Can Test-Time Memory Evolution Outperform Test-Time Training for Scientific Discovery?
Organizations: UC Santa Barbara · UC Berkeley
Abstract
Recent test-time training (TTT) frameworks have enabled open-weight large language models (LLMs) to outperform inference-only frameworks powered by frontier models on scientific discovery tasks. However, TTT introduces additional computational cost for online weight updates during the discovery process, making computational efficiency an important consideration when scaling to larger models. This motivates us to explore an efficient test-time adaptation method for scientific discovery. We introduce Test-Time Memory Evolution (TTME), a plug-and-play test-time adaptation method, as an alternative to TTT. TTME continually updates the external memory by distilling the experience to guide subsequent discovery without updating model weights. To have a clean comparison, we evaluate TTME and TTT under the same discovery framework, replacing only the test-time adaptation method. Our evaluation shows that TTME outperforms TTT on all five mathematical tasks, while reducing computational cost by - in FLOPs and - in runtime. These results establish TTME as an effective and computationally efficient alternative to TTT in the evaluated discovery settings.
Figures & tables
| Method | Model | Erdős | AC1 | AC2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTT-Discover (w/ TTT) | Qwen3-8B | 0.380932 | 1.50525 | 0.9472 |
| TTT-Discover (w/o TTT) | Qwen3-8B | 0.380957 | 1.505242 | 0.944771 |
| Ours (w/ TTME) | Qwen3-8B | 0.380927 | 1.504329 | 0.949248 |
| TTT-Discover (w/ TTT) | gpt-oss-120b | 0.380876 | 1.50287 | 0.9591 |
| TTT-Discover (w/o TTT) | gpt-oss-120b | 0.380945 | 1.505966 | 0.953682 |
| Ours (w/ TTME) | gpt-oss-120b | 0.380862 | 1.502745 | 0.960784 |
| Method | Model | AC2 | AC3 | Hadamard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ThetaEvolve (w/ TTT) | Distill-Qwen3-8B | 0.9469 | 1.4930 | 0.5764 |
| ThetaEvolve (w/o TTT) | Distill-Qwen3-8B | 0.947375 | 1.519277 | 0.571085 |
| Ours (w/ TTME) | Distill-Qwen3-8B | 0.948148 | 1.464224 | 0.579938 |
| Runtime excluding evaluation (h) | Computational cost (EFLOPs) | ||||||
| Task | Model | TTT | TTME | Reduction | TTT | TTME | Reduction |
| AC1 | Qwen3-8B | 11.76 | 5.36 | 54.5% | 29.47 | 4.53 | 84.6% |
| AC2 | Qwen3-8B | 12.73 | 6.66 | 47.7% | 33.09 | 5.69 | 82.8% |
| Erdős | Qwen3-8B | 11.67 | 4.85 | 58.4% | 26.21 | 4.15 | 84.2% |
| TTT | TTME | AC2 | Erdős |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTT-Discover framework: Qwen3-8B | |||
| ✗ | ✗ | 0.944771 | 0.380957 |
| ✓ | ✗ | 0.9472 | 0.380932 |
| ✗ | ✓ | 0.949248 | 0.380927 |
| ✓ | ✓ | 0.944141 | 0.380944 |
| Configuration | AC1 | AC2 | Erdős |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTT-Discover framework: gpt-oss-120b | |||
| Full TTME | 1.502745 | 0.960784 | 0.380862 |
| w/o Guideline Memory | 1.505644 | 0.958506 | 0.380865 |
| w/o Strategy Memory | 1.505981 | 0.956493 | 0.380864 |
| w/o TTME | 1.505966 | 0.953682 | 0.380946 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Task | Score | Best-found |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 ( ) | Upper bound | Minimum |
| AC2 ( ) | Lower bound | Maximum |
| AC3 ( ) | Upper bound | Minimum |
| Erdős ( ) | Upper bound | Minimum |
| Hadamard ( ) | Normalized determinant | Maximum |
| Setting | Original ThetaEvolve | Ours | |
| w/o TTT | w/o TTT | w/ TTME | |
| Search budget and archive | |||
| Search steps | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| Parents candidates per parent | |||
| Primary candidates per run | 33,280 | 33,280 | 33,280 |
| Random seeds | 42, 1234, 3407 | 3407 | 3407 |
| Setting | Original TTT-Discover | Ours | |
|---|---|---|---|
| w/ TTT | w/o TTT | w/ TTME | |
| Search budget and reuse buffer | |||
| Search steps | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| Parents candidates per parent | |||
| Primary candidates per run | 25,600 | 25,600 | 25,600 |
| Buffer capacity / PUCT coefficient | 1,000 / 1.0 | 1,000 / 1.0 | 1,000 / 1.0 |
| Aspect | Guideline Memory | Strategy Memory |
|---|---|---|
| Input evidence | Valid outcomes and execution or validity failures collected across parents. | Evaluated parent–child pairs in which the child is valid and improves on the parent. |
| Model input | Outcome summaries and the current guidelines. | Parent and child code, their diff, and evaluation results. |
| Extracted content | An operational lesson: a trigger, a mechanism, and a concrete action. | An experience note: the algorithmic idea expressed by a change and its application conditions. |
| Memory update | Merge new lessons with current guidelines, combine duplicates, and retain at most 24. | Group notes into strategy families. Create an entry for a new family, or consolidate new notes with the existing entry. |
| Use during generation | Include current guidelines in the prompt for both generation branches. | Select a strategy for the parent, then adapt its entry into a modification instruction for Strategy-Guided Generation. |
| Setting | TTT-Discover | ThetaEvolve |
| Joint memory update interval, (steps) | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum stored guidelines | 24 | 24 |
| Maximum proposed guidelines per update | 3 | 3 |
| Guideline expiry window (search steps) | 20 | 20 |
| Guideline matching threshold (Jaccard) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Display budget per guideline (characters) | 240 | 240 |
Test-Time Adaptation
Test-time adaptation updates or recalibrates pretrained models at inference to handle distribution shifts, often without target labels.
See all 322 papers