TR-ICRL: Test-Time Rethinking for In-Context Reinforcement Learning

Wenxuan Jiang, Yuxin Zuo, Zijian Zhang, Xuecheng Wu, Zining Fan, Wenxuan Liu, Li Chen, Xiaoyu Li, Xuezhi Cao, Xiaolong Jin, Ninghao Liu · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

In-Context Reinforcement Learning (ICRL) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to learn online from external rewards directly within the context window. However, a central challenge in ICRL is reward estimation, as models typically lack access to ground-truths during inference. To address this limitation, we propose Test-Time Rethinking for In-Context Reinforcement Learning (TR-ICRL), a novel ICRL framework designed for both reasoning and knowledge-intensive tasks. TR-ICRL operates by first retrieving the most relevant instances from an unlabeled evaluation set for a given query. During each ICRL iteration, LLM generates a set of candidate answers for every retrieved instance. Next, a pseudo-label is derived from this set through majority voting. This label then serves as a proxy to give reward messages and generate formative feedbacks, guiding LLM through iterative refinement. In the end, this synthesized contextual information is integrated with the original query to form a comprehensive prompt, with the answer determining through a final round of majority voting. TR-ICRL is evaluated on mainstream reasoning and knowledge-intensive tasks, where it demonstrates significant performance gains. Remarkably, TR-ICRL improves Qwen2.5-7B by 21.23% on average on MedQA and even 137.59% on AIME2024. Extensive ablation studies and analyses further validate the effectiveness and robustness of our approach. Our code is available at https://github.com/pangpang-xuan/TR_ICRL.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.