arXiv subjects

Hongba Ma

Publications and source records attributed to Hongba Ma.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How Much Can Language Models Gain from Test-Time Computation?

How much can test-time computation improve a language model, and at what cost? Test-time scaling is widely proposed as a substitute for larger models, but existing comparisons mostly evaluate one domain at a time and rarely charge selection to the budget. We introduce SELF-POT, a benchmark and evaluation framework that measures the test-time potential of a model across competition mathematics, competitive programming, and agentic workflows. SELF-POT separates candidate coverage from final accuracy on static tasks, tracks correctness transitions under revision, and measures protocol completion alongside task success in agentic environments. Under a unified budget rule, it compares Direct inference with parallel sampling and self-revision under fixed multiples of the Direct budget, and charges every model call, including selection and critique, in dollars. This design supports two kinds of comparison: the gain a model obtains from additional inference, and a lower-cost model with additional inference against a stronger model. Across five low-cost reasoning models on 350 sealed tasks, with Claude Opus 5.5 Direct as the reference, the returns depend on the domain, the selection rule, and failure handling. When we replay the retained programming candidate pools, public-example selection raises correct submissions from 376 to 453 of 500 scheduled cells while saving 12-49% of logical API cost across models, and simply retaining an available candidate when judging fails recovers 61 submissions at unchanged cost. On identical mathematics pools, judging with fallback yields 186 correct submissions versus 182 for voting, while voting saves 12-21% of logical API cost. These controlled replays show how selection and failure handling change the gains realized from the same generated candidates, and they quantify the marginal value of a model judge.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Does Scaling Reinforcement Learning Really Require More Training?

Scaling reasoning typically spends more compute on reinforcement learning (RL) or on inference. We show that a completed RL training history can yield policies stronger than the checkpoints visited by its optimizer. We call this policy-space scaling: expanding the deployable policy set accessible from a fixed RL history, without extending training or increasing per-query inference computation. We instantiate it with SURGE (Scaling Up RL Gradient-free via Eigenspace fusion). SURGE combines two checkpoints from the same RL run: a high-accuracy anchor and a competitive donor that generates shorter responses. It expresses both checkpoints as changes from their shared initialization, then spectrally decomposes the anchor's update to retain its dominant component and incorporate the donor's complementary component. With a fixed target for how much of the anchor update to retain, SURGE determines the block size from the weights without testing candidate policies. We evaluate two 1.5B mathematical-reasoning histories, DeepSeek and Nemotron, and one 7B coding history, OLMo. SURGE improves benchmark-average accuracy over both input checkpoints while using fewer reasoning tokens than the anchor. It reaches 54.17% on DeepSeek AIME24 against a measured native maximum of 50.83%, and 83.7% on OLMo HumanEval+ against 82.8%. These gains exceed the observed training curves. Geometric controls support the importance of RL-update structure beyond weight displacement or token reduction alone. Each constructed model runs as a single policy. Our findings identify stored RL history as a reusable scaling resource: the capability available from a training run need not end at its best checkpoint.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

ReSolve: Reusing Candidate Reasoning through Selective Generative Moderation

Sampling multiple solutions spends computation on intermediate deductions and unfinished arguments as well as final answers. We introduce ReSolve, a training-free inference procedure that reuses this candidate reasoning through selective generative moderation. An answer-distribution controller invokes a model to examine existing derivations when candidates disagree or lack a parseable answer, then incorporates the generated solution into a bounded loop. Under Hybrid scoring on 130 competition-mathematics problems evaluated with two independently sampled candidate pools, ReSolve obtains 100 and 99 correct answers, compared with 91 and 92 for voting over the same four candidates, with no correct-to-incorrect changes relative to that vote in either pool. Eight-sample self-consistency obtains 94 and 96 correct answers while consuming substantially more tokens; ReSolve uses 46.3% and 47.2% fewer tokens in the two evaluations. A controlled ablation removes visible derivations while retaining answer keys, vote counts, and the per-state output-cap rule, reducing accuracy from 100 to 93 correct despite increasing computation. Selective and always-on Uniform moderation both solve 97 problems, while selectivity reduces moderation tokens by approximately 54% and total pipeline tokens by 6.2%. These results support candidate reasoning as reusable inference computation. They do not establish an accuracy advantage over additional sampling or a distinct benefit from specialized route instructions.

cs.AI↗