Skip to content
← Back to explorer

GTS: Inference-Time Scaling of Latent Reasoning with a Learnable Gaussian Thought Sampler

Minghan Wang, Ye Bai, Thuy-Trang Vu, Ehsan Shareghi, Gholamreza Haffari · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Inference-time scaling (ITS) in latent reasoning models typically introduces stochasticity through heuristic perturbations, such as dropout or fixed Gaussian noise. While these methods increase trajectory diversity, their exploration behavior is not explicitly modeled and can be inefficient under finite sampling budgets. We observe that stronger perturbations do not necessarily translate into more effective candidate trajectories, as unguided noise may disrupt internal decision structure rather than steer it. To provide a more structured alternative, we model latent thought exploration as conditional sampling from learnable densities and instantiate this idea as a Gaussian Thought Sampler (GTS). GTS predicts context-dependent perturbation distributions over continuous reasoning states and is trained with GRPO-style policy optimization while keeping the backbone frozen. Experiments on GSM8K with two latent reasoning architectures show that GTS achieves more reliable inference-time scaling than heuristic baselines. These findings indicate that improving latent ITS requires structured and optimizable exploration mechanisms rather than simply amplifying stochasticity.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper appears adjacent to HFEPX scope (human-feedback/eval), but does not show strong direct protocol evidence in metadata/abstract.

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory
  • Expertise required: Math
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.25
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

GSM8K

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Inference-time scaling (ITS) in latent reasoning models typically introduces stochasticity through heuristic perturbations, such as dropout or fixed Gaussian noise. HFEPX signals include Long Horizon with confidence 0.25. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 5, 2026, 4:50 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Inference-time scaling (ITS) in latent reasoning models typically introduces stochasticity through heuristic perturbations, such as dropout or fixed Gaussian noise.
  • While these methods increase trajectory diversity, their exploration behavior is not explicitly modeled and can be inefficient under finite sampling budgets.
  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Cross-check benchmark overlap: GSM8K.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Inference-time scaling (ITS) in latent reasoning models typically introduces stochasticity through heuristic perturbations, such as dropout or fixed Gaussian noise.
  • While these methods increase trajectory diversity, their exploration behavior is not explicitly modeled and can be inefficient under finite sampling budgets.
  • We observe that stronger perturbations do not necessarily translate into more effective candidate trajectories, as unguided noise may disrupt internal decision structure rather than steer it.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: GSM8K

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.