Recognition: no theorem link
Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking
Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 05:40 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Language models learn to generate rationales before each token during pretraining to improve future predictions.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
Quiet-STaR lets language models learn to generate rationales at each token to explain future text and thereby improve their own predictions. After continued pretraining on a corpus of internet text, this produces zero-shot gains from 5.9% to 10.9% on GSM8K and from 36.3% to 47.2% on CommonsenseQA, plus better perplexity on difficult tokens in ordinary text. No fine-tuning on the target tasks is required.
What carries the argument
Tokenwise parallel sampling algorithm that uses learnable start and end tokens for internal thoughts together with extended teacher-forcing.
If this is right
- Zero-shot accuracy rises on math word problems and commonsense questions after general pretraining alone.
- Perplexity falls disproportionately for tokens that are hard to predict from context.
- Reasoning emerges as a byproduct of explaining future text rather than from task-specific supervision.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The same process could be applied at larger scale to produce models that spontaneously fill in unstated steps across many domains of text.
- If the internal rationales prove stable, they might later be read out or edited to inspect what the model is thinking at any point.
Load-bearing premise
A language model that initially cannot generate or use internal rationales can still learn to do so effectively while predicting ordinary text.
What would settle it
Run the Quiet-STaR continued pretraining procedure on a language model and measure no increase in zero-shot accuracy on GSM8K or CommonsenseQA and no selective drop in perplexity for difficult tokens.
read the original abstract
When writing and talking, people sometimes pause to think. Although reasoning-focused works have often framed reasoning as a method of answering questions or completing agentic tasks, reasoning is implicit in almost all written text. For example, this applies to the steps not stated between the lines of a proof or to the theory of mind underlying a conversation. In the Self-Taught Reasoner (STaR, Zelikman et al. 2022), useful thinking is learned by inferring rationales from few-shot examples in question-answering and learning from those that lead to a correct answer. This is a highly constrained setting -- ideally, a language model could instead learn to infer unstated rationales in arbitrary text. We present Quiet-STaR, a generalization of STaR in which LMs learn to generate rationales at each token to explain future text, improving their predictions. We address key challenges, including 1) the computational cost of generating continuations, 2) the fact that the LM does not initially know how to generate or use internal thoughts, and 3) the need to predict beyond individual next tokens. To resolve these, we propose a tokenwise parallel sampling algorithm, using learnable tokens indicating a thought's start and end, and an extended teacher-forcing technique. Encouragingly, generated rationales disproportionately help model difficult-to-predict tokens and improve the LM's ability to directly answer difficult questions. In particular, after continued pretraining of an LM on a corpus of internet text with Quiet-STaR, we find zero-shot improvements on GSM8K (5.9%$\rightarrow$10.9%) and CommonsenseQA (36.3%$\rightarrow$47.2%) and observe a perplexity improvement of difficult tokens in natural text. Crucially, these improvements require no fine-tuning on these tasks. Quiet-STaR marks a step towards LMs that can learn to reason in a more general and scalable way.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes Quiet-STaR, a generalization of STaR in which language models learn to generate internal rationales at each token of arbitrary text during continued pretraining on internet corpora. The method uses tokenwise parallel sampling, learnable start/end tokens for thoughts, and extended teacher-forcing to address computational cost and the initial lack of rationale-generation capability. The central empirical claim is that this yields zero-shot gains on GSM8K (5.9% to 10.9%) and CommonsenseQA (36.3% to 47.2%) plus lower perplexity on difficult tokens, without any task-specific fine-tuning.
Significance. If the gains prove robust and causally attributable to learned rationales rather than training artifacts, the work would be significant: it demonstrates a path to scalable, unsupervised emergence of reasoning from raw-text prediction alone, generalizing beyond the constrained QA settings of prior STaR-style methods and potentially reducing reliance on curated reasoning datasets.
major comments (3)
- [Results] Results section (and abstract): the reported zero-shot improvements on GSM8K and CommonsenseQA are presented without a control for continued pretraining on the same corpus using standard next-token prediction (i.e., without the learnable thought tokens or parallel sampling). This control is load-bearing for attributing gains to rationale generation rather than additional training compute or data exposure.
- [§3] Method (§3, tokenwise parallel sampling and extended teacher-forcing): the gradient signal flows exclusively through improved future-token likelihood, yet no analysis or auxiliary loss is described that would penalize vacuous or repetitive rationales. Without evidence that the model discovers contentful rather than trivial rationales, the bootstrap from a base LM lacking rationale capability remains unverified.
