pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2408.03314 · v1 · submitted 2024-08-06 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.CL

Recognition: 1 theorem link

Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters

Aviral Kumar, Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.CL
keywords large language modelstest-time computescaling lawsinference optimizationverifier modelsadaptive allocationFLOPs efficiencymodel size tradeoff
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimally allocating test-time compute adaptively lets smaller LLMs outperform 14x larger models when base success rates are non-trivial.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines how LLMs can improve outputs by spending more computation during inference rather than only scaling model size during pretraining. It compares two mechanisms for increasing test-time compute: searching with process-based verifier reward models and adaptively updating the model's response distribution for a given prompt. The effectiveness of these mechanisms turns out to depend on prompt difficulty, which motivates an adaptive strategy that picks the best allocation for each prompt. This compute-optimal approach delivers more than 4 times the efficiency of a best-of-N baseline. In direct FLOPs-matched tests, the method lets a smaller base model exceed the performance of a model 14 times larger on problems where the smaller model already achieves some success.

Core claim

The central claim is that scaling test-time computation via a difficulty-aware adaptive strategy, using either verifier search or distribution updates, produces higher performance per unit of compute than fixed strategies and, in FLOPs-equivalent comparisons, allows smaller models to surpass much larger models on tasks they can already solve with non-trivial probability.

What carries the argument

A compute-optimal scaling strategy that selects and allocates test-time compute per prompt according to its difficulty, switching between verifier-guided search and adaptive distribution updates to maximize output quality for the given inference budget.

If this is right

  • Test-time compute can be traded against pre-training compute to achieve higher performance at lower total resource cost.
  • Adaptive allocation per prompt is required to obtain the reported efficiency gains over non-adaptive baselines.
  • On tasks where a base model already succeeds with some probability, extra inference compute can substitute for increases in model size.
  • The tradeoff between inference-time and pre-training compute shifts in favor of the former when the right adaptive method is used.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This result suggests that model training objectives could be redesigned to better support subsequent test-time search and adaptation.
  • Resource allocation in large-scale AI systems may move toward lighter pretrained models paired with strong inference-time engines.
  • Extending the adaptive allocation idea to longer-horizon or multi-step tasks could support iterative self-improvement loops without further pretraining.

Load-bearing premise

The effectiveness of different test-time scaling methods varies predictably with prompt difficulty in a manner that permits reliable adaptive allocation without introducing new errors or overhead.

What would settle it

Direct measurement on a held-out set of prompts showing that the adaptive per-prompt allocation fails to deliver any efficiency gain over a fixed best-of-N strategy or fails to let the smaller model exceed the 14x larger model in FLOPs-matched runs.

read the original abstract

Enabling LLMs to improve their outputs by using more test-time computation is a critical step towards building generally self-improving agents that can operate on open-ended natural language. In this paper, we study the scaling of inference-time computation in LLMs, with a focus on answering the question: if an LLM is allowed to use a fixed but non-trivial amount of inference-time compute, how much can it improve its performance on a challenging prompt? Answering this question has implications not only on the achievable performance of LLMs, but also on the future of LLM pretraining and how one should tradeoff inference-time and pre-training compute. Despite its importance, little research attempted to understand the scaling behaviors of various test-time inference methods. Moreover, current work largely provides negative results for a number of these strategies. In this work, we analyze two primary mechanisms to scale test-time computation: (1) searching against dense, process-based verifier reward models; and (2) updating the model's distribution over a response adaptively, given the prompt at test time. We find that in both cases, the effectiveness of different approaches to scaling test-time compute critically varies depending on the difficulty of the prompt. This observation motivates applying a "compute-optimal" scaling strategy, which acts to most effectively allocate test-time compute adaptively per prompt. Using this compute-optimal strategy, we can improve the efficiency of test-time compute scaling by more than 4x compared to a best-of-N baseline. Additionally, in a FLOPs-matched evaluation, we find that on problems where a smaller base model attains somewhat non-trivial success rates, test-time compute can be used to outperform a 14x larger model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies scaling of test-time computation in LLMs via two mechanisms: searching with process-based verifier reward models and adaptive updates to the response distribution. It finds that effectiveness varies with prompt difficulty, motivating a compute-optimal adaptive allocation strategy. This strategy is claimed to improve efficiency by more than 4x over best-of-N and enable a smaller model to outperform a 14x larger model in FLOPs-matched settings on suitable prompts.

