The static ``train then deploy" paradigm fundamentally limits Large Language Models (LLMs) from dynamically adapting their weights in response to continuous streams of new information inherent in real-world tasks. Test-Time Training (TTT) offers a compelling alternative by updating a subset of model parameters (fast weights) at inference time, yet its potential in the current LLM ecosystem is hindered by critical barriers including architectural incompatibility, computational inefficiency and misaligned fast weight objectives for language modeling. In this work, we introduce In-Place Test-Time Training (In-Place TTT), a framework that seamlessly endows LLMs with Test-Time Training ability. In-Place TTT treats the final projection matrix of the ubiquitous MLP blocks as its adaptable fast weights, enabling a ``drop-in" enhancement for LLMs without costly retraining from scratch. Furthermore, we replace TTT's generic reconstruction objective with a tailored, theoretically-grounded objective explicitly aligned with the Next-Token-Prediction task governing autoregressive language modeling. This principled objective, combined with an efficient chunk-wise update mechanism, results in a highly scalable algorithm compatible with context parallelism. Extensive experiments validate our framework's effectiveness: as an in-place enhancement, it enables a 4B-parameter model to achieve superior performance on tasks with contexts up to 128k, and when pretrained from scratch, it consistently outperforms competitive TTT-related approaches. Ablation study results further provide deeper insights on our design choices. Collectively, our results establish In-Place TTT as a promising step towards a paradigm of continual learning in LLMs.

Speculative sampling (SpS) has been successful in accelerating the decoding throughput of auto-regressive large language models by leveraging smaller draft models. SpS strictly enforces the generated distribution to match that of the verifier LLM. This is unnecessarily restrictive as slight variations of the verifier's distribution, such as sampling with top-$k$ or temperature, would also be acceptable. Typical acceptance sampling (TAS) alleviates this issue by accepting more tokens using entropy-based heuristics. However, this approach distorts the verifier distribution, potentially degrading output quality when the verifier encodes critical information. In this work, we formalize the speculative sampling algorithm through the lens of constrained optimization. Based on this formulation, we propose Cactus (constrained acceptance speculative sampling), a method that guarantees controlled divergence from the verifier distribution and increasing acceptance rates. Empirical results across a wide range of benchmarks confirm the effectiveness of our approach.

We study language models as evolving model organisms and ask when autoregressive next-token learning selects for world-tracking representations. For any encoding of latent world states, the Bayes-optimal next-token cross-entropy decomposes into the irreducible conditional entropy plus a Jensen--Shannon excess term. That excess vanishes if and only if the encoding preserves the training ecology's equivalence classes. This yields a precise notion of ecological veridicality for language models and identifies the minimum-complexity zero-excess solution as the quotient partition by training equivalence. We then determine when this fixed-encoding analysis applies to transformer families: frozen dense and frozen Mixture-of-Experts transformers satisfy it, in-context learning does not enlarge the model's separation set, and per-task adaptation breaks the premise. The framework predicts two characteristic failure modes: simplicity pressure preferentially removes low-gain distinctions, and training-optimal models can still incur positive excess on deployment ecologies that refine the training ecology. A conditional dynamic extension shows how inter-model selection and post-training can recover such gap distinctions under explicit heredity, variation, and selection assumptions. Exact finite-ecology checks and controlled microgpt experiments validate the static decomposition, split-merge threshold, off-ecology failure pattern, and two-ecology rescue mechanism in a regime where the relevant quantities are directly observable. The goal is not to model frontier systems at scale, but to use small language models as laboratory organisms for theory about representational selection.

