What If We Allocate Test-Time Compute Adaptively?

Test-time compute scaling allocates inference computation uniformly, uses fixed sampling strategies, and applies verification only for reranking. In contrast, we propose a verifier-guided adaptive framework treating reasoning as iterative trajectory generation and selection. For each problem, the agent runs multiple inference iterations. In each iteration, it optionally produces a high-level plan, selects a set of reasoning tools and a compute strategy together with an exploration parameter, and then generates a candidate reasoning trajectory. A process reward model (PRM) serves as a unified control signal: within each iteration, step-level PRM scores are aggregated to guide pruning and expansion during generation, and across iterations, aggregated trajectory rewards are used to select the final response. Across datasets, our dynamic, PRM-guided approach consistently outperforms direct test-time scaling, yielding large gains on MATH-500 and several-fold improvements on harder benchmarks such as AIME24 and AMO-Bench. We characterize efficiency using theoretical FLOPs and a compute intensity metric penalizing wasted generation and tool overhead, demonstrating that verification-guided allocation concentrates computation on high-utility reasoning paths.

Neural Optimizer Equation, Decay Function, and Learning Rate Schedule Joint Evolution

A major contributor to the quality of a deep learning model is the selection of the optimizer. We propose a new dual-joint search space in the realm of neural optimizer search (NOS), along with an integrity check, to automate the process of finding deep learning optimizers. Our dual-joint search space simultaneously allows for the optimization of not only the update equation, but also internal decay functions and learning rate schedules for optimizers. We search the space using our proposed mutation-only, particle-based genetic algorithm able to be massively parallelized for our domain-specific problem. We evaluate our candidate optimizers on the CIFAR-10 dataset using a small ConvNet. To assess generalization, the final optimizers were then transferred to large-scale image classification on CIFAR- 100 and TinyImageNet, while also being fine-tuned on Flowers102, Cars196, and Caltech101 using EfficientNetV2Small. We found multiple optimizers, learning rate schedules, and Adam variants that outperformed Adam, as well as other standard deep learning optimizers, across the image classification tasks.

Evolving Loss Functions for Specific Image Augmentation Techniques

Previous work in Neural Loss Function Search (NLFS) has shown a lack of correlation between smaller surrogate functions and large convolutional neural networks with massive regularization. We expand upon this research by revealing another disparity that exists, correlation between different types of image augmentation techniques. We show that different loss functions can perform well on certain image augmentation techniques, while performing poorly on others. We exploit this disparity by performing an evolutionary search on five types of image augmentation techniques in the hopes of finding image augmentation specific loss functions. The best loss functions from each evolution were then taken and transferred to WideResNet-28-10 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 across each of the five image augmentation techniques. The best from that were then taken and evaluated by fine-tuning EfficientNetV2Small on the CARS, Oxford-Flowers, and Caltech datasets across each of the five image augmentation techniques. Multiple loss functions were found that outperformed cross-entropy across multiple experiments. In the end, we found a single loss function, which we called the inverse bessel logarithm loss, that was able to outperform cross-entropy across the majority of experiments.