Significance. Should the results prove robust, the work is significant in demonstrating that test-time compute scaling can be more effective than parameter scaling for LLMs. It offers insights into optimal compute allocation and has implications for building self-improving AI agents and rethinking pretraining vs inference tradeoffs. The empirical demonstration of difficulty-dependent performance is a key contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Compute-optimal strategy section (likely §4.3)] The paper motivates the adaptive allocation from observed variation in method effectiveness with difficulty but does not account for the compute cost or error introduced by the difficulty estimator. This is load-bearing for the 4x efficiency claim and the 14x model outperformance, as misallocations or added FLOPs could invalidate the FLOPs-matched comparisons.
  2. [Experimental results (likely §5)] The results lack sufficient details on experimental setup, including specific benchmarks, baselines, statistical significance, error bars, and exact FLOPs calculation methodology for the adaptive methods. This hinders verification of the central empirical claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could specify the base models and datasets used to provide context for the 14x larger model comparison.
  2. [Methods] Clarify the distinction between process-based and outcome-based verifiers in the methods section to avoid potential confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments help clarify the presentation of our adaptive compute-optimal strategy and improve the experimental details. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Compute-optimal strategy section (likely §4.3)] The paper motivates the adaptive allocation from observed variation in method effectiveness with difficulty but does not account for the compute cost or error introduced by the difficulty estimator. This is load-bearing for the 4x efficiency claim and the 14x model outperformance, as misallocations or added FLOPs could invalidate the FLOPs-matched comparisons.

    Authors: We agree that a thorough accounting of the difficulty estimator is necessary to support the efficiency claims. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated analysis in the compute-optimal strategy section. This will include the computational overhead of the estimator (which is a small fraction of the total FLOPs), its prediction accuracy, and sensitivity analysis showing that the reported 4x efficiency improvement and the outperformance results remain valid even when including estimator costs and accounting for potential errors in difficulty assessment. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental results (likely §5)] The results lack sufficient details on experimental setup, including specific benchmarks, baselines, statistical significance, error bars, and exact FLOPs calculation methodology for the adaptive methods. This hinders verification of the central empirical claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater experimental transparency. The updated manuscript will provide comprehensive details on the experimental setup in §5, including the specific benchmarks employed, all baselines considered, results with error bars from multiple independent runs to establish statistical significance, and a clear, reproducible methodology for calculating FLOPs for both fixed and adaptive test-time compute strategies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on direct experimental comparisons

full rationale

The paper presents empirical results on test-time compute scaling for LLMs, comparing methods like search against verifiers and adaptive distribution updates. The central finding—that a compute-optimal adaptive strategy yields >4x efficiency gains and allows a smaller model to outperform a 14x larger one in FLOPs-matched settings—is supported by reported experiments on prompt difficulty variation, not by any self-referential definitions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations reduce to tautologies, and the adaptive allocation is described as motivated by observations then validated experimentally rather than derived by construction from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract; the work is presented as empirical analysis of existing mechanisms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5611 in / 1003 out tokens · 45701 ms · 2026-05-10T14:09:58.064482+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 60 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLMs Improving LLMs: Agentic Discovery for Test-Time Scaling

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 8.0

    AutoTTS discovers width-depth test-time scaling controllers through agentic search in a pre-collected trajectory environment, yielding better accuracy-cost tradeoffs than hand-designed baselines on math reasoning task...

  2. MedPRMBench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Process Reward Models in Medical Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    MedPRMBench is the first fine-grained benchmark for process reward models in medical reasoning, featuring 6500 questions, 13000 chains, 113910 step labels, and a baseline that improves downstream QA accuracy by 3.2-6....

  3. Query-Conditioned Test-Time Self-Training for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    QueST lets LLMs create query-conditioned problem-solution pairs at inference time and use them for parameter-efficient self-training, outperforming prior test-time baselines on math and science benchmarks.

  4. Think Twice, Act Once: Verifier-Guided Action Selection For Embodied Agents

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    VeGAS improves MLLM-based embodied agents by sampling action ensembles and using a verifier trained on LLM-synthesized failure cases, yielding up to 36% relative gains on hard multi-object long-horizon tasks in Habita...

  5. StepCodeReasoner: Aligning Code Reasoning with Stepwise Execution Traces via Reinforcement Learning

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    StepCodeReasoner aligns code reasoning with verifiable stepwise execution traces via print anchors and bi-level GRPO reinforcement learning, reaching SOTA results on CRUXEval (91.1%) and LiveCodeBench (86.5%) for a 7B model.

  6. Test-Time Compute for Dense Retrieval: Agentic Program Generation with Frozen Embedding Models

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Agentic program search over frozen embedding APIs yields a parameter-free inference algebra—a softmax-weighted centroid of top-K documents interpolated with the query—that lifts nDCG@10 across seven model families on ...

  7. V-ABS: Action-Observer Driven Beam Search for Dynamic Visual Reasoning

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    V-ABS is an action-observer beam search method with entropy-based adaptive weighting and an 80k-sample SFT dataset that delivers 19.7% average gains on visual reasoning tasks for MLLMs.

  8. Learning to Explore: Scaling Agentic Reasoning via Exploration-Aware Policy Optimization

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An exploration-aware RL framework lets LLM agents adaptively explore only under high uncertainty via variational rewards and action grouping, yielding consistent gains on text and GUI agent benchmarks.

  9. BubbleSpec: Turning Long-Tail Bubbles into Speculative Rollout Drafts for Synchronous Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    BubbleSpec exploits long-tail bubbles in synchronous RL by using faster ranks' idle time to pre-generate rollout drafts for speculative decoding, reducing steps by 50% and raising throughput up to 1.8x while preservin...

  10. CollabVR: Collaborative Video Reasoning with Vision-Language and Video Generation Models

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CollabVR improves video reasoning performance by coupling vision-language models and video generation models in a closed-loop step-level collaboration that detects and repairs generation failures.

