Assessing Adversarial Robustness of Latent Reasoning Models

arXiv:2609.22228v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly rely on long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories for complex reasoning, but autoregressive generation brings substantial memory and inference costs. Latent reasoning models (LRMs) offer a more efficient alternative by compressing intermediate reasoning into a small number of continuous latent vectors. Despite their efficiency, however, the adversarial robustness of LRMs remains largely underexplored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the robustness of latent reasoning across textual and multimodal settings, covering eight models and six benchmarks. We find that, across our evaluated settings, LRMs are generally less robust than explicit CoT baselines under adversarial perturbations, with particularly severe degradation under white-box attacks. Further analysis reveals distinct failure modes across modalities: textual latent states exhibit brittle dynamics and high sensitivity to specific input patterns, while latent states in multimodal models can remain largely invariant to input perturbations and have limited influence on final predictions. These findings expose robustness limitations of current latent reasoning approaches and highlight the need to jointly consider efficiency and robustness when designing implicit reasoning systems. We have open-sourced our code to facilitate reproduction of our research https://github.com/PKU-ML/latent-reasoning-model-assessment.

Abstract:Large language models increasingly rely on long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories for complex reasoning, but autoregressive generation brings substantial memory and inference costs. Latent reasoning models (LRMs) offer a more efficient alternative by compressing intermediate reasoning into a small number of continuous latent vectors. Despite their efficiency, however, the adversarial robustness of LRMs remains largely underexplored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the robustness of latent reasoning across textual and multimodal settings, covering eight models and six benchmarks. We find that, across our evaluated settings, LRMs are generally less robust than explicit CoT baselines under adversarial perturbations, with particularly severe degradation under white-box attacks. Further analysis reveals distinct failure modes across modalities: textual latent states exhibit brittle dynamics and high sensitivity to specific input patterns, while latent states in multimodal models can remain largely invariant to input perturbations and have limited influence on final predictions. These findings expose robustness limitations of current latent reasoning approaches and highlight the need to jointly consider efficiency and robustness when designing implicit reasoning systems. We have open-sourced our code to facilitate reproduction of our research this https URL.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2609.22228 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.22228v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.22228 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Assessing Adversarial Robustness of Latent Reasoning Models

Related coverage