Can Test-Time Memory Evolution Outperform Test-Time Training for Scientific Discovery?

arXiv:2610.32046v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent \emph{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 \emph{test-time adaptation} method for scientific discovery. We introduce \emph{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 $82.8$-$84.6\%$ in FLOPs and $47.7$-$58.4\%$ in runtime. These results establish TTME as an effective and computationally efficient alternative to TTT in the evaluated discovery settings.

Title:Can Test-Time Memory Evolution Outperform Test-Time Training for Scientific Discovery?

Abstract:Recent \emph{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 \emph{test-time adaptation} method for scientific discovery. We introduce \emph{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 $82.8$-$84.6\%$ in FLOPs and $47.7$-$58.4\%$ in runtime. These results establish TTME as an effective and computationally efficient alternative to TTT in the evaluated discovery settings.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.32046 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.32046v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.32046 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Can Test-Time Memory Evolution Outperform Test-Time Training for Scientific Discovery?

Subiecte conexe