PreprintCited by 1Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningTopic Modeling

Reducing Belief Deviation in Reinforcement Learning for Active Reasoning

Open access
Zou, Deyu, Chen, Yongqiang, Wang, Jianxiang, Yang, Haochen, Li, Mufei, Cheng, James, Li, Pan, Gong, Yu·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Active reasoning requires large language model (LLM) agents to interact with external sources and strategically gather information to solve problems in multiple turns. Central to this process is belief tracking: maintaining an accurate representation of the underlying state and uncertainty in understanding and solving the problem. However, due to limited reasoning capabilities, LLM-based agents often suffer belief deviation: their internal beliefs drift from the true problem state, leading to loss of state awareness and uninformative or repetitive actions. Once this happens, errors compound in the trajectories used for reinforcement learning (RL), leading to misattributed credits and limited exploration. To address this issue, we propose to track belief deviation and develop $\mathbf{T^3}$, a simple yet principled method that detects excessive deviation and truncates training trajectories to suppress uninformative tail effects. Hence, $\mathbf{T^3}$ preserves credits for informative prefixes and systematically improves policy optimization. Across 5 challenging tasks, $\mathbf{T^3}$ consistently enhances training stability and yields performance gains of up to 30 points while cutting token cost by up to 34%. These results highlight belief control as a key principle for building robust LLM agents capable of active reasoning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.12264

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent studies identify belief deviation as a key failure mode of long-horizon LLM agents.

    “Recent studies identify belief deviation as a key failure mode of long-horizon LLM agents (Zou et al., 2025), motivating memory mechanisms that preserve reliable state estimates.”

    From Meta-Cognitive Memory Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Zou et al., 2025

    The Conclusion identifies belief deviation as a key failure mode in reinforcement learning for LLM-based active reasoning. The Introduction places active reasoning within multi-turn reasoning, but the source does not establish the same finding for long-horizon LLM agents generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Belief deviation obscures the agent's estimate of the latent task state and ultimately derails long-horizon reasoning.

    “This exacerbates belief deviation, obscuring the agent's estimate of the latent task state and ultimately derailing long-horizon reasoning.”

    From Meta-Cognitive Memory Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Zou et al., 2025

  • Belief deviation is a key source of long-horizon instability.

    “As discussed above, belief deviation is a key source of long-horizon instability.”

    From Meta-Cognitive Memory Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Zou et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

  • LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation

    Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 10 · cited 7× · see citing works

    “We evaluate T 3 on five interactive reasoning tasks from AR-Bench (Zhou et al., 2025) and Multi-Turn Puzzles (Badola et al., 2025).”
    Influential