Aligning language models with human preferences is essential for ensuring their safety and reliability. Although most existing approaches assume specific human preference models such as the Bradley-Terry model, this assumption may fail to accurately capture true human preferences, and consequently, these methods lack statistical consistency, i.e., the guarantee that language models converge to the true human preference as the number of samples increases. In contrast, direct density ratio optimization (DDRO) achieves statistical consistency without assuming any human preference models. DDRO models the density ratio between preferred and non-preferred data distributions using the language model, and then optimizes it via density ratio estimation. However, this density ratio is unstable and often diverges, leading to training instability of DDRO. In this paper, we propose a novel alignment method that is both stable and statistically consistent. Our approach is based on the relative density ratio between the preferred data distribution and a mixture of the preferred and non-preferred data distributions. Our approach is stable since this relative density ratio is bounded above and does not diverge. Moreover, it is statistically consistent and yields significantly tighter convergence guarantees than DDRO. We experimentally show its effectiveness with Qwen 2.5 and Llama 3.

When deploying large language models (LLMs) to safety-critical applications, uncertainty quantification (UQ) is of utmost importance to self-assess the reliability of the LLM-based decisions. However, such decisions typically suffer from overconfidence, particularly after parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) for downstream domain-specific tasks with limited data. Existing methods to alleviate this issue either rely on Laplace approximation based post-hoc framework, which may yield suboptimal calibration depending on the training trajectory, or variational Bayesian training that requires multiple complete forward passes through the entire LLM backbone at inference time for Monte Carlo estimation, posing scalability challenges for deployment. To address these limitations, we build on the Bayesian last layer (BLL) model, where the LLM-based deterministic feature extractor is followed by random last layer parameters for uncertainty reasoning. Since existing low-rank adapters (LoRA) for PEFT have limited expressiveness due to rank collapse, we address this with Polar-decomposed Low-rank Adapter Representation (PoLAR), an orthogonalized parameterization paired with Riemannian optimization to enable more stable and expressive adaptation. Building on this PoLAR-BLL model, we leverage the variational (V) inference framework to put forth a scalable Bayesian fine-tuning approach which jointly seeks the PoLAR parameters and approximate posterior of the last layer parameters via alternating optimization. The resulting PoLAR-VBLL is a flexible framework that nicely integrates architecture-enhanced optimization with scalable Bayesian inference to endow LLMs with well-calibrated UQ. Our empirical results verify the effectiveness of PoLAR-VBLL in terms of generalization and uncertainty estimation on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution data for various common-sense reasoning tasks.

How close are we really to self-improving AI? Late last month, a large crowd gathered in downtown San Francisco to demand that the AI industry stop developing more powerful bots. Holding signs and banners reading Stop the AI Race and Don't Build Skynet, the protesters marched through the city and gave speeches outside the offices of Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI. The crowd demanded that these companies halt efforts to create superintelligent machines--and, in particular, AI models that can develop future AI models. Such a technology, attendees said, could extinguish all human life. At AI protests and happy hours, inside start-ups and major companies, the tech world is in a frenzy over the same thing: Computers that make themselves smarter.

Modern LLMs scale at test-time, e.g. via repeated sampling, where inference cost grows with model size and the number of samples. This creates a trade-off that pretraining scaling laws, such as Chinchilla, do not address. We present Train-to-Test ($T^2$) scaling laws that jointly optimize model size, training tokens, and number of inference samples under fixed end-to-end budgets. $T^2$ modernizes pretraining scaling laws with pass@$k$ modeling used for test-time scaling, then jointly optimizes pretraining and test-time decisions. Forecasts from $T^2$ are robust over distinct modeling approaches: measuring joint scaling effect on the task loss and modeling impact on task accuracy. Across eight downstream tasks, we find that when accounting for inference cost, optimal pretraining decisions shift radically into the overtraining regime, well-outside of the range of standard pretraining scaling suites. We validate our results by pretraining heavily overtrained models in the optimal region that $T^2$ scaling forecasts, confirming their substantially stronger performance compared to pretraining scaling alone. Finally, as frontier LLMs are post-trained, we show that our findings survive the post-training stage, making $T^2$ scaling meaningful in modern deployments.

