Scientific, engineering, and mathematical reasoning tasks can admit multiple valid solutions, while exhaustive annotation of the full solution set is often prohibitively costly. Test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) applies reinforcement learning to unlabeled test instances, offering a label-free approach to multiple-solution reasoning. In this setting, generation frequency serves two opposing objectives: correctness estimation favors frequent outcomes, whereas outcome-level diversity preservation favors less frequent outcomes. We term this tension the Frequency Conflict. To resolve this conflict, we propose MS-TTRL, which obtains frequency-independent correctness estimates through Outcome-Level Self-Verification while reserving generation frequency solely for diversity preservation. Three-State Outcome Cache and the Candidate State support verification reuse across repeated observations and confidence-aware handling of ambiguous outcomes, while Confidence-Gated Inverse Probability Scaling selectively strengthens the learning signals of rare, reliably verified outcomes. Experiments across two benchmarks, four multiple-solution tasks, and three backbone models, each evaluated with five random seeds, show that MS-TTRL improves Recovery Rate by 19.13 percentage points on average over the best-performing label-free baseline and approaches the performance of the supervised IPS-GRPO.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Frequency conflict and signal decoupling in MS-TTRL. Left: Frequency-based correctness estimation favors common outcomes, whereas diversity preservation favors rare ones. Middle: Self-verification estimates correctness, while outcome frequency promotes diversity. Right: MS-TTRL achieves higher Recovery Rate than TTRL and TTRL-CoCoV across four tasks.
Figure 2: Overview of MS-TTRL. For each unlabeled problem, generated solution outcomes are self-verified and maintained in a three-state outcome cache. Their stored status is then combined with gated inverse-probability scaling to reward outcomes, thereby decoupling correctness estimation from diversity preservation with limited cost of self-verification.
Causal (@16)
3D (@27)
Boolean (@20)
Method
RR(%) ↑
ORR(%) ↑
RR(%) ↑
ORR(%) ↑
RR(%) ↑
ORR(%) ↑
Qwen3-1.7B
IPS-GRPO †
51.20±0.70
28.19±0.53
27.75±0.15
16.35±0.04
46.15±0.41
37.38±0.57
TTRL
36.94±0.00
17.42±0.00
9.07±0.00
5.28±0.00
31.03±0.13
22.63±0.13
TTRL-CoCoV
37.54±0.11
17.63±0.04
9.07±0.00
5.28±0.00
32.88±1.38
25.11±0.74
MS-TTRL
45.89±0.49
23.26±0.20
28.39±0.04
16.93±0.03
46.00±1.10
36.49±0.51
Table 1: Main results over 5 random seeds on the three HypoSpace subsets. RR and ORR denote Recovery Rate and Outcome Recovery Rate, respectively. Higher is better for both metrics. IPS-GRPO, as shown in light gray, is a label-supervised reference rather than a baseline . “Best” denotes the better-performing result between TTRL and TTRL-CoCoV for each metric.
Method
RR (%) ↑
ORR (%) ↑
IPS-GRPO †
68.19±0.49
55.26±0.57
TTRL
34.39±0.25
22.75±0.21
TTRL-CoCoV
33.75±0.25
22.34±0.12
MS-TTRL
44.26±0.56
34.74±0.56
Δ (MS-TTRL − Best)
+9.87
+11.99
Table 2: Performance on the MACE-Math benchmark. Higher is better for all metrics.
Table 3: Training time and peak GPU memory on Qwen3-1.7B across three tasks. Lower is better.
Figure 3: Ablation of the Three-State Outcome Cache on Qwen3-1.7B across the Causal, 3D, and Boolean tasks. Removing the cache mechanism substantially increases the number of verified samples throughout training, showing that reusing previously stored verification states effectively reduces repeated self-verification and lowers the additional inference cost.
Configuration
Causal
ACC(%) ↑
RR(%) ↑
ORR(%) ↑
w/o Gated IPS
59.59±0.68
49.46±0.79
27.68±0.54
w/o Candidate Set (high)
99.93±0.06
37.15±0.28
17.50±0.10
w/o Candidate Set (mid)
74.80±0.90
41.79±0.77
20.55±0.49
w/o Candidate Set (low)
63.59±0.62
45.12±0.44
23.81±0.49
MS-TTRL
93.75±0.46
45.89±0.49
23.26±0.20
Table 4: Ablation study of Gated IPS and the Candidate Set on Qwen3-1.7B for the Causal task. Results are averaged over five random seeds.
Verification
Causal
3D
RR (%) ↑
ORR (%) ↑
RR (%) ↑
ORR (%) ↑
4
41.54
20.64
27.08
15.63
8
45.89
23.26
28.41
16.88
16
46.40
26.13
27.11
15.78
Table 5: Sensitivity to the number of self-verification trials on Qwen3-1.7B for Causal and 3D Structure Reconstruction.
λ
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
RR (%) ↑
10.35
26.05
28.39
27.20
20.69
18.14
ORR (%) ↑
5.52
15.52
16.93
15.82
12.28
10.56
Table 7: Sensitivity to the diversity scaling coefficient λ on Qwen3-1.7B for the 3D Structure Reconstruction task.
Causal (@16)
3D (@27)
Boolean (@20)
Method
Acc(%) ↑
RR(%) ↑
ORR(%) ↑
Acc(%)
RR(%)
ORR(%)
Acc(%)
RR(%)
ORR(%)
Self-Verify
93.41
46.92
25.00
97.57
27.10
15.78
87.86
46.28
37.39
TTRL
99.97
36.94
17.42
99.87
9.07
5.28
81.79
31.03
22.63
TTRL-2
18.95
19.26
10.06
22.10
2.81
2.19
66.25
35.44
26.33
TTRL-3
1.29
1.73
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.14
36.80
30.61
TTRL-4
1.42
2.62
1.82
2.68
1.71
1.52
45.54
39.07
31.01
Table 8: Effect of extending TTRL from majority voting to the top- k most frequent outcomes on Qwen3-1.7B across three multiple-solution tasks. TTRL- k treats the top- k generated outcomes as positive pseudo-labels. All methods use inverse-probability scaling when assigning rewards.
Figure 4: Learning signals assigned to rare valid outcomes on Qwen3-1.7B. For each rollout group containing at least two distinct valid outcomes, we identify the valid outcome(s) with the lowest generation frequency. Each subfigure reports the mean advantage and positive advantage rate across training epochs for one task.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Causal ACC(%) ↑
3D ACC(%) ↑
Boolean ACC(%) ↑
Qwen3-1.7B
IPS-GRPO †
95.14±0.63
99.82±0.13
88.54±0.79
TTRL
99.97±0.03
99.87±0.07
81.79±0.81
TTRL-CoCoV
97.73±0.18
99.97±0.05
77.79±0.91
MS-TTRL
93.75±0.46
99.13±0.53
90.54±0.99
Qwen3-8B
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy over 5 evaluation seeds on the three HypoSpace subsets. Higher is better.
Method
ACC (%) ↑
IPS-GRPO †
82.83±0.64
TTRL
65.99±0.29
TTRL-CoCoV
62.86±0.35
MS-TTRL
67.00±0.35
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy on the MACE-Math benchmark using Qwen3-1.7B. Higher is better.
Figure 5: Training dynamics on the Causal (top), 3D (middle), and boolean (bottom) tasks. From left to right: (a) accuracy, (b) recovery rate, (c) outcome recovery rate.
Test-Time Reinforcement Learning adapts policies at deployment using interaction or self-generated feedback, without a separate task-specific training phase.
Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (TTRL) enables large language models to adapt directly on unlabeled test problems by constructing pseudo-labels from multiple sampled responses. However, existing TTRL methods typically apply the same expensive sampling and optimization procedure to all test problems, despite substantial differences in their training utility. In this paper, we study whether such problems can be identified before costly test-time training, without access to ground-truth answers. We uncover a stable relationship between internal response representations and problem-level empirical accuracy. Specifically, we define COS as the cosine similarity between a model's response representation and a correctness-related direction constructed from an independent question-answering dataset. COS consistently correlates with problem solvability across different models, datasets, and experimental settings, and we further provide a theoretical analysis explaining this relationship. Building on this finding, we propose SelectTTRL, a representation-guided data selection method that ranks test problems using COS and applies TTRL only to a selected percentile interval. SelectTTRL leaves the standard TTRL pipeline unchanged for the selected problems, while avoiding unnecessary multi-response sampling and reinforcement learning updates on the remaining ones. Experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SelectTTRL substantially reduces test-time computation while maintaining or improving the performance of standard TTRL. Code is available at https://github.com/heyiliyi/SelectTTRL-public.
Yi Li, Linan Yue, Weibo Gao
Southeast University · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) reports substantial accuracy gains on mathematical reasoning benchmarks using majority vote as a pseudo-label signal. We argue these gains are systematically misinterpreted: most reflect sharpening of already-solvable problems rather than genuine learning, while problems corrupted from correct to incorrect outnumber truly learned ones, and this damage is irreversible once majority vote locks onto a wrong answer. Per-problem tracking reveals that correct-answer signals in low-ability problems are briefly active before being permanently suppressed, a phenomenon we term the Correct-Answer Extinction Window, with Flip Rate (FR) as its leading indicator. We thus propose TTRL-Guard, a lightweight framework with three mechanisms targeting the extinction window: Flip-Rate-Aware Reward Scaling (FRS) down-weights at-risk updates as FR declines, Minority-Preserving Sampling (MPS) retains gradient signal from minority correct answers, and Risk-Conditioned Sparse Updatings (RCSU) suspends updates on polarized problems. Experiments across three models and four benchmarks show that TTRL-Guard achieves the best average pass@1 on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Qwen3-4B, improves relatively over TTRL by +54% on AIME 2025.
Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (TTRL) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to enhance reasoning capabilities on unlabeled test streams by deriving pseudo-rewards from majority voting consensus. However, existing TTRL methods rely exclusively on positive pseudo-labeling strategies. Such reliance becomes vulnerable under challenging scenarios where answer distributions are highly dispersed, resulting in weak consensus that inadvertently reinforces incorrect trajectories as supervision signals. In this paper, we propose SCRL (Selective-Complementary Reinforcement Learning), a robust test-time reinforcement learning framework that effectively mitigates label noise amplification. SCRL develops Selective Positive Pseudo-Labeling, which enforces strict consensus criteria to filter unreliable majorities. Complementarily, SCRL introduces Entropy-Gated Negative Pseudo-Labeling, the first negative supervision mechanism in TTRL, to reliably prune incorrect trajectories based on generation uncertainty. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SCRL achieves substantial improvements over baselines, while maintaining robust generalization and training stability under constrained rollout budgets. Our code is available at https://github.com/Jasper-Yan/SCRL.
Dong Yan, Jian Liang, Yanbo Wang +3
School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · NLPR & MAIS, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Nanjing University