Although LLMs have made significant progress in mathematical reasoning, determining whether a mathematical problem is solvable remains a fundamental yet challenging capability. While recent studies have probed internal representations of model solvability beliefs, verbalization has primarily been studied behaviorally rather than as an internal representation, limiting its analysis and manipulation.
arXiv:2607. 05013v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although LLMs have made significant progress in mathematical reasoning, determining whether a mathematical problem is solvable remains a fundamental yet challenging capability.
arXiv:2603. 01437v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 29971v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A growing body of work suggests that the reasoning capabilities of large language models are largely latent in their base form, with post-training primarily amplifying rather than introducing them.
arXiv:2604. 06374v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Latent reasoning via continuous chain-of-thoughts (Latent CoT) has emerged as a promising alternative to discrete CoT reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 07410v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The emergence of "Aha moments" in large language models, particularly DeepSeek-R1-0120, has raised the question of whether these systems genuinely reason or merely imitate the appearance of reasoning.
arXiv:2602. 04843v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Frontier large language models increasingly solve complex tasks involving abstract concepts through extended test-time thinking.
arXiv:2607. 08173v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black box auditing of language models is an essential pre-deployment tool, but it may miss subtle forms of misalignment and hidden information.
arXiv:2607. 08046v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast.
arXiv:2608. 16118v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How should we assess whether large language models can perform mathematical invention?
arXiv:2607. 07003v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect.
Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast. We ask whether internal representations offer a more direct window into both.
Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect. While sycophancy is often treated as a single defined behavior, it can manifest in substantially distinct ways and circumstances, raising the question of whether this multi-faceted nature is reflected in its internal mechanisms.