mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Port-Hamiltonian Latent Deliberation: Mitigating the Deliberation Drift Cliff in Test-Time Compute Scaling

arXiv 2609.37351 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking

Abstract (arXiv)

Test-time compute scaling has emerged as a cornerstone of advanced machine reasoning, yet performing iterative deliberation directly within continuous latent representation spaces reveals a catastrophic pathology: the Deliberation Drift Cliff. While unconstrained recurrent latent models achieve initial reasoning gains at short horizons (K <= 4), their reasoning collapses when extrapolated to deeper thinking steps (K >= 16), dropping by 22% to 62% across standard logical benchmarks. We resolve the trilemma among expressivity, Lyapunov stability, and computational efficiency in test-time latent reasoning through a 22-round empirical and theoretical investigation. We demonstrate that strictly conservative scalar potential gradient flows suppress long-range drift (cliff 3.40%) but bottleneck peak reasoning accuracy at 32.73%, whereas unconstrained rotational flows achieve high symbolic expressivity (82.33%) but suffer a severe 36.87% drift cliff. To resolve this geometric duality, we establish Port-Hamiltonian Latent Deliberation (PH-LD) and propose the Direct-Gradient Pure-Tensor Helmholtz-Hodge Decomposition (DG-HHD). DG-HHD parameterizes the attracting flow as a tangent projection tensor network while orthogonally decoupling non-zero circulation (Hodge machine error 1.65e-17, contraction error 5.55e-17), eliminating runtime autograd dependencies to achieve 1.84x vector field and 2.09x RK45 rollout speedups. In a 15-arm symmetrical Pareto benchmark, DG-HHD achieves 58.67% peak accuracy (+25.94% absolute gain over conservative HHD) and retains 35.27% at K=32. Transferred to small language model (SLM) multi-hop causal reasoning, DG-HHD delivers monotonic compute scaling (49.33% to 51.56%) and suppresses out-of-distribution drift (cliff -0.66%). All 30 Level 0 deterministic invariants are certified.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 5 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

Builds on

5 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning19 Sep
  2. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters6 Aug

Other references · 3

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2018Neural Ordinary Differential Equationscited by 3,779
  3. 2024Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Spacecited by 797

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Equilibrium Reasoners: Learning Attractors Enables Scalable Reasoning
  2. 2026LaTER: Efficient Test-Time Reasoning via Latent Exploration and Explicit Verification
  3. 2026When to Re-Plan: Subgoal Persistence in Hierarchical Latent Reasoning
  4. 2026Stabilizing Recurrent Dynamics for Test-Time Scalable Latent Reasoning in Looped Language Models
  5. 2025Tracing the Traces: Latent Temporal Signals for Efficient and Accurate Reasoning
  6. 2025Scaling up Test-Time Compute with Latent Reasoning: A Recurrent Depth Approach
  7. 2026Looped Reasoning Finishes Earlier Than You Think
  8. 2025Learning to Ponder: Adaptive Reasoning in Latent Space