State commitment learning: training language models to distinguish computation from memory
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Reasoning language models do not distinguish tokens used for computation from tokens that constitute persistent state: once generated, all hidden thoughts remain in context and influence future predictions. As a result, downstream reasoning may depend on failed attempts, dead ends, and private scratch work that should not be safely relied on later. We recast this phenomenon as a new training objective, state commitment learning: training models to explicitly distinguish information that should be committed as persistent state from temporary computation that can be discarded. We define a counterfactual criterion, persistent-state sufficiency, which makes it trainable and measurable whether an answer remains usable after hidden thoughts are erased. We then propose Counterfactual Erasure RL (CERL), which evaluates, under the same prefix, both a path that keeps hidden thoughts and a path that erases them, and gives reward only when the erasure path remains correct. We also introduce the Erasure Dependence Protocol and show across mathematics, long-chain logic, scientific QA, and multi-turn tool-use evaluation that CERL substantially reduces answer dependence on hidden thoughts without sacrificing accuracy, consistently outperforming correctness-only RL and long-answer SFT baselines.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 17 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.
Builds on
17 of 22 references.
Closest ancestors · 7
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Limited Reasoning Space: The cage of long-horizon reasoning in LLMs22 Feb
- 2025KaVa: Latent Reasoning via Compressed KV-Cache Distillation2 Oct
- 2025ThinKV: Thought-Adaptive KV Cache Compression for Efficient Reasoning Models1 Oct
- 2025LazyEviction: Lagged KV Eviction with Attention Pattern Observation for Efficient Long Reasoning19 Jun
- 2025Think Clearly: Improving Reasoning via Redundant Token Pruning17 Jun
- 2025LightThinker: Thinking Step-by-Step Compression21 Feb
- 2025TokenSkip: Controllable Chain-of-Thought Compression in LLMs17 Feb
Other references · 10
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2024SnapKV: LLM Knows What You are Looking for Before Generationcited by 848
- 2023H2O: Heavy-Hitter Oracle for Efficient Generative Inference of Large Language Modelscited by 805
- 2014Neural Turing Machinescited by 630
- 2023Learning to Compress Prompts with Gist Tokenscited by 379
- 2025ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoningcited by 186
- 2025When More is Less: Understanding Chain-of-Thought Length in LLMscited by 182
- 2025The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learningcited by 30
- 2025AutoLogi: Automated Generation of Logic Puzzles for Evaluating Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 29
- 2025Through the Valley: Path to Effective Long CoT Training for Small Language Modelscited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Coherence Under Commitment: Probing Generalization and Vacuous Memorization in LLM Logical Reasoning
- 2025On the Failure of Latent State Persistence in Large Language Models
- 2026GUARD: Natural Forgetting in Large Reasoning Models via Guided Answer-Reasoning Distillation
- 2026When Does a Language Model Commit? A Finite-Answer Theory of Pre-Verbalization Commitment
- 2025Real-Time Progress Prediction in Reasoning Language Models
- 2026When to Re-Plan: Subgoal Persistence in Hierarchical Latent Reasoning
- 2025Reasoning Model Unlearning: Forgetting Traces, Not Just Answers, While Preserving Reasoning Skills
- 2026A Frozen 12B Beats Frontier Models on Verified Work: 100% Accuracy, 0 Tokens, Bit-Exact, Forever