Rationale Distribution Distillation via Flow Matching for Distributional Continuous Latent Reasoning

cs.CL cs.AI Mingyeong Kim, Gyusang Cho, Juho Lee, Giung Nam · Oct 14, 2026
Local to this browser
What it does
Sampling multiple chain-of-thought rationales from a language model can uncover correct solutions missed by a single attempt. However, these rationales are typically lengthy, making repeated autoregressive generation costly.
Why it matters
The flow nonautoregressively generates the entire latent sequence, and a frozen language model autoregressively decodes answers from sampled rationale contexts. Empirically, the resulting distributional reasoner achieves higher answer...
Review status
The review hit a snag and will retry automatically. The abstract is still available below.
Community signal
0
0 up · 0 down
Sign in to vote with arrows
AI Review Review failed

Review failed. It will be retried automatically.

Abstract

Sampling multiple chain-of-thought rationales from a language model can uncover correct solutions missed by a single attempt. However, these rationales are typically lengthy, making repeated autoregressive generation costly. Continuous latent reasoning offers a compact alternative, but point-valued methods condition repeated answer sampling on a single rationale, which can limit exploration of diverse paths and answer coverage. We thus propose rationale distribution distillation (RDD), training a conditional flow over fixed-length latent sequences by distilling from multiple textual reasoning paths. Furthermore, we expand the distillation targets through within-query mixup, interpolating between complete latent rationales for the same query. The flow nonautoregressively generates the entire latent sequence, and a frozen language model autoregressively decodes answers from sampled rationale contexts. Empirically, the resulting distributional reasoner achieves higher answer coverage than the evaluated point-valued latent reasoning baselines, particularly on advanced mathematical tasks.

Challenge the Review

Pick a starting point or write your own. Challenges run in the background, so you can keep reading while the AI investigates.

No challenges yet. Disagree with the review? Ask the AI to revisit a specific claim.