RLAD: Training LLMs to Discover Abstractions for Solving Reasoning Problems

Reasoning requires going beyond pattern matching or memorization of solutions to identify and implement "algorithmic procedures" that can be used to deduce answers to hard problems. Doing so requires realizing the most relevant primitives, intermediate results, or shared procedures, and building upon them. While RL post-training on long chains of thought ultimately aims to uncover this kind of algorithmic behavior, most reasoning traces learned by large models fail to consistently capture or reuse procedures, instead drifting into verbose and degenerate exploration. To address more effective reasoning, we introduce reasoning abstractions: concise natural language descriptions of procedural and factual knowledge that guide the model toward learning successful reasoning. We train models to be capable of proposing multiple abstractions given a problem, followed by RL that incentivizes building a solution while using the information provided by these abstractions. This results in a two-player RL training paradigm, abbreviated as RLAD, that jointly trains an abstraction generator and a solution generator. This setup effectively enables structured exploration, decouples learning signals of abstraction proposal and solution generation, and improves generalization to harder problems. We also show that allocating more test-time compute to generating abstractions is more beneficial for performance than generating more solutions at large test budgets, illustrating the role of abstractions in guiding meaningful exploration.

Lower Bounds for Public-Private Learning under Distribution Shift

The most effective differentially private machine learning algorithms in practice rely on an additional source of purportedly public data. This paradigm is most interesting when the two sources combine to be more than the sum of their parts. However, there are settings such as mean estimation where we have strong lower bounds, showing that when the two data sources have the same distribution, there is no complementary value to combining the two data sources. In this work we extend the known lower bounds for public-private learning to setting where the two data sources exhibit significant distribution shift. Our results apply to both Gaussian mean estimation where the two distributions have different means, and to Gaussian linear regression where the two distributions exhibit parameter shift. We find that when the shift is small (relative to the desired accuracy), either public or private data must be sufficiently abundant to estimate the private parameter. Conversely, when the shift is large, public data provides no benefit.

e3: Learning to Explore Enables Extrapolation of Test-Time Compute for LLMs

Test-time scaling offers a promising path to improve LLM reasoning by utilizing more compute at inference time; however, the true promise of this paradigm lies in extrapolation (i.e., improvement in performance on hard problems as LLMs keep "thinking" for longer, beyond the maximum token budget they were trained on). Surprisingly, we find that most existing reasoning models do not extrapolate well. We show that one way to enable extrapolation is by training the LLM to perform in-context exploration: training the LLM to effectively spend its test time budget by chaining operations (such as generation, verification, refinement, etc.), or testing multiple hypotheses before it commits to an answer. To enable in-context exploration, we identify three key ingredients as part of our recipe e3: (1) chaining skills that the base LLM has asymmetric competence in, e.g., chaining verification (easy) with generation (hard), as a way to implement in-context search; (2) leveraging "negative" gradients from incorrect traces to amplify exploration during RL, resulting in longer search traces that chains additional asymmetries; and (3) coupling task difficulty with training token budget during training via a specifically-designed curriculum to structure in-context exploration. Our recipe e3 produces the best known 1.7B model according to AIME'25 and HMMT'25 scores, and extrapolates to 2x the training token budget. Our e3-1.7B model not only attains high pass@1 scores, but also improves pass@k over the base model.

Thinking vs. Doing: Agents that Reason by Scaling Test-Time Interaction

The current paradigm of test-time scaling relies on generating long reasoning traces ("thinking" more) before producing a response. In agent problems that require interaction, this can be done by generating thinking traces before acting in the world. However, this process does not allow agents to acquire new information from the environment or adapt their behavior over time. In this work, we propose to scale test-time interaction, an untapped dimension of test-time scaling that increases the agent's interaction horizon to enable running rich behaviors such as exploration, backtracking, and dynamic re-planning within a single rollout. To demonstrate the promise of this scaling dimension, we study the domain of web agents. We first show that even prompting-based interaction scaling without any training can improve task success on web benchmarks non-trivially. Building on this, we introduce TTI (Test-Time Interaction), a curriculum-based online reinforcement learning (RL) approach that trains agents by adaptively adjusting their rollout lengths. Using a Gemma 3 12B model, TTI produces state-of-the-art open-source, open-data web agents on WebVoyager and WebArena benchmarks. We further show that TTI enables agents to balance exploration and exploitation adaptively. Our results establish interaction scaling as a powerful, complementary axis to scaling per-step compute, offering new avenues for training adaptive agents.

Exact Unlearning of Finetuning Data via Model Merging at Scale

Approximate unlearning has gained popularity as an approach to efficiently update an LLM so that it behaves (roughly) as if it was not trained on a subset of data to begin with. However, existing methods are brittle in practice and can easily be attacked to reveal supposedly unlearned information. To alleviate issues with approximate unlearning, we instead propose SIFT-Masks (SIgn-Fixed Tuning-Masks), an exact unlearning method based on model merging. SIFT-Masks addresses two key limitations of standard model merging: (1) merging a large number of tasks can severely harm utility; and (2) methods that boost utility by sharing extra information across tasks make exact unlearning prohibitively expensive. SIFT-Masks solves these issues by (1) applying local masks to recover task-specific performance; and (2) constraining finetuning to align with a global sign vector as a lightweight approach to determine masks independently before merging. Across four settings where we merge up to 500 models, SIFT-Masks improves accuracy by 5-80% over naive merging and uses up to 250x less compute for exact unlearning compared to other merging baselines.

Optimizing Test-Time Compute via Meta Reinforcement Fine-Tuning

Training models to effectively use test-time compute is crucial for improving the reasoning performance of LLMs. Current methods mostly do so via fine-tuning on search traces or running RL with 0/1 outcome reward, but do these approaches efficiently utilize test-time compute? Would these approaches continue to scale as the budget improves? In this paper, we try to answer these questions. We formalize the problem of optimizing test-time compute as a meta-reinforcement learning (RL) problem, which provides a principled perspective on spending test-time compute. This perspective enables us to view the long output stream from the LLM as consisting of several episodes run at test time and leads us to use a notion of cumulative regret over output tokens as a way to measure the efficacy of test-time compute. Akin to how RL algorithms can best tradeoff exploration and exploitation over training, minimizing cumulative regret would also provide the best balance between exploration and exploitation in the token stream. While we show that state-of-the-art models do not minimize regret, one can do so by maximizing a dense reward bonus in conjunction with the outcome 0/1 reward RL. This bonus is the ''progress'' made by each subsequent block in the output stream, quantified by the change in the likelihood of eventual success. Using these insights, we develop Meta Reinforcement Fine-Tuning, or MRT, a new class of fine-tuning methods for optimizing test-time compute. MRT leads to a 2-3x relative gain in performance and roughly a 1.5x gain in token efficiency for math reasoning compared to outcome-reward RL.

Scaling Test-Time Compute Without Verification or RL is Suboptimal

Despite substantial advances in scaling test-time compute, an ongoing debate in the community is how it should be scaled up to enable continued and efficient improvements with scaling. There are largely two approaches: first, distilling successful search or thinking traces; and second, using verification (e.g., 0/1 outcome rewards, reward models, or verifiers) to guide reinforcement learning (RL) and search algorithms. In this paper, we prove that finetuning LLMs with verifier-based (VB) methods based on RL or search is far superior to verifier-free (VF) approaches based on distilling or cloning search traces, given a fixed amount of compute/data budget. Further, we show that as we scale test-time compute (measured as the output token length) and training data, suboptimality of VF methods scales poorly compared to VB when the base pre-trained LLM presents a heterogeneous distribution over correct solution traces (e.g., different lengths, styles, etc.) and admits a non-sharp distribution over rewards on traces sampled from it. We formalize this condition using anti-concentration [Erd\H{o}s, 1945]. This implies a stronger result that VB methods scale better asymptotically, with the performance gap between VB and VF methods widening as test-time budget grows. We corroborate our theory empirically on both didactic and math reasoning problems with 3/8/32B-sized pre-trained LLMs, where we find verification is crucial for scaling test-time compute.

What Do Learning Dynamics Reveal About Generalization in LLM Reasoning?

Despite the remarkable capabilities of modern large language models (LLMs), the mechanisms behind their problem-solving abilities remain elusive. In this work, we aim to better understand how the learning dynamics of LLM finetuning shapes downstream generalization. Our analysis focuses on reasoning tasks, whose problem structure allows us to distinguish between memorization (the exact replication of reasoning steps from the training data) and performance (the correctness of the final solution). We find that a model's generalization behavior can be effectively characterized by a training metric we call pre-memorization train accuracy: the accuracy of model samples on training queries before they begin to copy the exact reasoning steps from the training set. On the dataset level, this metric is able to reliably predict test accuracy, achieving $R^2$ of around or exceeding 0.9 across various models (Llama3 8, Gemma2 9B), datasets (GSM8k, MATH), and training configurations. On a per-example level, this metric is also indicative of whether individual model predictions are robust to perturbations in the training query. By connecting a model's learning behavior to its generalization, pre-memorization train accuracy can guide targeted improvements to training strategies. We focus on data curation as an example, and show that prioritizing examples with low pre-memorization accuracy leads to 1.5-2x improvements in data efficiency compared to i.i.d. data scaling, and outperforms other standard data curation techniques.

Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is $>8\%$ more accurate, and $1.5-5\times$ more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with $5-6\times$ gain in sample efficiency, and $>6\%$ gain in accuracy, over ORMs.

RL on Incorrect Synthetic Data Scales the Efficiency of LLM Math Reasoning by Eight-Fold

Training on model-generated synthetic data is a promising approach for finetuning LLMs, but it remains unclear when it helps or hurts. In this paper, we investigate this question for math reasoning via an empirical study, followed by building a conceptual understanding of our observations. First, we find that while the typical approach of finetuning a model on synthetic correct or positive problem-solution pairs generated by capable models offers modest performance gains, sampling more correct solutions from the finetuned learner itself followed by subsequent fine-tuning on this self-generated data $\textbf{doubles}$ the efficiency of the same synthetic problems. At the same time, training on model-generated positives can amplify various spurious correlations, resulting in flat or even inverse scaling trends as the amount of data increases. Surprisingly, we find that several of these issues can be addressed if we also utilize negative responses, i.e., model-generated responses that are deemed incorrect by a final answer verifier. Crucially, these negatives must be constructed such that the training can appropriately recover the utility or advantage of each intermediate step in the negative response. With this per-step scheme, we are able to attain consistent gains over only positive data, attaining performance similar to amplifying the amount of synthetic data by $\mathbf{8 \times}$. We show that training on per-step negatives can help to unlearn spurious correlations in the positive data, and is equivalent to advantage-weighted reinforcement learning (RL), implying that it inherits robustness benefits of RL over imitating positive data alone.