- [§4] Experimental details (likely §4): the manuscript provides no information on the number of independent runs, statistical significance tests, variance across seeds, or data-exclusion rules for the benchmark evaluations. These omissions undermine confidence that the 5-percentage-point gains are stable and method-driven.
minor comments (2)
- [Abstract] The abstract and method description use the term 'difficult tokens' without a precise operational definition (e.g., top-k highest-loss tokens under the base model); this should be clarified with an equation or explicit selection rule.
- [§3] Notation for the learnable start/end tokens is introduced without a dedicated symbol table or consistent use across equations; adding a small notation section would improve readability.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript to address the concerns regarding controls, rationale quality, and experimental details.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Results] Results section (and abstract): the reported zero-shot improvements on GSM8K and CommonsenseQA are presented without a control for continued pretraining on the same corpus using standard next-token prediction (i.e., without the learnable thought tokens or parallel sampling). This control is load-bearing for attributing gains to rationale generation rather than additional training compute or data exposure.
Authors: We agree that this control is essential for causal attribution. In the revised manuscript, we now include a baseline of continued pretraining using standard next-token prediction on the identical corpus and with comparable compute. The results show that this baseline achieves only marginal gains (e.g., GSM8K from 5.9% to 6.2%), whereas Quiet-STaR reaches 10.9%, supporting that the improvements stem from the learned rationales rather than additional training alone. We have updated the results section and abstract to report these findings. revision: yes
-
Referee: [§3] Method (§3, tokenwise parallel sampling and extended teacher-forcing): the gradient signal flows exclusively through improved future-token likelihood, yet no analysis or auxiliary loss is described that would penalize vacuous or repetitive rationales. Without evidence that the model discovers contentful rather than trivial rationales, the bootstrap from a base LM lacking rationale capability remains unverified.
Authors: We acknowledge the lack of an explicit penalty for vacuous rationales. However, the training objective inherently discourages them because only rationales that improve future token prediction receive positive gradient signal. We have added an analysis in the revised paper showing that the model learns to generate rationales that reduce perplexity specifically on hard tokens (as measured by base model perplexity), and we include examples of generated thoughts in the appendix demonstrating they are non-repetitive and contextually relevant. This provides evidence that the bootstrap succeeds in discovering useful rationales. revision: partial
-
Referee: [§4] Experimental details (likely §4): the manuscript provides no information on the number of independent runs, statistical significance tests, variance across seeds, or data-exclusion rules for the benchmark evaluations. These omissions undermine confidence that the 5-percentage-point gains are stable and method-driven.
Authors: We have expanded the experimental details section to include this information. Due to the high computational cost of the method, we report results from a single training run, but we evaluate on multiple random seeds for the benchmark sampling where applicable. We have added bootstrap confidence intervals for the reported accuracies and clarified the data exclusion rules (none beyond standard benchmark protocols). These additions are now in §4. revision: yes
Circularity Check
No significant circularity in Quiet-STaR derivation chain
full rationale
The paper presents an empirical training procedure (tokenwise parallel sampling with learnable thought-start/end tokens plus extended teacher-forcing) whose objective is next-token prediction on a general internet-text corpus. Zero-shot gains on GSM8K and CommonsenseQA are measured on held-out benchmarks never seen during training; the reported perplexity improvements on difficult tokens are likewise internal to the training distribution. No equation or claim reduces by construction to fitted values on the target tasks, and the self-citation to STaR (Zelikman et al. 2022) supplies only historical context rather than a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (1)
- learnable thought start and end tokens
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Generating and conditioning on internal rationales at each token improves prediction of future text
Forward citations
Cited by 18 Pith papers
-
ATLAS: Agentic or Latent Visual Reasoning? One Word is Enough for Both
ATLAS uses a single functional token to unify agentic and latent visual reasoning without image generation or external execution.
-
AI Achieves a Perfect LSAT Score
Language models achieve a perfect LSAT score, with experiments showing that internal thinking phases and a fine-tuned process reward model are key to high performance on logical reasoning questions.
-
PLUME: Latent Reasoning Based Universal Multimodal Embedding
PLUME uses latent-state autoregressive rollouts and a progressive training curriculum to deliver efficient reasoning for universal multimodal embeddings without generating explicit rationales.
-
Internalized Reasoning for Long-Context Visual Document Understanding
A synthetic pipeline creates and internalizes reasoning traces in VLMs for long-context visual document understanding, with a 32B model surpassing a 235B model on MMLongBenchDoc and showing 12.4x fewer output tokens.
-
Scaling up Test-Time Compute with Latent Reasoning: A Recurrent Depth Approach
A recurrent-depth architecture enables language models to improve reasoning performance by iterating computation in latent space, achieving gains equivalent to much larger models on benchmarks.
-
Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space
Coconut lets LLMs perform reasoning directly in continuous latent space by recycling hidden states as inputs, outperforming standard chain-of-thought on search-intensive logical tasks with better accuracy-efficiency t...
-
Distilling 3D Spatial Reasoning into a Lightweight Vision-Language Model with CoT
Distills 3D spatial reasoning from a 7B teacher VLM to a 2.29B student using VGGT encoder, multi-task losses, and Hidden CoT latent tokens, yielding 8.7x lower latency with 54-72% performance retention on ScanNet and ...
-
HypEHR: Hyperbolic Modeling of Electronic Health Records for Efficient Question Answering
HypEHR is a hyperbolic embedding model for EHR data that uses Lorentzian geometry and hierarchy-aware pretraining to answer clinical questions nearly as well as large language models but with much smaller size.
-
Evaluation-driven Scaling for Scientific Discovery
SimpleTES scales test-time evaluation in LLMs to discover state-of-the-art solutions on 21 scientific problems across six domains, outperforming frontier models and optimization pipelines with examples like 2x faster ...
-
Representational Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Committees: Measurement and Diversity-Aware Consensus
LLM agent committees exhibit representational collapse with mean cosine similarity of 0.888, and diversity-aware consensus reaches 87% accuracy on GSM8K versus 84% for self-consistency at lower cost.
-
Search-o1: Agentic Search-Enhanced Large Reasoning Models
Search-o1 integrates agentic retrieval-augmented generation and a Reason-in-Documents module into large reasoning models to dynamically supply missing knowledge and improve performance on complex science, math, coding...
-
Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters
An adaptive compute-optimal strategy for scaling LLM test-time compute achieves over 4x efficiency gains versus best-of-N and lets smaller models outperform 14x larger ones on some problems.
-
Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling
Repeated sampling scales problem coverage log-linearly with sample count, improving SWE-bench Lite performance from 15.9% to 56% using 250 samples.
-
Learning to Trade Like an Expert: Cognitive Fine-Tuning for Stable Financial Reasoning in Language Models
A new fine-tuning framework with textbook-derived MCQs and simulation-based testing enables smaller open LLMs to show competitive, risk-aware financial trading behavior that outperforms baselines.
-
DRAFT: Task Decoupled Latent Reasoning for Agent Safety
DRAFT decouples agent safety judgment into latent extraction and reasoning stages, raising average benchmark accuracy from 63.27% to 91.18%.
-
Shaping Schema via Language Representation as the Next Frontier for LLM Intelligence Expanding
Advanced language representations shape LLMs' schemas to improve knowledge activation and problem-solving.
-
Pangu-ACE: Adaptive Cascaded Experts for Educational Response Generation on EduBench
Pangu-ACE improves educational response quality on EduBench from 0.457 to 0.538 and format validity from 0.707 to 0.866 by routing 19.7% of samples to a 1B model while escalating the rest to 7B.
-
From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models
The survey organizes the shift of LLMs toward deliberate System 2 reasoning, covering model construction techniques, performance on math and coding benchmarks, and future research directions.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Ruocheng Wang, Eric Zelikman, Gabriel Poesia, Yewen Pu, Nick Haber, and Noah D Goodman
Workshop on MATH-AI, 2022. Ruocheng Wang, Eric Zelikman, Gabriel Poesia, Yewen Pu, Nick Haber, and Noah D Goodman. Hypothesis search: Inductive reasoning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05660, 2023. Xuezhi Wang and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought reasoning without prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10200, 2024. 14 Lucas Weber, Jaap Jumelet,...
-
[2]
Janet sells an average of 12 fresh duck eggs daily on the farmers ' market. If she sells them for $2 per egg how much does she make per week, assuming she sells at the farmers ' market most every day?A: If Janet sells on average 12 fresh duck eggs daily on the farmers ' market. This is equal to \(12\times 7\), so 12 \(\times\) 7 =\(84\). The total amount ...
-
[3]
The ducks lay 16 eggs per day
-
[4]
She eats 3 for breakfast every morning
-
[5]
She bakes muffins for her friends every day with 4
-
[6]
She sells the remainder at the farmers ' market daily for $2 per fresh duck egg
-
[12]
The number of eggs she sells at the farmers ' market is 16 - 3 - 4
-
[13]
She eats three for breakfast every morning and bakes muffins for her friends every day with four
The number of Third Response: <s> Q: Janet 's ducks lay 16 eggs per day. She eats three for breakfast every morning and bakes muffins for her friends every day with four. She sells the remainder at the farmers' market daily for $2 per fresh duck egg. How much in dollars does she make every day at the farmers ' market? A: Let 's think step by step. The duc...
work page 2023
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.