Daily Papers

How can we use AI to discover a new state of the art for a scientific problem? Prior work in test-time scaling, such as AlphaEvolve, performs search by prompting a frozen LLM. We perform reinforcement learning at test time, so the LLM can continue to train, but now with experience specific to the test problem. This form of continual learning is quite special, because its goal is to produce one great solution rather than many good ones on average, and to solve this very problem rather than generalize to other problems. Therefore, our learning objective and search subroutine are designed to prioritize the most promising solutions. We call this method Test-Time Training to Discover (TTT-Discover). Following prior work, we focus on problems with continuous rewards. We report results for every problem we attempted, across mathematics, GPU kernel engineering, algorithm design, and biology. TTT-Discover sets the new state of the art in almost all of them: (i) Erdős' minimum overlap problem and an autocorrelation inequality; (ii) a GPUMode kernel competition (up to 2times faster than prior art); (iii) past AtCoder algorithm competitions; and (iv) denoising problem in single-cell analysis. Our solutions are reviewed by experts or the organizers. All our results are achieved with an open model, OpenAI gpt-oss-120b, and can be reproduced with our publicly available code, in contrast to previous best results that required closed frontier models. Our test-time training runs are performed using Tinker, an API by Thinking Machines, with a cost of only a few hundred dollars per problem.

Autonomous discovery systems such as OpenEvolve and TTT-Discover are often used as general-purpose harnesses. However, in practice these are composite systems combining several design choices about archives, parent selection, exploration, and budget allocation into a single recipe. Because discovery runs are expensive and inherently stochastic, existing harnesses are often compared using too few independent trials to distinguish key methodological improvements from run-to-run variance. We systematically decompose OpenEvolve-style evolutionary search and the TTT-Discover search harness into its constituent components and systematically evaluate 30 budget-matched harnesses across 12 model-problem pairs using more than 3.1 million LLM rollouts and repeated-trial statistical analysis. Our results show that discovery harnesses have a generalization problem: No fixed harness is reliably superior across the evaluated model-problem pairs, and variants of OpenEvolve generally underperform simpler alternatives. Thus, harness choice is better viewed as a hyperparameter rather than as a universal recipe, and should be tailored to the specific problem and underlying model. We also find that early discovery progress predicts final performance, and use this property to present a budget-matched adaptive-allocation experiment that starts multiple harnesses, prunes weak partial runs, and reallocates compute to stronger survivors, outperforming both commitment to a randomly sampled fixed harness and a non-adaptive harness ensemble. Together, these results motivate shifting from fixed harness selection to online adaptation guided by early performance. We release all run pools including baseline null distributions for every model-problem pair as reusable statistical infrastructure against for future harness proposals.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities across a broad range of tasks including Olympiad-level mathematical problems, indicating evidence of their complex reasoning abilities. While many reasoning benchmarks focus on the STEM domain, the ability of LRMs to reason correctly in broader task domains remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce TTT-Bench, a new benchmark that is designed to evaluate basic strategic, spatial, and logical reasoning abilities in LRMs through a suite of four two-player Tic-Tac-Toe-style games that humans can effortlessly solve from a young age. We propose a simple yet scalable programmatic approach for generating verifiable two-player game problems for TTT-Bench. Although these games are trivial for humans, they require reasoning about the intentions of the opponent, as well as the game board's spatial configurations, to ensure a win. We evaluate a diverse set of state-of-the-art LRMs, and discover that the models that excel at hard math problems frequently fail at these simple reasoning games. Further testing reveals that our evaluated reasoning models score on average downarrow 41\% \& downarrow 5\% lower on TTT-Bench compared to MATH 500 \& AIME 2024 respectively, with larger models achieving higher performance using shorter reasoning traces, where most of the models struggle on long-term strategic reasoning situations on simple and new TTT-Bench tasks.