Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

What should post-training optimize? A test-time scaling law perspective

About

Large language models are increasingly deployed with test-time strategies: sample $N$ responses, score them with a reward model or verifier, and return the best. This deployment rule exposes a mismatch in post-training: standard objectives optimize the mean reward of a single response, whereas best-of-$N$ performance is governed by the upper tail of the reward distribution. Recent test-time-aware objectives partly address this mismatch, but typically assume that training can use the same per-prompt rollout budget as deployment, which is impractical when post-training must cover many prompts while deployment can allocate much larger per-prompt test-time compute. We study this budget-mismatch regime, where only $m\ll N$ per-prompt rollouts are available during training but the target objective is best-of-$N$ deployment. Under structural assumptions on the reward tails, we show that the policy gradient of the best-of-$N$ objective can be approximated from a much smaller rollout group by extrapolating upper-tail statistics. This yields a family of Tail-Extrapolated estimators for best-of-$N$-oriented post-training: a simple direct estimator, Tail-Extrapolated Advantage (TEA), and a fixed-order debiased Prefix-TEA estimator based on moment cancellation. Experiments on instruction-following tasks show that TEA and Prefix-TEA improve best-of-$N$ performance across different language models, reward models and datasets under various training and test-time budget settings.

Muheng Li, Jian Qian, Wenlong Mou• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Best-of-N Reward EvaluationUltraFeedback (core250)
Reward Score24.323
18
Helpful DialogueAnthropic HH-RLHF helpful core250 (test)
Reward Score18.93
18
Reward ModelingUltraFeedback core250 (held-out evaluation)
Delta (Δ)3.543
18
Instruction FollowingUltraFeedback (core250)
Delta Preference Score (bo64)12.568
15
Pairwise Judge ComparisonUltraFeedback (core250)
Win Count (W)161
14
Preference EvaluationUltraFeedback core250 (test)
Win Rate80
12
Reward ModelingHH-RLHF helpful core250 (held-out evaluation)
Reward Score20.155
12
Reward ModelingAnthropic/hh-rlhf HH-helpful core250
Delta RM0.292
6
Reward ModelingUltraFeedback core500 (held-out)
bo1 Score0.467
4
Reward ModelingUltraFeedback core250 (test)
Reward Score Difference (TEA vs GRPO)1.103
4
Showing 10 of 12 rows

Other info

Follow for update