LLM Reasoning as Trajectories: Step-Specific Representation Geometry and Correctness Signals

This work characterizes large language models' chain-of-thought generation as a structured trajectory through representation space. We show that mathematical reasoning traverses functionally ordered, step-specific subspaces that become increasingly separable with layer depth. This structure already exists in base models, while reasoning training primarily accelerates convergence toward termination-related subspaces rather than introducing new representational organization. While early reasoning steps follow similar trajectories, correct and incorrect solutions diverge systematically at late stages. This late-stage divergence enables mid-reasoning prediction of final-answer correctness with ROC-AUC up to 0.87. Furthermore, we introduce trajectory-based steering, an inference-time intervention framework that enables reasoning correction and length control based on derived ideal trajectories. Together, these results establish reasoning trajectories as a geometric lens for interpreting, predicting, and controlling LLM reasoning behavior.

Valence-Arousal Subspace in LLMs: Circular Emotion Geometry and Multi-Behavioral Control

We present a method to identify a valence-arousal (VA) subspace within large language model representations. From 211k emotion-labeled texts, we derive emotion steering vectors, then learn VA axes as linear combinations of their top PCA components via ridge regression on the model's self-reported valence-arousal scores. The resulting VA subspace exhibits circular geometry consistent with established models of human emotion perception. Projections along our recovered VA subspace correlate with human-crowdsourced VA ratings across 44k lexical items. Furthermore, steering generation along these axes produces monotonic shifts in the corresponding affective dimensions of model outputs. Steering along these directions also induces near-monotonic bidirectional control over refusal and sycophancy: increasing arousal decreases refusal and increases sycophancy, and vice versa. These effects replicate across Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3-8B, and Qwen3-14B, demonstrating cross-architecture generality. We provide a mechanistic account for these effects and prior emotionally-framed controls: refusal-associated tokens ("I can't," "sorry") occupy low-arousal, negative-valence regions, so VA steering directly modulates their emission probability.

Probing Scientific General Intelligence of LLMs with Scientist-Aligned Workflows

Despite advances in scientific AI, a coherent framework for Scientific General Intelligence (SGI)-the ability to autonomously conceive, investigate, and reason across scientific domains-remains lacking. We present an operational SGI definition grounded in the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM: Deliberation, Conception, Action, Perception) and operationalize it via four scientist-aligned tasks: deep research, idea generation, dry/wet experiments, and experimental reasoning. SGI-Bench comprises over 1,000 expert-curated, cross-disciplinary samples inspired by Science's 125 Big Questions, enabling systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results reveal gaps: low exact match (10--20%) in deep research despite step-level alignment; ideas lacking feasibility and detail; high code executability but low execution result accuracy in dry experiments; low sequence fidelity in wet protocols; and persistent multimodal comparative-reasoning challenges. We further introduce Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (TTRL), which optimizes retrieval-augmented novelty rewards at inference, enhancing hypothesis novelty without reference answer. Together, our PIM-grounded definition, workflow-centric benchmark, and empirical insights establish a foundation for AI systems that genuinely participate in scientific discovery.

The Geometry of Self-Verification in a Task-Specific Reasoning Model

How do reasoning models verify their own answers? We study this question by training a model using DeepSeek R1's recipe on the CountDown task. We leverage the fact that preference tuning leads to mode collapse, resulting in a model that always produces highly structured and easily parse-able chain-of-thought sequences. With this setup, we do a top-down and bottom-up analysis to reverse-engineer how the model verifies its outputs. Our top-down analysis reveals Gated Linear Unit (GLU) weights encoding verification-related tokens, such as ``success'' or ``incorrect'', which activate according to the correctness of the model's reasoning steps. Our bottom-up analysis reveals that ``previous-token heads'' are mainly responsible for model verification. Our analyses meet in the middle: drawing inspiration from inter-layer communication channels, we use the identified GLU vectors to localize as few as three attention heads that can disable model verification, pointing to a necessary component of a potentially larger verification circuit.