Test-Time Alignment for Large Language Models via Textual Model Predictive Control
Kuang-Da Wang, Teng-Ruei Chen, Yu Heng Hung, Guo-Xun Ko, Shuoyang Ding, Yueh-Hua Wu, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Chao-Han Huck Yang, Wen-Chih Peng, Ping-Chun Hsieh

TL;DR
This paper introduces Textual Model Predictive Control (TMPC), a novel test-time alignment method for large language models that uses hierarchical planning and subgoal identification to improve task-specific outputs.
Contribution
TMPC adapts model predictive control to text generation, overcoming segmentation challenges with hierarchical subgoal discovery and conditioned re-generation for better alignment.
Findings
Consistently improves performance across translation, long-form response, and code synthesis tasks.
Effectively discovers meaningful subgoals for task-specific planning.
Demonstrates generality and robustness in diverse text generation scenarios.
Abstract
Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences through finetuning is resource-intensive, motivating lightweight alternatives at test time. We address test-time alignment through the lens of sequential decision making, a perspective that reveals two fundamental challenges. When actions are defined at the token level, as in guided decoding, alignment suffers from the curse of horizon. Conversely, when actions are at the response level, as in traditional iterative refinement, the curse of dimensionality emerges. To resolve this trade-off, we draw inspiration from Model Predictive Control (MPC) in control theory to propose Textual Model Predictive Control (TMPC), a novel predictive planning framework adapted for aligning LLMs at inference time. A key limitation of standard MPC is its reliance on predefined, hard segment boundaries, which are often absent in text generation.…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
The test-time alignment problem has seen immense interest from the community in recent years, so the topic of the paper is timely. The proposed TMPC approach is an intuitively appealing and natural approach to this problem, so the paper is likely of interest to the community. Drawing inspiration from MPC through the formulation given in Section 4.1 provides motivation and technical clarity for the (non-MPC) specifics of the proposed approach described in Section 4.2. The experiments consider thr
1. The connection to MPC feels somewhat overstated. Section 4.1 provides enough context to justify describing the approach as loosely MPC-inspired. However, since the main elements of the method are the non-MPC components outlined in Principles 1 and 2 (Section 4.2), framing as an MPC-based approach may be a bit strong. 2. The experimental results, though promising, contain some drawbacks that are not adequately discussed. First, though it is claimed on lines 401-402 that "TMPC consistently outp
1. TMPC elegantly adapts concepts from control theory (specifically model predictive control) to the LLM test-time alignment setting, innovating with subgoal identification and iterative planning, as detailed in the mathematical framework of Section 4 and illustrated in Figure 2. 2. The methodology is general: TMPC is applied to tasks with both natural and abstract segment boundaries (e.g., machine translation sentences, code unit tests, long-form response chunks), supporting claims about its v
1. Reward-model dependence / shared-judge bias. Long-form tasks use similar reward models for both alignment and evaluation, inviting bias and potential reward gaming; despite noise-robustness tests, evidence for agreement with human preferences and cross-evaluator consistency is limited. 2. Underspecified subgoal & buffer aggregation. The threshold α, buffer 𝓑 update/size policy, and aggregation function 𝒢 (composition of non-contiguous subgoals, overlap limits, length control) are not concret
-Figure 1 clearly shows the high-level idea of the approach compared to traditional methods. The caption is also descriptive and clear to reinforce the ideas in the Figure and introduction -The paper is easy to follow and mythology is clear -The proposed approach outperforms baselines in various tasks. I specifically appreciate the failure cases in baselines such as in L406.
The related works discussion lacks a discussion on subgoal generation for LLM/VLM-based tasks, where prior work already exists [1, 2]. I do think there is novelty in formulating this as a test-time model predictive control problem. [1] Logeswaran, Lajanugen, et al. "Few-shot Subgoal Planning with Language Models." Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2022. [2] Wang, Jiawei, et al. "Discov
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNatural Language Processing Techniques · Topic Modeling · Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
