Learning When to Stop: Prefix-Optimal Dynamic Diffusion Policies for Continuous Control

Diffusion policies are a powerful policy class for continuous control, but their iterative denoising process creates a substantial computational bottleneck. Reducing this cost requires adapting the number of denoising steps to the difficulty of each action while preserving task performance. We introduce Prefix-Optimal Generative Policies (POGP), a framework that learns a prefix value function at every intermediate denoising step through a Bellman-style recursion over the denoising chain. The prefix value function serves two purposes: it provides an auxiliary training objective that encourages intermediate outputs to become high-quality actions, and it enables a test-time stopping rule that terminates denoising when additional steps are unlikely to produce meaningful improvement. Across four MuJoCo environments and comparisons with 12 baselines, POGP reduces the required number of denoising iterations by approximately 2.7-fold while retaining near-full task performance. Compared with state-of-the-art dynamic diffusion baselines, prefix training also improves final task performance by approximately 3.5%. These results indicate that supervising intermediate denoising steps is useful not only for adaptive early stopping, but also as an auxiliary objective that improves the learned policy.

Self-Improvement Can Self-Regress: The Rise-and-Collapse Failure Mode of LLM Self-Training

Self-improvement can self-regress. In REINFORCE post-training for code, a model can quickly improve on its optimized metric and then collapse within the same training campaign. We study this in a controlled multi-seed testbed using Qwen-2.5-3B and Qwen-2.5-7B, trained on competitive-programming tasks with binary CodeGrader reward across 10 sequential 20-step campaigns. Across campaigns, pass@1 shows a robust rise-then-collapse pattern: it peaks within tens of gradient steps and then falls back, sometimes to near zero. This is not cross-task catastrophic forgetting, but within-task policy over-optimization on a fixed distribution; KL- and EWC-style constraints do not prevent it. We ask where the control loop should sit. We compare three levels: CARE, a between-campaign memory mechanism with a capability posterior, transfer gate, and regression-aware belief revision; ES, a within-campaign early-stop rule that rolls forward the peak checkpoint and sets the next budget to peak_step+3; and GRPO, which changes the RL update using group-relative reward normalization. The answer is regime-dependent. On Qwen-2.5-3B, where naive REINFORCE is fragile, CARE v2 nearly doubles end-of-chain pass@1 from 4.9% to 9.5%, with paired bootstrap 95% CI [+0.4,+8.9] and gains in 4/5 seeds. On Qwen-2.5-7B, CARE reaches parity with naive REINFORCE, 13.8% vs. 11.8%, while ES reaches 22.2% [14.1,28.0]. Out-of-the-box GRPO reaches 20.7% [15.7,25.1], nearly matching REINFORCE+ES. GRPO raises the floor but does not remove the cliff. Its 7B gain mainly comes from better between-campaign carryover, while the within-campaign peak-to-end gap remains about 17 points under both REINFORCE and GRPO. GRPO+ES gives mixed evidence: 2/3 seeds improve, but one final cliff lowers the mean to 17.0% [0.0,28.1]. A Gemma-3-4B pilot shows the same signature, suggesting the phenomenon is not limited to Qwen.