Multi-zone variable-air-volume control must balance thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and electricity use across several continuous actuators. Model predictive control and reinforcement learning are widely studied, but deployment typically requires building-specific modeling or training, limiting scalability. We first test whether a frontier reasoning model (an LLM trained to use additional inference-time computation) can achieve competitive VAV control from text without building-specific training. With that capability established, we then test whether TD3-guided reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) can transfer control knowledge into a locally deployable open-weight model. Five controllers are evaluated over three summer days in a physics-based four-zone emulator. Relative to a Guideline 36-based baseline, TD3 reduced HVAC electricity by 4.5% while improving temperature and CO2 compliance. Without building-specific training, GPT-5 achieved the largest reduction (6.2%) but reduced the ventilation margin. For RFT, deterministic rollouts restore a saved state, apply one candidate, and follow TD3 to score each action. Auditing a learned critic against these rollouts exposed a failure hidden by its near-perfect across-time correlation (r=0.9998): within-state ranking was unreliable; the critic selected the rollout-best candidate in only 5 of 10 states. Even with the rollout verifier, 200 RFT steps produced no sustained improvement in sampled-action return; the open-weight controller used more electricity than the baseline before and after training, and its five-minute predictions remained worse than persistence. GPT-5 predicted transitions far better. Exact rollout scores rank sampled actions but reveal neither next-state effects nor an improvement direction. The unchanged transition errors motivate transition-focused supervised fine-tuning before value-based RFT.
Reinforcement learning post-training unlocks complex reasoning in LLMs. Yet benchmark scores reveal only whether a model improved, not what changed inside it, nor how it splits finite capability across tasks. A representative interpretability line attributes the success of RL fine-tuning to stronger and more diverse circuit activation. We challenge this activation-centered account by separating activation from control: an activated circuit need not control the post-training reward gain. Adapting Metabolic Control Analysis, we define the Post-training Control Coefficient to measure component control over reward gain and arrange these coefficients by task family into a control matrix, paired with an activation-magnitude matrix. We call cross-task control concentration the Shared Control Bottleneck and the difference between activation and control concentration the Activation-Control Gap. This reveals that highly shared activations can coexist with task-specific control, while a small gap indicates that control has collapsed onto a shared direction and lost task specificity. To reduce this collapse, we regularize the post-training loss with the Shared Control Bottleneck and propose Control-Diverse Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (CD-RFT). The exact regularizer gradient requires second-order automatic differentiation incompatible with flash attention, so we derive a first-order proxy with worst-case overhead below eight percent. On Qwen2.5-7B, CD-RFT achieves the largest control decoupling and improves multi-task capability over matched GRPO across mathematics, code, and logic. The no-KL variant leads on pass@1, and the KL-penalized variant leads on large-k pass@k coverage that KL otherwise degrades. Together, these results show that the Shared Control Bottleneck is both a mechanistic diagnostic and a training regularizer, and that control decoupling and capability gains transfer to Llama-3.2-3B.
Reinforcement-learning post-training dominates modern language-model development, yet its power behavior on GPU hardware has not been characterized, and datacenters manage GPU power with workload-blind mechanisms, static caps and reactive throttling, that slow hardware indiscriminately. We instrument GRPO training with half-second power telemetry at 7B, 14B, and 72B scales on one to four A100s (380,000+ samples), and train a PPO meta-controller that adapts the workload's own generation parameters to measured power. Against the full 500-step 7B trace, the controller cuts power-limit violations by 89.8% while increasing token output by 18.1% and energy efficiency by 26.2% (tokens per MWh). Deployed live at 72B, the same controller family yields replicated null results, diagnosed as the group-size actuator losing authority under model sharding. An actuator-authority sweep shows the same parameters applied as generation concurrency retain 17-22% power authority, isolating an occupancy-versus-volume principle; a controller rebuilt on that actuator controls a live 72B rollout-generation workload across three replications: 35.7% more output than a static safe baseline at 2.27 +/- 1.08% budget violations, 87.2% fewer violations than uncontrolled operation, and the best mean throughput and energy per token among constrained controllers, with an adaptive threshold rule matching it in one of three operating conditions. Under realistic measurement windows the original 72B transients fall from 23.6% at half-second resolution to 1.6% at 30 s and zero at 5 min; a composed 16-GPU fleet shows zero violations at 30 s and longer, with peak demand at 50-56% of nameplate. For this fleet mix, roughly twofold oversubscription of nameplate appears feasible, subject to operator validation. We quantify the economic and carbon consequences and specify a low-cost operator pilot.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated that reinforcement fine-tuning of pretrained base models can lead to significant gains in reasoning performance at inference time. In this work, we theoretically analyze why reinforcement fine-tuning induces better reasoning ability than purely supervised fine-tuning (SFT) methods. We model chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning as a pathfinding problem on graphs and compare the popular method of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) against traditional SFT. We prove that SFT, when trained on golden shortest paths without negative examples, fails to learn how to efficiently backtrack. In contrast, an RLVR-trained model can learn how to efficiently backtrack from dead ends using only outcome reward. This leads to an exponential separation in inference-time compute between the two methods, and demonstrates that RLVR leads the model to learn the location of difficult decisions in a reasoning chain, ultimately allowing for better allocation of inference-time compute. Finally, we show that the reasoning traces of an RLVR model can be distilled to train a base model to backtrack efficiently as well.