When LLMs Forget What They Believe: Characterizing State Integrity Collapse in Long-Horizon

Extended evaluations at depths up to 50 turns confirm that the dissociation persists beyond the core benchmark, while Structured State Anchoring recovers up to 24.4 points on immutable constraints. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 23 October 2026. Large language models can repeat an instruction while failing to keep obeying it. We study this recall-compliance dissociation in long-horizon dialogue and define State Integrity Collapse: a model preserves a stated constraint in memory but stops applying it to later turns. We introduce StateTrack-Bench, a controlled suite of conversations covering numerical, format, role/persona, factual-memory, and logical-rule constraints. Across seven provider-pinned model snapshots and five dialogue-depth probes, strict joint retention ranges from 62.4% to 100.0%, with degradation concentrated in symbolic constraints and in one especially brittle model. A forked recall audit shows that 88.6% of observed failures are behavioral-drift failures rather than ordinary forgetting; excluding the brittle outlier preserves this diagnosis (84.4% of failures). The results show that reliability cannot be inferred from single-turn instruction following alone; evaluation must track whether remembered constraints remain operational as dialogue state grows. Code and artifacts are available at: https://github.com/xzzvsxd/StateTrack.

Why it counts

Extended evaluations at depths up to 50 turns confirm that the dissociation persists beyond the core benchmark, while Structured State Anchoring recovers up to 24.4 points on immutable constraints.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.