Can a safety gate permit unbounded beneficial self-modification while maintaining bounded cumulative risk? We formalize this question through dual conditions -- requiring sum delta_n < infinity (bounded risk) and sum TPR_n = infinity (unbounded utility) -- and establish a theory of their (in)compatibility. Classification impossibility (Theorem 1): For power-law risk schedules delta_n = O(n^{-p}) with p > 1, any classifier-based gate under overlapping safe/unsafe distributions satisfies TPR_n <= C_alpha * delta_n^beta via Holder's inequality, forcing sum TPR_n < infinity. This impossibility is exponent-optimal (Theorem 3). A second independent proof via the NP counting method (Theorem 4) yields a 13% tighter bound without Holder's inequality. Universal finite-horizon ceiling (Theorem 5): For any summable risk schedule, the exact maximum achievable classifier utility is U*(N, B) = N * TPR_NP(B/N), growing as exp(O(sqrt(log N))) -- subpolynomial. At N = 10^6 with budget B = 1.0, a classifier extracts at most U* ~ 87 versus a verifier's ~500,000. Verification escape (Theorem 2): A Lipschitz ball verifier achieves delta = 0 with TPR > 0, escaping the impossibility. Formal Lipschitz bounds for pre-LayerNorm transformers under LoRA enable LLM-scale verification. The separation is strict. We validate on GPT-2 (d_LoRA = 147,456): conditional delta = 0 with TPR = 0.352. Comprehensive empirical validation is in the companion paper [D2].

While test-time scaling has enabled large language models to solve highly difficult tasks, state-of-the-art results come at exorbitant compute costs. These inefficiencies can be attributed to the miscalibration of post-trained language models, and the lack of calibration in popular sampling techniques. Here, we present Online Reasoning Calibration (ORCA), a framework for calibrating the sampling process that draws upon conformal prediction and test-time training. Specifically, we introduce a meta-learning procedure that updates the calibration module for each input. This allows us to provide valid confidence estimates under distributional shift, e.g. in thought patterns that occur across different stages of reasoning, or in prompt distributions between model development and deployment. ORCA not only provides theoretical guarantees on conformal risks, but also empirically shows higher efficiency and generalization across different reasoning tasks. At risk level $δ=0.1$, ORCA improves Qwen2.5-32B efficiency on in-distribution tasks with savings up to 47.5% with supervised labels and 40.7% with self-consistency labels. Under zero-shot out-of-domain settings, it improves MATH-500 savings from 24.8% of the static calibration baseline to 67.0% while maintaining a low empirical error rate, and the same trend holds across model families and downstream benchmarks. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/wzekai99/ORCA.

Deep generative models for tabular data (GANs, diffusion models, and LLM-based generators) exhibit highly non-uniform behavior across datasets; the best-performing synthesizer family depends strongly on distributional stressors such as long-tailed marginals, high-cardinality categorical, Zipfian imbalance, and small-sample regimes. This brittleness makes practical deployment challenging, especially when users must balance competing objectives of fidelity, privacy, and utility. We study {intent-conditioned tabular synthesis selection}: given a dataset and a user intent expressed as a preference over evaluation metrics, the goal is to select a synthesizer that minimizes regret relative to an intent-specific oracle. We propose {stress profiling}, a synthesis-specific meta-feature representation that quantifies dataset difficulty along four interpretable stress dimensions, and integrate it into {SYNTHONY}, a selection framework that matches stress profiles against a calibrated capability registry of synthesizer families. Across a benchmark of 7 datasets, 10 synthesizers, and 3 intents, we demonstrate that stress-based meta-features are highly predictive of synthesizer performance: a $k$NN selector using these features achieves strong Top-1 selection accuracy, substantially outperforming zero-shot LLM selectors and random baselines. We analyze the gap between meta-feature-based and capability-based selection, identifying the hand-crafted capability registry as the primary bottleneck and motivating learned capability representations as a direction for future work.