Deletion Sensitivity Is a Property of the Model: A Three-Condition Measurement across Seven Open Reasoning Models
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Reasoning models write a reasoning trace at every turn of a multi-turn tool session, and later turns read this history. Across 94k ShareGPT conversations, 73 percent of user interactions span multiple turns. Upstream providers bind each trace to its issuer, so a request forwarded across issuers arrives with its history deleted, and the task cost of this stripping remains unmeasured. To the best of our knowledge, this paper presents the first direct, blind, multi-seed measurement of full reasoning-history deletion in multi-turn tool calling, through three rendering conditions, seven open-weight reasoning models, three seeds, 794 tasks, and the official checker. The same deletion spans -4.4 to +51.3 points with both ends excluding zero, and for the one model re-dosed from 0 to 100 percent deletion, the reading varies by at most 1.5 points. Deletion sensitivity is a model-level property. The reading follows the model itself and stays constant across deployments, and a retrained or re-released model is a new model that a two-cell screen, one retention run and one deletion run, re-reads for the cost of two runs. Deletion sensitivity is thus a measurable property of the model, and the reading must enter routing and aggregation as prior information rather than persist as an invisible default cost.
Results and benchmarks
Reasoning models write a reasoning trace at every turn of a multi-turn tool session, and later turns read this history.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX