pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11262 · v2 · pith:SWH5EN7Onew · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.LG

Latent Chain-of-Thought Improves Structured-Data Transformers

Carson Dudley , Samet Oymak This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 22:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords latent chain-of-thoughtstructured data transformerstime-series forecastingtabular predictiontest-time computerecurrent transformersfeedback tokensfoundation models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Latent chain-of-thought lets structured-data transformers run extra internal computation by appending compressed hidden states as feedback tokens.

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

The paper tests whether the chain-of-thought approach that boosts language models can also help transformers on time-series and tabular data. It introduces a recurrent loop in which the model compresses its own query-position hidden states into a small set of feedback tokens, appends those tokens to the input, and processes the sequence again before producing a final output. This creates multiple rounds of latent computation without changing the core architecture. Experiments across 36 datasets show consistent gains over both standard and deeper baselines, and the same technique improves a small pretrained foundation model past a much larger one. If the method generalizes, it provides a practical way to increase test-time compute for structured data tasks.

Core claim

A recurrent scheme for latent chain-of-thought, in which a structured-data transformer compresses query-position hidden states into feedback tokens and appends them for re-processing, improves performance over same-depth and deeper baselines on time-series forecasting and tabular prediction, achieving best average results in both domains and lifting a small foundation model above a larger competitor.

What carries the argument

The feedback token mechanism that compresses and re-inserts hidden states to enable multiple rounds of latent computation before prediction.

If this is right

  • CoT models outperform the baseline on 7 out of 9 time-series datasets with an average gain of 12.63 percent.
  • CoT models outperform the baseline on 23 out of 27 tabular datasets with an average gain of 3.25 percent.
  • Latent chain-of-thought models achieve the highest average performance in both time-series and tabular settings.
  • The same feedback mechanism improves a small open-source foundation model above the performance of a much larger tabular foundation model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The technique may allow practitioners to trade extra test-time steps for fewer model parameters when handling structured data.
  • Similar compression-and-feedback loops could be tested on other modalities such as graphs or sensor streams.
  • Optimal numbers of feedback rounds and token sizes are likely dataset-dependent and could be tuned with a small validation set.
  • Combining latent CoT with external retrieval or tool calls might produce further gains on complex structured prediction problems.

Load-bearing premise

Compressing hidden states into a few feedback tokens supplies genuinely useful additional computation steps rather than extra noise or capacity that only works on specific datasets.

What would settle it

If a new collection of tabular or time-series datasets shows the latent CoT version performing no better than the matched-depth no-CoT baseline when total floating-point operations are held equal, the claim of general benefit would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11262 by Carson Dudley, Samet Oymak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Latent chain-of-thought for structured data. The transformer fθ runs on a sequence of context tokens, query tokens, and (after the first pass) appended feedback tokens. Query-position hidden states H (r) q are compressed by an MLP ϕθ into feedback tokens Z (r) , which are appended to the sequence for the next pass. After R recurrences, the prediction head gθ maps from the hidden states to the prediction yˆ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance gains from latent chain-of-thought as a function of recurrence depth. Each point is the mean across datasets of the per-dataset gain over the same-depth no-recurrence baseline at a fixed training/evaluation depth R (in contrast to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Latent CoT improves pretrained nanoTabPFN and surpasses full TabPFN-v2 in the nanoTabPFN evaluation setting. ROC-AUC on the TabArena binary-classification benchmark used by [21]. The point at R = 0 is nanoTabPFN without latent CoT from the original paper. Blue points show nanoTabPFN-CoT models pretrained with latent CoT length R ∈ {1, 2, 4} across seeds, with error bars denoting standard errors. The dashed… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Chain-of-thought and more broadly test-time compute are known to augment the expressive capabilities of language models and have led to major innovations in reasoning. Motivated by this success, this paper explores latent chain-of-thought as well as the impact of depth and looping for time-series and tabular data. We propose a recurrent scheme in which a structured-data transformer, after an initial forward pass, compresses its query-position hidden states into feedback tokens that are appended to the input and processed again, allowing multiple rounds of latent computation before prediction. We compare CoT models against a same-depth no-CoT baseline, a deeper baseline matched to the CoT model in effective depth, and a looped transformer with weight-tied recurrence but no additional chain-of-thought tokens. Across 36 datasets in time-series forecasting and tabular prediction, latent chain-of-thought improves over the baseline on 7/9 time-series datasets (+12.63\% average gain) and 23/27 tabular datasets (+3.25\% average gain), with CoT models performing best on average in both settings. We also show that the benefit of CoT extends to pretrained foundation models: applying latent CoT to nanoTabPFN, a small open-source tabular foundation model, improves its performance above the much larger TabPFN-v2 on TabArena. Together, these results demonstrate that chain-of-thought is a useful axis for scaling test-time compute for structured data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a recurrent latent chain-of-thought mechanism for structured-data transformers—compressing query-position hidden states into a small set of feedback tokens, appending them to the input, and re-processing—yields consistent performance gains over same-depth no-CoT, deeper depth-matched, and weight-tied looped baselines. Across 36 time-series and tabular datasets the CoT variants win on 7/9 time-series (+12.63% average) and 23/27 tabular (+3.25% average) tasks and also lift a small pretrained model (nanoTabPFN) above the much larger TabPFN-v2 on TabArena.

