{"ID":3004770,"CreatedAt":"2026-06-03T03:09:48.883664427Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-06-05T11:43:53.432517148Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03741","arxiv_id":"2606.03741","title":"When to Re-Plan: Subgoal Persistence in Hierarchical Latent Reasoning","abstract":"Long-horizon reasoning requires a system to commit to medium-horizon intent without becoming rigid: re-plan too often and computation never coheres into multi-step structure; commit too long and the plan goes stale. We study this stability-adaptivity tradeoff in the latent reasoning setting, where multi-step computation occurs inside hidden state rather than externalized token traces. We extend the Hierarchical Reasoning Model (HRM) with a feudal-style manager-worker interface: a slow high-level module periodically emits a normalized directional subgoal that persists for P low-level steps, biasing the worker's hidden-state updates and supplying an intrinsic cosine alignment loss. On ARC and ConceptARC, we find that subgoal persistence -- not subgoal injection alone -- is the central knob: moderate periods P in [3, 6] consistently outperform both very frequent (P=1) and very long horizons, with a clear minimum LM loss at P=3 (1.544 vs. 1.674 at P=1, 1.640 baseline; replicated over 5 seeds at mean 1.595, std 0.045). The intrinsic alignment weight lambda shows a complementary narrow optimum (lambda approximately 0.05). A controlled ablation at past-sweet-spot lambda isolates learned directional structure -- not architectural capacity or auxiliary loss alone -- as the source of interference when the alignment signal exceeds its optimum. Together these findings implicate a design principle for compositional planning in latent reasoning systems: medium-horizon intent must be coherent across enough computational steps for compositional structure to form.","short_abstract":"Long-horizon reasoning requires a system to commit to medium-horizon intent without becoming rigid: re-plan too often and computation never coheres into multi-step structure; commit too long and the plan goes stale. We study this stability-adaptivity tradeoff in the latent reasoning setting, where multi-step computatio...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03741","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.03741v1","authors":"[\"Ayushi Chadha\"]","published":"2026-06-02T14:55:47Z","proceeding":"cs.AI","tasks":"[\"cs.AI\"]","methods":"[]","has_code":false}