When to Re-Plan: Subgoal Persistence in Hierarchical Latent Reasoning

Latent reasoning models perform multi-step inference directly in hidden-state space, yet the structure of these latent reasoning trajectories remains poorly understood. We show that contrastive refinement signals between stronger and weaker reasoning trajectories exhibit a highly concentrated low-rank structure, while unconstrained latent updates remain sensitive to paraphrases, checkpoint choice, and trajectory perturbations. These observations suggest that latent reasoning trajectories contain stable invariant directions mixed with unstable instance-specific variation. We introduce \textbf{Trajectory-Invariant Latent Refinement (TILR)}, a training-free intervention framework for identifying and manipulating stable reasoning directions in latent space. TILR first learns a low-rank invariant subspace from contrastive trajectory differences across inputs, then constrains latent interventions to this subspace while suppressing poorly aligned updates through an adaptive alignment gate. Across six reasoning benchmarks, we find that a small number of latent directions explain most variation between strong and weak reasoning trajectories. Interventions on these directions causally improve reasoning consistency and reduce trajectory instability under paraphrases and perturbations. TILR improves answer consistency under paraphrase by ~10% and reduces latent trajectory variance by up to $50\%$ while preserving reasoning accuracy. These results support a geometric view of latent reasoning in which transferable reasoning behavior emerges from stable low-dimensional structure within hidden-state trajectories.

Latent world models have emerged as a powerful planning paradigm by learning action-conditioned predictive dynamics and using them as internal simulators to imagine and evaluate candidate action sequences. However, as the planning horizon grows, performance becomes increasingly constrained by proposal quality: a fixed candidate budget must search an exponentially larger action space, making it difficult to expose the world model to high-quality candidate futures for evaluation. In this paper, we introduce a prior-conditioned planner that replaces random proposal initialization with structured guidance. At each planning stage, a goal-conditioned generator predicts the next reachable latent subgoal for a specified duration, which is then used to condition the generation of candidate action sequences. To capture semantic information across temporal scales, we use subgoals of varying durations as priors, balancing fine-grained local control with higher-level long-horizon progress. Then the frozen world model evaluates and refines these subgoal-conditioned proposals before execution. Experiments on PushT and OGBench Cube show that coupling latent subgoal decomposition with prior-conditioned action generation substantially improves long-horizon planning while preserving strong short-horizon performance. To be specific, when the target offset is $150$, it raises PushT success from $12.7\%$ to $64.7\%$ and OGBench Cube success from $26.7\%$ to $67.3\%$.

Frontier language models solve reasoning problems in a single forward pass that would have been research contributions years ago, yet fail at multi-hour tasks: losing track of earlier decisions, declaring half-finished work done, or drifting from goals. We call this the horizon gap and survey 1,547 arXiv papers (2024-2026) collected via systematic seed harvest with a disclosed 26.8% bleed filter, extended by targeted supplementation. We disambiguate three routinely conflated properties: long-horizon (task property: required steps), long-context (model property: token capacity), and long-term memory (system property: persistence across steps/sessions). We organize the corpus into six categories tracking a long-horizon task's lifecycle -- planning, memory, execution, training, evaluation, and foundations/safety -- crossed with an axis capturing where horizons are carried (within-context, within-task-beyond-context, or cross-task-persistent). Across all categories, we find the same pattern: outcome-only signals grow uninformative as horizons lengthen, and the field's response -- whether process reward models, credit assignment, or trajectory-level diagnostics -- manufactures denser step-level signals. We treat critical and diagnostic literature as first-class threads throughout, arguing that segregating critique from method would routinely split single papers across chapters. We close by naming open measurement problems: decomposing model versus harness capability, managing correlated bias in process-level signals used for both training and evaluation, and whether long-horizon reliability admits general predictive theory.