Significance. If the empirical pattern holds, the work supplies evidence that test-time compute scaling via latent CoT is viable outside language models and can be applied to both from-scratch and pretrained structured-data transformers. The breadth of the evaluation (36 datasets, three distinct baselines including depth-matched and looped controls) and the foundation-model transfer result are concrete strengths that would make the contribution noteworthy if the mechanism is shown to be more than generic recurrence.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Experiments) and associated result tables: average percentage gains are reported without statistical significance tests, standard errors, or multi-seed variance. Because the central claim is that CoT produces reliable wins, the absence of these quantities makes it impossible to judge whether the observed margins exceed typical run-to-run fluctuation.
  2. [§3] §3 (Method), description of feedback-token generation: the compression step (query-position hidden states → small set of learned feedback tokens) is trained jointly with the rest of the model, yet no ablation replaces this learned map with a fixed or random projection while keeping total parameter count and recurrence depth identical to the looped baseline. This comparison is load-bearing for the claim that the gains arise from latent chain-of-thought rather than from extra capacity or the mere act of re-injecting any summary vector.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported gains (+12.63 %, +3.25 %) are given without stating the underlying metric (MAE, MSE, accuracy, etc.).
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 or wherever the recurrence is formalized: clarify the exact dimensionality and number of feedback tokens and whether the compression is a linear projection, attention pool, or another operator.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 (schematic): ensure the diagram explicitly labels the compression operation and the point at which feedback tokens are appended relative to the standard transformer blocks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will make to strengthen the empirical support for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Experiments) and associated result tables: average percentage gains are reported without statistical significance tests, standard errors, or multi-seed variance. Because the central claim is that CoT produces reliable wins, the absence of these quantities makes it impossible to judge whether the observed margins exceed typical run-to-run fluctuation.

    Authors: We agree that statistical significance and variance estimates are necessary to establish that the reported gains are reliable rather than artifacts of single-run variability. In the revised manuscript we will rerun all experiments with at least five independent random seeds, report standard errors in the tables, and add paired statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or t-tests) between CoT and baseline variants. These additions will allow readers to assess whether the observed margins exceed typical run-to-run fluctuation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (Method), description of feedback-token generation: the compression step (query-position hidden states → small set of learned feedback tokens) is trained jointly with the rest of the model, yet no ablation replaces this learned map with a fixed or random projection while keeping total parameter count and recurrence depth identical to the looped baseline. This comparison is load-bearing for the claim that the gains arise from latent chain-of-thought rather than from extra capacity or the mere act of re-injecting any summary vector.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee’s emphasis on isolating the contribution of the learned compression. The existing looped baseline already matches recurrence depth and weight tying while omitting the feedback tokens entirely. To further address the concern, we will add a new ablation in the revision that replaces the learned compression with a fixed random linear projection of identical output dimension, while ensuring the total parameter count and recurrence depth remain matched to the looped baseline. This control will help confirm that performance gains derive from the adaptive latent chain-of-thought rather than generic recurrence or additional capacity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical comparisons against explicit baselines

full rationale

The paper's central claims consist of direct empirical measurements of a proposed recurrent latent CoT scheme versus same-depth, deeper, and weight-tied looped baselines across 36 datasets. No mathematical derivation, uniqueness theorem, or self-referential quantity is presented; performance gains are reported as observed averages (+12.63% on time-series, +3.25% on tabular) without reducing to fitted parameters renamed as predictions or to self-citations that bear the load of the result. The method description (compression of query-position states into feedback tokens) is an architectural choice whose benefit is tested externally rather than assumed by construction. This is the standard non-circular case for an empirical methods paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard transformer components and the assumption that the introduced feedback-token mechanism adds useful computation; no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the abstract description, and the feedback tokens constitute a new mechanistic entity whose value is demonstrated only through the reported experiments.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard transformer attention and feed-forward layers function as described in prior literature.
    The model reuses existing transformer blocks without modification to their internal mechanics.
invented entities (1)
  • Feedback tokens derived from compressed query-position hidden states no independent evidence
    purpose: To enable additional rounds of latent chain-of-thought computation by appending them to the input sequence.
    These tokens are introduced as part of the recurrent scheme and have no independent falsifiable prediction outside the performance experiments.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5784 in / 1418 out tokens · 59416 ms · 2026-05-20T22:06:38.134156+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Openai o1 system card, 2026