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Kartikeya Badola, Jonathan Simon, Arian Hosseini, Sara Marie Mc Carthy, Tsendsuren Munkhdalai, Abhimanyu Goyal, Tomáš Kočiskỳ, Shyam Upadhyay, Bahare Fatemi, and Mehran Kazemi. Multi- turn puzzles: Evaluating interactive reasoning and strategic dialogue in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10142, 2025. · arXiv
  2. Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Liang Chen, Hongru Wang, Wenqiang Lei, and Tat-Seng Chua. Prompting and evaluating large language models for proactive dialogues: Clarification, target-guided, and non-collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13626, 2023. · arXiv
  3. Shihan Dou, Yan Liu, Haoxiang Jia, Limao Xiong, Enyu Zhou, Wei Shen, Junjie Shan, Caishuang Huang, Xiao Wang, Xiaoran Fan, et al. Stepcoder: Improve code generation with reinforcement learning from compiler feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01391, 2024. · arXiv
  4. Dayuan Fu, Keqing He, Yejie Wang, Wentao Hong, Zhuoma Gongque, Weihao Zeng, Wei Wang, Jingang Wang, Xunliang Cai, and Weiran Xu. Agentrefine: Enhancing agent generalization through refinement tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01702, 2025. · arXiv
  5. Kanishk Gandhi, Ayush Chakravarthy, Anikait Singh, Nathan Lile, and Noah D Goodman. Cognitive behaviors that enable self-improving reasoners, or, four habits of highly effective stars. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01307, 2025. · arXiv
  6. Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. · arXiv
  7. Zhiyuan Hu, Chumin Liu, Xidong Feng, Yilun Zhao, See-Kiong Ng, Anh Tuan Luu, Junxian He, Pang Wei W Koh, and Bryan Hooi. Uncertainty of thoughts: Uncertainty-aware planning enhances information seeking in llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:24181-24215, 2024.
  8. Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403, 2022. · arXiv
  9. Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L Littman, and Anthony R Cassandra. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial intelligence, 101(1-2):99-134, 1998.
  10. Wai-Chung Kwan, Xingshan Zeng, Yuxin Jiang, Yufei Wang, Liangyou Li, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Kam-Fai Wong. Mt-eval: A multi-turn capabilities evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16745, 2024. · arXiv
  11. Yubo Li, Xiaobin Shen, Xinyu Yao, Xueying Ding, Yidi Miao, Ramayya Krishnan, and Rema Padman. Beyond single-turn: A survey on multi-turn interactions with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04717, 2025a. · arXiv
  12. Zhong-Zhi Li, Duzhen Zhang, Ming-Liang Zhang, Jiaxin Zhang, Zengyan Liu, Yuxuan Yao, Haotian Xu, Junhao Zheng, Pei-Jie Wang, Xiuyi Chen, et al. From system 1 to system 2: A survey of reasoning large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17419, 2025b. · arXiv
  13. Zhenwen Liang, Dian Yu, Wenhao Yu, Wenlin Yao, Zhihan Zhang, Xiangliang Zhang, and Dong Yu. Mathchat: Benchmarking mathematical reasoning and instruction following in multi-turn interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19444, 2024. · arXiv
  14. Aske Plaat, Annie Wong, Suzan Verberne, Joost Broekens, Niki van Stein, and Thomas Bäck. Reasoning with large language models, a survey. CoRR, 2024.
  15. Aske Plaat, Max van Duijn, Niki van Stein, Mike Preuss, Peter van der Putten, and Kees Joost Batenburg. Agentic large language models, a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23037, 2025. · arXiv
  16. John Schulman, Philipp Moritz, Sergey Levine, Michael Jordan, and Pieter Abbeel. High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438, 2015. · arXiv
  17. John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
  18. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathemat- ical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. · arXiv
  19. Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, pp. 1279-1297, 2025.
  20. Saksham Sahai Srivastava and Vaneet Aggarwal. A technical survey of reinforcement learning techniques for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04136, 2025. · arXiv
  21. Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025. · arXiv
  22. Yanming Wan, Jiaxing Wu, Marwa Abdulhai, Lior Shani, and Natasha Jaques. Enhancing personal- ized multi-turn dialogue with curiosity reward. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03206, 2025. · arXiv
  23. Hanlin Wang, Chak Tou Leong, Jiashuo Wang, Jian Wang, and Wenjie Li. Spa-rl: Reinforcing llm agents via stepwise progress attribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20732, 2025. · arXiv
  24. Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533, 2022. · arXiv
  25. Shuhe Wang, Shengyu Zhang, Jie Zhang, Runyi Hu, Xiaoya Li, Tianwei Zhang, Jiwei Li, Fei Wu, Guoyin Wang, and Eduard Hovy. Reinforcement learning enhanced llms: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10400, 2024. · arXiv
  26. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  27. Shirley Wu, Michel Galley, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Gavin Li, Yao Dou, Weixin Cai, James Zou, Jure Leskovec, and Jianfeng Gao. Collabllm: From passive responders to active collaborators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00640, 2025. · arXiv
  28. Fengli Xu, Qianyue Hao, Zefang Zong, Jingwei Wang, Yunke Zhang, Jingyi Wang, Xiaochong Lan, Jiahui Gong, Tianjian Ouyang, Fanjin Meng, et al. Towards large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09686, 2025. · arXiv
  29. An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024. · arXiv
  30. Haofei Yu, Zhengyang Qi, Yining Zhao, Kolby Nottingham, Keyang Xuan, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Hao Zhu, Paul Pu Liang, and Jiaxuan You. Sotopia-rl: Reward design for social intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03905, 2025. · arXiv
  31. Siyu Yuan, Zehui Chen, Zhiheng Xi, Junjie Ye, Zhengyin Du, and Jiecao Chen. Agent-r: Training language model agents to reflect via iterative self-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11425, 2025. · arXiv
  32. Guibin Zhang, Hejia Geng, Xiaohang Yu, Zhenfei Yin, Zaibin Zhang, Zelin Tan, Heng Zhou, Zhongzhi Li, Xiangyuan Xue, Yijiang Li, et al. The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for llms: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02547, 2025a. · arXiv
  33. Zijing Zhang, Ziyang Chen, Mingxiao Li, Zhaopeng Tu, and Xiaolong Li. Rlvmr: Reinforcement learning with verifiable meta-reasoning rewards for robust long-horizon agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22844, 2025b. · arXiv
  34. Chujie Zheng, Shixuan Liu, Mingze Li, Xiong-Hui Chen, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Kai Dang, Yuqiong Liu, Rui Men, An Yang, et al. Group sequence policy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18071, 2025. · arXiv
  35. Zhanke Zhou, Xiao Feng, Zhaocheng Zhu, Jiangchao Yao, Sanmi Koyejo, and Bo Han. From passive to active reasoning: Can large language models ask the right questions under incomplete information? arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08295, 2025. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zou, D., Chen, Y., Wang, J., Yang, H., Li, M., Cheng, J., Li, P., & Gong, Y.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415269918
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
belief tracking, LLM agents, reinforcement learning, uncertainty representation, training stability, token cost reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review