Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper identifies a critical failure mode in long-horizon LLM agents known as premature commitment, where agents settle on an interpretation of evidence too early and defend it throughout their reasoning process. By defining representational commitment as the convergence of hidden states at a specific reasoning step, the authors demonstrate that this metric can effectively predict behavioral consistency across different models and tasks. Their findings reveal that while commitment indicates whether an agent has settled on a path, it does not correlate with the correctness of the answer, highlighting the need for new diagnostic tools in LLM evaluation.
Agents can mislead themselves by committing too early, leading to significant inconsistencies in their reasoning despite achieving correct answers.
Long-horizon LLM agents can fail quietly: they settle on one reading of the evidence early, then spend the rest of the run defending it. We call this premature commitment. Final-answer scoring misses the failure mode because it sees only the answer, not whether the process has already collapsed to a stable path. We define representational commitment as cross-run hidden-state convergence at a fixed reasoning step, and use it as an early diagnostic of trajectory consistency. On Llama-3.1-70B running ReAct on HotpotQA, step-4 hidden-state similarity predicts downstream behavioral consistency (r = -0.35, partial r = -0.45), with a localized temporal and layer-wise signature. The signal replicates across Qwen-2.5-72B and Phi-3-14B, and on StrategyQA (r = -0.83). It does not track correctness: committed-wrong and committed-correct questions are not separable in activation similarity. That boundary is central to the claim. Commitment tells us whether an agent has settled, not whether it is right. A runtime monitor detects inconsistent trajectories from hidden states at AUROC up to 0.97 (0.85--0.88 under a stricter split), and a prompting intervention cuts behavioral variance by 28% against a token-matched control while leaving accuracy statistically unchanged. We also test whether the signal can route self-consistency compute; on a harder benchmark it helps only modestly and is matched by a simpler output-based baseline. The result is a diagnostic for a hidden process failure, with clear limits rather than a general accuracy lever.
