HackerPapers

arXiv:2511.08983cs.CL

SpiralThinker: Latent Reasoning through an Iterative Process with Text-Latent Interleaving

Shengmin Piao, Sanghyun Park

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Recent advances in large reasoning models have been driven by reinforcement learning and test-time scaling, accompanied by growing interest in latent rather than purely textual reasoning. However, existing latent reasoning methods lack mechanisms to ensure stable reasoning dynamics in latent space and a systematic way to interleave implicit and explicit reasoning. We introduce SpiralThinker, a stabilized iterative latent reasoning framework that performs iterative updates over latent representations while interleaving latent and textual reasoning steps. At its core, it combines a progressive alignment objective that explicitly regulates latent representations across iterations with structured annotations for text-latent interleaving, thereby stabilizing latent updates and maintaining coherence with textual reasoning. Across mathematical, logical, and commonsense reasoning tasks, SpiralThinker achieves state-of-the-art performance among latent reasoning baselines. Further analysis shows that both iteration and alignment are essential, that the optimal numbers of latent tokens and iterations vary by dataset, and that proper alignment is crucial for effective iterative latent reasoning. Overall, SpiralThinker bridges iterative computation and latent reasoning, demonstrating that aligned iterative updates can reliably steer reasoning in the latent space.

arXiv comments
Accepted by ACL 2026 Findings
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Aug 2026 to Aug 2026.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

  1. Small Models Have Arrived 1 comment
    • > These researchers wanted methods based on human input to win and were disappointed when they did not.[1] This was/is basically a strawman though. Like maybe "human input winning" was desirable for chess masters but for computer science wonks? Not the point or the disappoint.…

      ianjbutlerView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.