    OpenAI. Openai o1 system card, 2026

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

    Daya Guo et al. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space, 2025

    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, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Abhinav Bhatele, and Tom Goldstein

    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, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Emrullah Ildiz, Xuechen Zhang, Hrayr Harutyunyan, Ankit Singh Rawat, and Samet Oymak

    Halil Alperen Gozeten, M. Emrullah Ildiz, Xuechen Zhang, Hrayr Harutyunyan, Ankit Singh Rawat, and Samet Oymak. Continuous chain of thought enables parallel exploration and reasoning, 2025. Accepted to ICLR 2026

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Universal transformers, 2019

    Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. Universal transformers, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Lee, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos

    Angeliki Giannou, Shashank Rajput, Jy yong Sohn, Kangwook Lee, Jason D. Lee, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. Looped transformers as programmable computers, 2023. 7

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens, 2024

    Sachin Goyal, Ziwei Ji, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Sanjiv Kumar, and Vaishnavh Nagarajan. Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Tabpfn: A transformer that solves small tabular classification problems in a second, 2023

    Noah Hollmann, Samuel M¨ uller, Katharina Eggensperger, and Frank Hutter. Tabpfn: A transformer that solves small tabular classification problems in a second, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Tabpfn-2.5: Advancing the state of the art in tabular foundation models, 2026

    L´ eo Grinsztajn et al. Tabpfn-2.5: Advancing the state of the art in tabular foundation models, 2026

    work page 2026

  13. [13]

    Tabicl: A tabular foundation model for in-context learning on large data, 2025

    Jingang Qu, David Holzm¨ uller, Ga¨ el Varoquaux, and Marine Le Morvan. Tabicl: A tabular foundation model for in-context learning on large data, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’16, page 785–794. ACM, August 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Chronos: Learning the language of time series, 2024

    Abdul Fatir Ansari, Lorenzo Stella, et al. Chronos: Learning the language of time series, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting, 2024

    Abhimanyu Das, Weihao Kong, Rajat Sen, and Yichen Zhou. A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers, 2024

    Gerald Woo, Chenghao Liu, Akshat Kumar, Caiming Xiong, Silvio Savarese, and Doyen Sahoo. Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Fincast: A foundation model for financial time-series forecasting, 2025

    Zhuohang Zhu, Haodong Chen, Qiang Qu, and Vera Chung. Fincast: A foundation model for financial time-series forecasting, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Mantis: A Foundation Model for Mechanistic Disease Forecasting

    Carson Dudley, Reiden Magdaleno, Christopher Harding, Ananya Sharma, and Marisa Eisenberg. Mantis: A foundation model for mechanistic disease forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12260, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Is one layer enough? understanding inference dynamics in tabular foundation models, 2026

    Amir Rezaei Balef, Mykhailo Koshil, and Katharina Eggensperger. Is one layer enough? understanding inference dynamics in tabular foundation models, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    nanotabpfn: A lightweight and educational reimplementation of tabpfn, 2025

    Alexander Pfefferle, Johannes Hog, Lennart Purucker, and Frank Hutter. nanotabpfn: A lightweight and educational reimplementation of tabpfn, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Tabarena: A living benchmark for machine learning on tabular data, 2025

    Nick Erickson, Lennart Purucker, Andrej Tschalzev, David Holzm¨ uller, Prateek Mutalik Desai, David Salinas, and Frank Hutter. Tabarena: A living benchmark for machine learning on tabular data, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?, 2022

    Ailing Zeng, Muxi Chen, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Mantovani, Jan N

    Bernd Bischl, Giuseppe Casalicchio, Matthias Feurer, Pieter Gijsbers, Frank Hutter, Michel Lang, Rafael G. Mantovani, Jan N. van Rijn, and Joaquin Vanschoren. Openml benchmarking suites, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H. Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A time series is worth 64 words: Long-term forecasting with transformers, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Towards thinking-optimal scaling of test-time compute for llm reasoning, 2025

    Wenkai Yang, Shuming Ma, Yankai Lin, and Furu Wei. Towards thinking-optimal scaling of test-time compute for llm reasoning, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Tabpfn-3: Technical report, 2026

    L´ eo Grinsztajn et al. Tabpfn-3: Technical report, 2026

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Pondernet: Learning to ponder, 2021

    Andrea Banino, Jan Balaguer, and Charles Blundell. Pondernet: Learning to ponder, 2021. A Architecture and training details All models are trained from scratch on each dataset using the same optimizer and schedule. We use AdamW with learning rate 3 × 10−4, cosine annealing, weight decay 10 −4, batch size 128, and a maximum of 100 epochs with early stoppin...

    work page 2021