Modeling Hierarchical Thinking in Large Reasoning Models
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) solve complex tasks by generating long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) sequences; however, the emergent dynamics governing reasoning trajectories are not well understood and can lead to inconsistencies and reasoning pathologies. In this work, we propose to approximate LRM's emerging hierarchical reasoning dynamics as a trajectory within a Finite State Machine (FSM) transitioning among six abstract cognitive states. We demonstrate that these states and transitions can be captured in the latent state of the model. We believe that this representation can have different applications in the interpretability and optimization of LRM models. For example, by analyzing the topology of these transitions, we identify statistical shifts in reasoning strategies that help identify effective reasoning chains from those that fail. To illustrate these potential advantages, we propose Q-Value guided steering, a training-free inference-time control method that treats reasoning as a planning problem. We estimate the long-horizon utility of state transitions and apply sparse, orthogonal activation steering at sentence boundaries to align the CoT generation with optimal reasoning policies. Experiments across four benchmarks (AIME25, MATH-500, GSM8k, and GPQA Diamond) using three state-of-the-art open reasoning models demonstrate that Q-Value steering policy achieves significant performance gains with "surgical" efficiency, often requiring 25 times fewer interventions than greedy and weighted baselines, which suggests that reasoning can be effectively controlled by guiding high-level cognitive dynamics rather than micro-managing token generation. Code is available at: https://github.com/shahariar-shibli/CoT-FSM.
Results and benchmarks
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) solve complex tasks by generating long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) sequences; however, the emergent dynamics governing reasoning trajectories are not well understood and can lead to inconsistencies and reasoning pathologies.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 90/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- Start with framework-native implementations (e.g. PyTorch optimizer module, Optax, or Transformers training loops).
- Replicate the paper ablation settings first, then compare against modern baselines.
Time to first repro: a few hours
This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX