Test-Time Policy Adaptation for Enhanced Multi-Turn Interactions with LLMs
Authors: Chenxing Wei, Hong Wang, Ying He, Fei Yu, Yao Shu
Organizations: School of Computing and Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute · University of Science and Technology of China · School of Information Technology, Carleton University · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)
Large Language Models (LLMs) employ multi-turn interaction as a fundamental paradigm for completing complex tasks. However, their performance often degrades in extended interactions, as they are typically trained on static, single-turn data, which hinders their ability to adapt to real-time user feedback. To address this limitation, we first propose a new paradigm: Test-Time Policy Adaptation for Multi-Turn Interactions (T2PAM), which utilizes user feedback from the ongoing interaction as a reward signal to estimate a latent optimal policy aligned with user preferences, then updates a small subset of parameters to steer the model toward this policy, ultimately enabling efficient in-conversation self-correction. We then introduce Optimum-Referenced One-Step Adaptation (ROSA), a lightweight algorithm that operationalizes T2PAM. ROSA guides the model parameters toward a theoretical optimal policy in a single, efficient update step, avoiding costly iterative gradient-based optimization and minimizing computational overhead. We provide a rigorous theoretical analysis guaranteeing that the policy of ROSA converges to the preference of user as the number of interactions increases. Extensive experiments on challenging benchmark demonstrate that ROSA achieves significant improvements in both task effectiveness and efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of the Test-Time Policy Adaptation for Multi-Turn Interactions (T 2 PAM) paradigm. Different from static inference where the policy of model remains fixed ( θ0 , Turn 0), this paradigm treats conversational feedback as an active signal that guides real-time parameter updates (e.g., from θ0 to θ1 ). This iterative process of in-conversation self-correction allows the policy to progressively evolve and align with the preference of user ( θn ) throughout the interaction.
Figure 2: LLM accuracy after 10 rounds of interaction with humans. Although LLM accuracy shows a continuous and gradual improvement, this prompt-based correction process is inefficient.
Figure 3: Number of newly solved problems per turn on the MATH dataset.
Feature
Prompt-based Methods
Multi-turn Data Training
T²PAM (Ours)
Intervention Timing
During inference
During training
During inference
Operating Mode
Reactive
Proactive (at training)
Proactive (at inference)
Additional Offline Training Cost
Zero (uses single-turn model)
High
Zero (uses single-turn model)
Inference Cost
Low (long context)
Near-zero
Low (preference alignment)
Parameter Modification
No
Yes (offline)
Yes (online)
Real-time Adaptability
Low (context-dependent)
Low (static policy)
High (policy-level)
Table 1: Conceptual comparison of paradigms for improving multi-turn LLM performance.
Mathematical Reasoning
General Reasoning
Multilingual Reasoning
Code Gen.
Model
Method
MATH
MATH-500
MMLU-R
SuperGPQA
MT-AIME24
MT-MATH100
HumanEval
Qwen2.5-0.5B -Instruct
Baseline
13.40
12.20
7.27
1.90
3.48
15.40
31.09
ROSA (+LM + R)
30.40 (+17.00)
28.00 (+15.80)
9.07 (+1.80)
5.63 (+3.73)
3.67 (+0.19)
22.80 (+7.40)
37.19 (+6.10)
ROSA (+HS + R)
25.40 (+12.00)
25.00 (+12.80)
11.00 (+3.73)
5.00 (+3.10)
4.90 (+1.42)
20.90 (+5.50)
37.27 (+6.18)
ROSA (+LM + M)
27.00 (+13.60)
28.40 (+16.20)
13.72 (+6.45)
6.57 (+4.67)
6.13 (+2.65)
25.20 (+9.80)
39.37 (+8.28)
Qwen3-0.6B
Baseline
25.00
26.00
18.60
4.20
4.80
31.30
41.46
Table 2: Accuracy (%) of ROSA across diverse domains. Baseline is standard multi-turn interaction. (+A+B) denotes update location (LM: LM Head, HS: Hidden States) and reward type (R: rule-based, M: model-based). Red values show absolute improvements. Further details on parameter updates and reward models are provided in Appendix C.5 and C.4 , respectively.
Figure 4: Comparison of baselines , RL (Appendix F.1 ), and ROSA across datasets. Unlike the slow improvement in Figure 2 , ROSA yields steeper learning curves and higher absolute accuracy, demonstrating its superior efficiency in online error correction during multi-turn interactions.
Model
Method
MATH
AIME25
MATH-500
HumanEval
Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct
Baseline
6.88
0.00
6.79
14.39
ROSA
25.48 (+18.60)
6.67 (+6.67)
24.05 (+17.26)
26.09 (+11.70)
Qwen3-0.6B
Baseline
17.40
3.57
17.78
19.33
ROSA
48.87 (+31.47)
16.67 (+13.10)
51.31 (+33.53)
31.01 (+11.68)
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Baseline
12.54
3.57
13.65
28.57
ROSA
41.53 (+28.99)
20.69 (+17.12)
36.91 (+23.26)
40.00 (+11.43)
Table 3: Comparison of Correction Uplift (%).
Appendix figures & tables26 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Domain
Dataset Name
Training Size
Test Size
Mathematical Reasoning
MATH
7,500
5,000
AIME25
N/A
30
MATH-500
N/A
500
General Reasoning
GPQA-diamond
N/A
198
MMLU-Redux
N/A
3,000
SuperGPQA
26,500
N/A
Appendix
Table 4: Overview of the datasets used for evaluation. "N/A" indicates that the dataset is primarily for evaluation and does not have a standard, predefined training set.
Category
Model Name
Parameters
Variant
Small-Scale Models
Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct
0.5B
Instruct
Qwen3-0.6B
0.6B
Base
Large-Scale Models
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
7B
Instruct
Qwen3-8B
8B
Base
Reasoning-Focused
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B
8B
Reasoning-Tuned
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
7B
Reasoning-Tuned
Appendix
Table 5: Overview of the language models used in our experiments, categorized by scale and specialization.
Score
Criterion
+1.0
Correct reasoning and correct final answer.
+0.5
Essentially correct method with a local arithmetic or presentation error.
+0.1
Partially correct core idea, but a critical step is missing or flawed.
−0.5
Limited valid progress; the main reasoning is incorrect.
−1.0
Incorrect or irrelevant reasoning and answer.
Appendix
Table 6: Five-level reward rubric.
Hyperparameter
Value
target_modules
lm_head
Rank
1
lora_alpha
8
lora_dropout
0.1
Appendix
Table 7: LoRA Hyperparameter Configuration.
Method
Template A (Default)
Template B (Direct)
Template C (Guiding)
ROSA (+LM+R)
50.20%
48.40%
52.60%
ROSA (+HS+R)
50.80%
50.20%
51.60%
ROSA (+LM+M)
52.20%
53.60%
54.40%
Appendix
Table 8: Robustness to different feedback templates on the MATH dataset using Qwen3-0.6B. The baseline accuracy without ROSA is 25.00%.
Figure 5: Time-to-Accuracy comparison across different models and datasets. The x-axis represents cumulative wall-clock time. Our method ROSA consistently exhibits steeper learning curves, highlighting its significant advantage in time efficiency.
Model
Method
Averaged Latency (s)
Peak GPU Memory (GB)
Inference
Update
Inference
Update
Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct
Baseline
8.42
0
11.85
0
ROSA
7.97
7.58
11.68
18.60
Qwen3-0.6B
Baseline
18.71
0
15.61
0
ROSA
18.85
13.16
16.24
23.65
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Baseline
19.40
0
42.01
0
Appendix
Table 9: Efficiency analysis of ROSA on models up to 8B parameters. We report the averaged inference latency and peak GPU memory per turn. The “Update” columns show the additional overhead introduced by ROSA.
Model / Method
Peak GPU Memory (GB)
Avg. Time to Solve
Qwen3-32B (Baseline)
94.2
1.0x (Reference)
+ ROSA (+LM+R)
94.9 (+0.7)
1.9x
Appendix
Table 10: Computational overhead on the Qwen3-32B model, evaluated on the MATH dataset.
Model
Setup
OSWorld (Online)
AndroidWorld (Online)
UI-TARS-7B-SFT
Baseline
13.23
27.61
+ ROSA (+LM+R)
16.71 (+3.48)
30.26 (+2.65)
+ ROSA (+LM+M)
17.83 (+4.60)
30.93 (+3.32)
UI-TARS-7B-DPO
Baseline
14.80
28.90
+ ROSA (+LM+R)
17.32 (+2.52)
30.37 (+1.47)
+ ROSA (+LM+M)
18.04 (+3.24)
31.68 (+2.78)
Appendix
Table 11: Success Rate (%) on delayed-reward UI Agent tasks (OSWorld and AndroidWorld). The models complete long trajectories ( ∼ 15 turns) before receiving a single delayed reward.
Task Domain
Benchmark
Metric
Baseline
ROSA
Subjective
MT-Bench
GPT-5.2 Score (Scaled)
60.36
75.57 (+15.21)
Instruction
IFEval
Strict Acc. (%)
58.31
70.26 (+11.95)
Appendix
Table 12: Generalization to open-ended and subjective tasks using Qwen3-0.6B.
Paradigm
Specific Method
Final Acc. (%)
Correction Uplift (%)
Avg. Time to Solve
Standard
Zero-Shot Baseline
26.00
17.40
1.0x (Reference)
Automatic Prompt Eng.
APE (DSPy Khattab et al. (2024) )
29.20
16.83
∼ 1.0x
APE (TextGrad Yuksekgonul et al. (2025) )
29.40
16.76
∼ 1.0x
APE (TSGD-M Ding et al. (2025) )
30.20
17.16
∼ 1.0x
Search & Sampling
Best-of- N ( N=10 )
36.40
20.36
∼ 10.0x
Reranking ( N=10 + RM)
37.80
21.57
∼ 10.0x + RM
Appendix
Table 13: Comprehensive comparison against test-time compute baselines on the MATH dataset using Qwen3-0.6B. ROSA achieves the highest accuracy and correction uplift with a highly competitive time overhead.
Model / Method
MATH
MMLU-R
MT-AIME24
HumanEval
Qwen3-32B (Baseline)
76.40
73.63
67.93
85.37
+ ROSA (+LM+R)
87.80 (+11.40)
85.12 (+11.49)
76.19 (+8.26)
87.80 (+2.43)
+ ROSA (+HS+R)
87.40 (+11.00)
86.05 (+12.42)
77.27 (+9.34)
87.80 (+2.43)
Appendix
Table 14: Performance scalability of ROSA on the Qwen3-32B model across diverse benchmarks.
Method
Turn 5
Turn 10
Turn 15
Turn 20
Baseline
19.40
25.00
27.20
27.20
ROSA
25.80 (+6.40)
50.20 (+25.20)
57.40 (+30.20)
64.80 (+37.60)
Appendix
Table 15: Extended horizon evaluation on the MATH dataset over 20 conversational turns (Accuracy %).
Method
Reward Granularity
Final Acc. (%)
Avg. Turns to Solve
Baseline
None
26.00
8.9
ROSA (Rule ORM)
Final Outcome Reward
50.20
6.9
ROSA (LLM ORM)
Continuous Outcome Reward
52.20
6.7
ROSA (Rubric)
Five-Level Outcome Reward
51.80
6.7
ROSA (PRM)
Step-level Process Reward
60.40 (+10.20)
5.8
Appendix
Table 16: Performance comparison of ROSA using Outcome Reward Models (ORM) versus Process Reward Models (PRM) on the MATH dataset using Qwen3-0.6B.
Model State
MMLU (Zero-shot Acc. %)
Wikitext Perplexity
Average KL Divergence
Base Model
51.03
18.2037
0.0
ROSA Adapted Model (10 updates)
51.36
18.2045
0.001
Appendix
Table 17: General knowledge retention stress test on Qwen3-0.6B. The model was evaluated after undergoing 10 consecutive ROSA updates on unresolved math problems.
Method
Feedback Samples / Turn
Final Acc. (%)
Avg. Turns to Solve
Avg. Time to Solve
Baseline
–
26.00
8.9
1.0x
ROSA-Single (Ours)
M=1
50.20
6.7
∼ 1.8x
ROSA-Multi
M=4
52.60 (+2.40)
6.5
∼ 6.9x
Appendix
Table 18: Comparison of single-sample ( M=1 ) versus multi-sample ( M=4 ) feedback on the MATH dataset using Qwen3-0.6B.
MATH
AIME25
MATH-500
HumanEval
Method
Final Acc. ↑
Correction Uplift ↑
Final Acc. ↑
Correction Uplift ↑
Final Acc. ↑
Correction Uplift ↑
Final Acc. ↑
Correction Uplift ↑
Baseline
7.60
3.14
10.00
3.57
7.40
6.09
45.12
17.05
ROSA
9.80 (+2.20)
5.65 (+2.51)
16.67 (+6.67)
16.67 (+13.10)
22.20 (+14.80)
18.62 (+12.53)
51.22 (+6.10)
33.75 (+16.70)
Appendix
Table 19: Performance of the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-8B model on mathematical reasoning and code generation datasets. The values in red indicate the absolute improvement of ROSA over the baseline.
Mathematical Reasoning
General Reasoning
Multilingual Reasoning
Model
Method
AIME25
GPQA-diamond
M-IMO
Qwen2.5-0.5B -Instruct
Baseline
3.33
3.54
1.99
ROSA (+LM + R)
6.67 (+3.34)
7.07 (+3.53)
2.09 (+0.10)
ROSA (+HS + R)
6.67 (+3.34)
8.53 (+4.99)
3.20 (+1.21)
ROSA (+LM + M)
6.67 (+3.34)
10.27 (+6.73)
4.71 (+2.72)
Qwen3-0.6B
Baseline
10.00
12.20
5.20
Appendix
Table 20: Supplementary performance results on additional benchmarks, reporting accuracy (%). The values in red indicate the absolute improvement of ROSA variants over the baseline.
Method
Final Acc. ↑
Correction Uplift ↑
Baseline
55.80
23.00
SFT Training
63.80
39.24
RL Training
66.20
40.45
ROSA
65.80
40.42
Appendix
Table 21: Comparison of ROSA with training-based methods on the MATH dataset for the Qwen3-8B model. Our test-time method achieves performance comparable to full Reinforcement Learning (RL) training and surpasses Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), with zero additional offline training cost.
Figure 6: Detailed distribution of newly solved problems per round on the MATH dataset across various models.
Adaptation scope
Feedback used
Success (%)
No parameter updates
None
3
Instance-specific, reset between tasks
Negative only
14
Persistent across tasks
Negative only
16
Persistent across tasks
Positive and negative
19
Appendix
Table 22: Learning from successful trajectories on BigCodeBench-Hard.
Figure 7: Preference alignment on ALOE using Qwen3-8B. Mean Alignment Level (1–5) across 100 personas is shown at each interaction turn. ROSA improves alignment more rapidly than standard multi-turn interaction, reaching 4.99 versus 4.70 at turn 10. Both methods use the same judging protocol; details are in Appendix E.12 .
Method
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
Baseline
2.93
2.99
2.94
3.21
3.53
4.01
4.27
4.57
4.68
4.70
3.78
ROSA
2.93
3.51
3.95
4.33
4.68
4.74
4.89
4.95
4.98
4.99
4.40
Appendix
Table 23: ALOE preference-satisfaction scores (1–5) at each turn. The mean is over ten turns.
Model
Method
MATH
MATH-500
AIME25
HumanEval
Qwen3-0.6B
RL
26.20
28.80
10.00
42.68
ROSA
50.20 (+24.00)
51.60 (+22.80)
16.67 (+6.67)
45.73 (+3.05)
Qwen3-8B
RL
59.60
63.60
16.67
79.27
ROSA
65.80 (+6.20)
72.80 (+9.20)
30.00 (+13.33)
81.71 (+2.44)
DeepSeek-R1-Distill -Llama-8B
RL
6.20
8.40
10.00
28.05
ROSA
7.80 (+1.60)
18.40 (+10.00)
16.67 (+6.67)
39.02 (+10.97)
Appendix
Table 24: Comparison of Accuracy (%) on mathematical reasoning datasets with RL and ROSA.
Model
Method
MATH
MATH-500
AIME25
HumanEval
Qwen3-0.6B
RL
18.54
20.00
6.90
22.31
ROSA
48.87 (+30.33)
51.31 (+31.31)
16.67 (+9.77)
31.01 (+8.70)
Qwen3-8B
RL
29.37
31.58
10.71
50.00
ROSA
40.42 (+11.05)
52.94 (+21.36)
27.59 (+16.88)
62.50 (+12.50)
DeepSeek-R1-Distill -Llama-8B
RL
4.87
7.29
6.90
16.31
ROSA
6.30 (+1.43)
17.41 (+10.12)
13.79 (+6.89)
31.97 (+15.66)
Appendix
Table 25: Comparison of Correction Uplift (%) on mathematical reasoning datasets with RL and ROSA.
Figure 8: Ablation study of the hyperparameter β on the MATH dataset. The figure illustrates the cumulative accuracy over 10 conversational turns for different values of β , ranging from 0.25 to 1.75.
Test-time policy adaptation for multi-turn interactions (T2PAM) is essential for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with dynamic user needs during inference time. However, existing paradigms commonly treat test-time adaptation as a single-axis problem, either purely refining instructions (Prompt Engineering) or only adjusting weights (Test-Time Training), ignoring that interaction failures stem from a coupled mix of ambiguity and incapacity. We argue that these two optimization paths are not merely additive but synergistic: semantic clarity acts as a pre-conditioner for effective parameter updates. To this end, we propose ROSA2, a framework that reformulates interaction as a joint optimization problem over the heterogeneous space of Words and Weights. By mathematically decomposing the error signal, ROSA2 utilizes textual gradients to rectify intent ambiguity and parameter updates to bridge capability gaps. Theoretically, we prove that this co-adaptation strictly reduces the required parameter shift for convergence. Empirically, ROSA2 outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 30% on MATH while reducing interaction turns by 40%, demonstrating that refining the context unlocks the true potential of parameter updates.
Chenxing Wei, Hong Wang, Ying He +4
Shenzhen University · Guangdong Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy (SZ) · Bytedance +4
Multi-turn human-AI collaboration is fundamental to deploying interactive services such as adaptive tutoring, conversational recommendation, and professional consultation. However, optimizing these interactions via reinforcement learning is hindered by the sparsity of verifiable intermediate rewards and the high stochasticity of user responses. To address these challenges, we introduce Implicit Turn-wise Policy Optimization (ITPO). ITPO leverages an implicit process reward model to derive fine-grained, turn-wise process rewards from sparse outcome signals. Unlike volatile token-level rewards, these turn-level signals exhibit superior robustness and may utilize a normalization mechanism to further enhance training stability. We evaluate ITPO across three representative multi-turn collaborative tasks: math tutoring, document writing, and medical recommendation. Empirical results demonstrate that ITPO, when combined with PPO, GRPO, or RLOO, consistently achieves improved convergence than existing baselines. Elaborate trajectory analysis confirms that ITPO infers turn-wise preferences that are semantically aligned with human judgment. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/Graph-COM/ITPO.
While LLMs demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities when provided with full information in a single turn, they exhibit substantial vulnerability in multi-turn interactions. Specifically, when information is revealed incrementally or requires updates, models frequently fail to integrate new constraints, leading to a collapse in performance compared to their single-turn baselines. We term the root cause as Contextual Inertia: a phenomenon where models rigidly adhere to previous reasoning traces. Even when users explicitly provide corrections or new data in later turns, the model ignores them, preferring to maintain consistency with its previous (incorrect) reasoning path. To address this, we introduce Reinforcement Learning with Single-Turn Anchors (RLSTA), a generalizable training approach designed to stabilize multi-turn interaction across diverse scenarios and domains. RLSTA leverages the model's superior single-turn capabilities as stable internal anchors to provide reward signals. By aligning multi-turn responses with these anchors, RLSTA empowers models to break contextual inertia and self-calibrate their reasoning based on the latest information. Experiments show that RLSTA significantly outperforms standard fine-tuning and abstention-based methods. Notably, our method exhibits strong cross-domain generalization (e.g., math to code) and proves effective even without external verifiers, highlighting its potential for general-domain applications. Code is available at https://github.com/Tencent/RLSTA.
Xingwu Chen, Zhanqiu Zhang, Yiwen Guo +1
School of Computing and Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · LIGHTSPEED · Independent Researcher