanyang Zheng, Enze Xie, Han Shi, Tianyang Hu, Yu Li, Michael K Ng, Zhen- guo Li, and Zhaoqiang Liu

URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/1810.04805. Yihang Gao, Chuanyang Zheng, Enze Xie, Han Shi, Tianyang Hu, Yu Li, Michael K Ng, Zhen- guo Li, and Zhaoqiang Liu. Algoformer: An efficient transformer framework with algorithmic structures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13572,

arXiv
[7]

org/abs/2310.09107

URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2310.09107. Holger Lyre. ”understanding ai”: Semantic grounding in large language models,

arXiv
[8]

Noam Shazeer

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10992. Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer,

arXiv
[10]

ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language

Oyvind Tafjord, Bhavana Dalvi, and Peter Clark. ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp. 3621–3634,

work page 2021
[12]

Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu

URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/1910.07467. Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu. Tinyllama: An open-source small language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02385,

arXiv 1910
[13]

A APPENDIX A.1 CONVERGENCEANALYSIS AND THEINFORMATIONBOTTLENECK In this appendix, we analyze the convergence properties of the ReLIT framework

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06203. A APPENDIX A.1 CONVERGENCEANALYSIS AND THEINFORMATIONBOTTLENECK In this appendix, we analyze the convergence properties of the ReLIT framework. In particular, we study the dependence of the recursive reasoning process on the initial semantic embedding extracted from the frozen backbone. We show that the model’s ability...

arXiv 2026
[2014]

Hanmeng liu, Zhiyang Teng, Ruoxi Ning, Yiran Ding, Xiulai Li, Xiaozhang Liu, and Yue Zhang

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5185. Hanmeng liu, Zhiyang Teng, Ruoxi Ning, Yiran Ding, Xiulai Li, Xiaozhang Liu, and Yue Zhang. Glore: Evaluating logical reasoning of large language models,

arXiv
[2017]

Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian

URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/1603.08983. Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769,

arXiv

Show all 13 references

[2019]

Yuntian Deng, Kiran Chandrasekar, Makesh Sreedhar Chidambaram, and Alexander M Rush

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03819. Yuntian Deng, Kiran Chandrasekar, Makesh Sreedhar Chidambaram, and Alexander M Rush. Im- plicit chain of thought reasoning via knowledge distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01460,

arXiv
[2020]

10 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 DiJia Su, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, Edouard Grave, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Pierre- Etienne Mazar’e

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2002.05202. 10 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 DiJia Su, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, Edouard Grave, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Pierre- Etienne Mazar’e. Dualformer: Controllable fast and slow thinking by learning with randomized reasoni...

2002 arXiv
[2022]

Guan Wang, Jin Li, Yuhao Sun, Xing Chen, Changling Liu, Yue Wu, Meng Lu, Sen Song, and Yasin Abbasi Yadkori

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03256. Guan Wang, Jin Li, Yuhao Sun, Xing Chen, Changling Liu, Yue Wu, Meng Lu, Sen Song, and Yasin Abbasi Yadkori. Hierarchical reasoning model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21734,

arXiv
[2024]

Scaling up test-time compute with latent reasoning: A recurrent depth approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05171,

Jonas Geiping, Sean McLeish, Neel Jain, John Kirchenbauer, Siddharth Singh, Brian R Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Abhinav Bhatele, and Tom Goldstein. Scaling up test-time compute with latent reasoning: A recurrent depth approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05171,

arXiv
[2025]

Peter Clark, Oyvind Tafjord, and Kyle Richardson

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2103.15589. Peter Clark, Oyvind Tafjord, and Kyle Richardson. Transformers as soft reasoners over language. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI- 20, pp. 4102–4109,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Yihang Gao, Chuanyang Zheng, Enze Xie, Han Shi, Tianyang Hu, Yu Li, Michael K Ng, Zhen- guo Li, and Zhaoqiang Liu

URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/1810.04805. Yihang Gao, Chuanyang Zheng, Enze Xie, Han Shi, Tianyang Hu, Yu Li, Michael K Ng, Zhen- guo Li, and Zhaoqiang Liu. Algoformer: An efficient transformer framework with algorithmic structures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13572,

arXiv

[2] [7]

org/abs/2310.09107

URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2310.09107. Holger Lyre. ”understanding ai”: Semantic grounding in large language models,

arXiv

[3] [8]

Noam Shazeer

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10992. Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer,

arXiv

[4] [10]

ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language

Oyvind Tafjord, Bhavana Dalvi, and Peter Clark. ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp. 3621–3634,

work page 2021

[5] [12]

Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu

URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/1910.07467. Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu. Tinyllama: An open-source small language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02385,

arXiv 1910

[6] [13]

A APPENDIX A.1 CONVERGENCEANALYSIS AND THEINFORMATIONBOTTLENECK In this appendix, we analyze the convergence properties of the ReLIT framework

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06203. A APPENDIX A.1 CONVERGENCEANALYSIS AND THEINFORMATIONBOTTLENECK In this appendix, we analyze the convergence properties of the ReLIT framework. In particular, we study the dependence of the recursive reasoning process on the initial semantic embedding extracted from the frozen backbone. We show that the model’s ability...

arXiv 2026

[7] [2014]

Hanmeng liu, Zhiyang Teng, Ruoxi Ning, Yiran Ding, Xiulai Li, Xiaozhang Liu, and Yue Zhang

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5185. Hanmeng liu, Zhiyang Teng, Ruoxi Ning, Yiran Ding, Xiulai Li, Xiaozhang Liu, and Yue Zhang. Glore: Evaluating logical reasoning of large language models,

arXiv

[8] [2017]

Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian

URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/1603.08983. Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769,

arXiv