The Power of Test-Time Training for Approximate Sampling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Efficiently sampling from a complex probability distribution is a fundamental problem which has become increasingly pertinent in recent years with the rise of generative AI, as sophisticated sampling procedures from LLMs have been proposed to solve challenging reasoning problems. The efficacy of such sampling algorithms is limited, however, by the relationship between the LLM and the particular sampling task at hand, which has motivated the framework of test-time training (TTT). TTT works by updating a model's weights in response to partial generations and reward feedback received at inference time, thus adapting to the particular problem. In this work, we propose a formalization for TTT as the problem of producing a sample from a given probability measure μ^star belonging to a known class F of distributions, given an oracle hat μ which yields approximate density estimates for μ^star. This is closely related to the problem of reducing sampling to approximate counting studied in seminal works of Jerrum, Valiant & Vazirani (1986) and Jerrum & Sinclair (1989): namely, when F is the class of all distributions, it coincides exactly with the aforementioned counting-to-sampling reduction. In this paper, we first show a quadratic lower bound on the query complexity of sampling from μ^star given query access to hat μ (for sufficiently large classes F), thus showing that the random walk approach proposed by Jerrum & Sinclair (1989) and refined by Hayes & Sinclair (2010), is optimal. This answers an open question posed by Hayes & Sinclair. We then show that this lower bound can be circumvented if the size of F is bounded appropriately. As we discuss, this latter result can be viewed as an abstraction of TTT, and thus represents a starting point for the development of a principled theoretical framework for TTT.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
25 of 41 references.
References · 25
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2020Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Modelscited by 21,076
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2020Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equationscited by 9,122
- 2015Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamicscited by 7,058
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2023Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Modelscited by 872
- 2025The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoningcited by 415
- 2023Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraintcited by 350
- 2025TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learningcited by 275
- 2025A General Framework for Inference-time Scaling and Steering of Diffusion Modelscited by 224
- 2026Learning to Discover at Test Timecited by 115
13 more
- 2019Test-Time Training with Self-Supervision for Generalization under Distribution Shiftscited by 59
- 2025Test-Time Learning for Large Language Modelscited by 50
- 2025Is a Good Foundation Necessary for Efficient Reinforcement Learning? The Computational Role of the Base Model in Explorationcited by 36
- 2025Rollout Roulette: A Probabilistic Inference Approach to Inference-Time Scaling of LLMs using Particle-Based Monte Carlo Methodscited by 20
- 2026TTCS: Test-Time Curriculum Synthesis for Self-Evolvingcited by 19
- 2023Learning to (Learn at Test Time)cited by 17
- 2025Taming Imperfect Process Verifiers: A Sampling Perspective on Backtrackingcited by 14
- 2025Value-Guided Search for Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 13
- 2025Guided Speculative Inference for Efficient Test-Time Alignment of LLMscited by 11
- 2026On the Power of (Approximate) Reward Models for Inference-Time Scalingcited by 7
- 2021Spectral Independence via Stability and Applications to Holant-Type Problemscited by 3
- 2026Reject, Resample, Repeat: Understanding Parallel Reasoning in Language Model Inferencecited by 3
- 2020Log-Concave Polynomials IV: Approximate Exchange, Tight Mixing Times, and Near-Optimal Sampling of Forestscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.