When Does Reward Teach State? A Hidden-Automaton Instrument and a Group-Language Warning Signal

Reinforcement learning is conventionally divided into model-based and model-free methods. In this taxonomy, model-based methods perform lookahead planning over a learned world model, whereas model-free methods learn a reactive state-action mapping. Recent work, however, has shown that planning can emerge from model-free reinforcement learning alone. The conditions under which this behavior emerges from a pure reward-maximization objective have so far remained unclear. In this paper, we present evidence that, in the observed cases, the hidden-state structure of the neural architecture is the deciding factor. We find that a network of relational hidden states, each anchored to an environment state and exchanging messages along learned relations, acquires a planning mechanism. These hidden states recover the environment's transition structure in their learned relations, and improve the policy at decision time by planning over the learned graph. In a matched control agent that must additionally discover which cells represent which states, no such binding arises, and no planning follows from it. We argue that this explains the observed phenomenon of emergent planning in model-free reinforcement learning and raises the question of how common such emergent planning might be more generally. Finally, we hypothesize that the discovered mechanism could describe how planning emerges from pure reward maximization in the human brain through a neural architectural prior.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) performs coarse-grained credit assignment in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) by assigning the same advantage to all tokens in a rollout. Process reward models can provide finer-grained supervision, but they require step-level annotation or additional reward modeling. We show that hidden-state distributions contain a useful signal for local reasoning quality that can be extracted using only outcome-level correctness labels available in RLVR. Specifically, within each GRPO group, the Wasserstein distance between span-level hidden state distributions of correct and incorrect rollouts increases around regions where their local reasoning quality diverges. This association holds both across examples and within individual trajectories, suggesting that hidden-state distributional divergence can serve as a self-supervision signal for fine-grained credit assignment. We formalize this observation with a separation theorem showing that, under mild structural assumptions, post-divergence spans have larger Wasserstein distances than pre-divergence spans whenever the population-level distributional gap exceeds finite-sample noise. Motivated by this result, we propose \textbf{S}pan-level \textbf{H}idden state \textbf{E}nabled \textbf{A}dvantage \textbf{R}eweighting (SHEAR), which modifies GRPO by using span-level Wasserstein distances to scale token-level advantages, amplifying updates on tokens whose hidden states are more separated from the opposing group. The method requires no additional model and only minimal changes to the training pipeline. Experiments on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and five code generation benchmarks show improvements over standard GRPO and strong performance relative to supervised process reward models, while requiring no additional annotation or reward model training.

We propose agentic automata learning to evaluate the extent to which tool-calling LLM agents can uncover hidden environments through interaction. In our setup, an agent should uncover a hidden deterministic finite automaton (DFA) by interacting with an oracle through (1) membership queries ("Does this string belong to the target language?") and (2) equivalence queries ("Is this the target DFA?"). This yields a scalable testbed with controlled task complexity, measurable interaction efficiency, and strong baselines (classic automata-learning algorithms). Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that performance drops sharply as DFA size increases. Reasoning models are markedly stronger than non-reasoning models, yet trajectory analyses reveal recurring failures in query planning, evidence integration, and hypothesis construction. Overall, our results show that current LLM agents can sometimes perform non-trivial interactive discovery, but remain far less robust and efficient than classic algorithms for the task.