  11. DUET: Optimize Token-Budget Allocation for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DUET improves RLVR by allocating tokens across both prompt selection and rollout length, outperforming full-budget baselines even when using only half the tokens.

  12. LLMs Improving LLMs: Agentic Discovery for Test-Time Scaling

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    AutoTTS discovers superior test-time scaling strategies for LLMs via cheap controller synthesis in a pre-collected trajectory environment, outperforming manual baselines on math benchmarks with low discovery cost.

  13. CA-SQL: Complexity-Aware Inference Time Reasoning for Text-to-SQL via Exploration and Compute Budget Allocation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CA-SQL achieves 51.72% execution accuracy on the challenging tier of the BIRD benchmark using GPT-4o-mini by scaling exploration breadth according to estimated task difficulty, evolutionary prompt seeding, and candida...

  14. Distributional Process Reward Models: Calibrated Prediction of Future Rewards via Conditional Optimal Transport

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Conditional optimal transport calibrates PRMs by learning monotonic conditional quantile functions over success probabilities conditioned on hidden states, yielding improved calibration and downstream Best-of-N perfor...

  15. Beyond Negative Rollouts: Positive-Only Policy Optimization with Implicit Negative Gradients

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    POPO uses bounded importance sampling on positive rollouts and a siamese policy network to achieve implicit negative gradients and stable optimization, matching or exceeding GRPO on math benchmarks such as 36.67% on A...

  16. Joint Consistency: A Unified Test-Time Aggregation Framework via Energy Minimization

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Joint Consistency casts test-time aggregation as Ising-type energy minimization with pairwise LLM-judge interactions, subsuming voting methods and outperforming baselines across reasoning tasks.

  17. Post Reasoning: Improving the Performance of Non-Thinking Models at No Cost

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    Post-Reasoning boosts LLM accuracy by reversing the usual answer-after-reasoning order, delivering mean relative gains of 17.37% across 117 model-benchmark pairs with zero extra cost.

  18. Logic-Regularized Verifier Elicits Reasoning from LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LOVER creates an unsupervised logic-regularized verifier that reaches 95% of supervised verifier performance on reasoning tasks across 10 datasets.

  19. Beyond Static Best-of-N: Bayesian List-wise Alignment for LLM-based Recommendation

    cs.IR 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    BLADE uses Bayesian list-wise alignment with dynamic estimation to create a self-evolving target that overcomes limitations of static references in LLM-based recommendation, yielding sustained gains in ranking and com...

  20. POSTCONDBENCH: Benchmarking Correctness and Completeness in Formal Postcondition Inference

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    POSTCONDBENCH is a new multilingual benchmark that evaluates LLM postcondition generation on real code using defect discrimination to assess completeness beyond surface matching.

  21. LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation

    cs.SE 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    LiveFMBench shows that direct LLM prompting for C program formal specs overestimates accuracy by ~20% due to unfaithful behaviors like deceiving provers, while agentic workflows help under low sampling but overall per...

  22. Token Arena: A Continuous Benchmark Unifying Energy and Cognition in AI Inference

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    TokenArena is a continuous benchmark for AI inference endpoints that measures output speed, time to first token, blended price, effective context, quality, and modeled energy to produce composites of joules per correc...

  23. Beyond the Training Distribution: Mapping Generalization Boundaries in Neural Program Synthesis

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    In a controlled arithmetic-grammar program synthesis environment, diverse sampling across semantic and syntactic spaces yields robust density generalization while support generalization for novel syntax remains poor, ...

  24. Walking Through Uncertainty: An Empirical Study of Uncertainty Estimation for Audio-Aware Large Language Models

    eess.AS 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Semantic-level and verification-based uncertainty methods outperform token-level baselines for audio reasoning in ALLMs, but their relative performance on hallucination and unanswerable-question benchmarks is model- a...

  25. Rewarding the Scientific Process: Process-Level Reward Modeling for Agentic Data Analysis

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DataPRM is a new process reward model for data analysis agents that detects silent errors via environment interaction and ternary rewards, yielding 7-11% gains on benchmarks and further RL improvements.

  26. Self-Correction as Feedback Control: Error Dynamics, Stability Thresholds, and Prompt Interventions in LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Self-correction in LLMs is stable and non-degrading only when ECR/EIR exceeds initial accuracy over (1-accuracy), with EIR below 0.5% cleanly separating helpful from harmful cases across models.

  27. Efficient Test-Time Inference via Deterministic Exploration of Truncated Decoding Trees

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Distinct Leaf Enumeration (DLE) replaces stochastic self-consistency sampling with deterministic traversal of a truncated decoding tree to enumerate distinct leaves, increasing coverage and reducing redundant computat...

  28. Self-Consistency from Only Two Samples: CoT-PoT Ensembling for Efficient LLM Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CoT-PoT ensembling achieves self-consistency accuracy in LLMs with only two samples for 78.6% of tasks, reducing computation by 9.3x compared to standard methods.

  29. Does RL Expand the Capability Boundary of LLM Agents? A PASS@(k,T) Analysis

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RL expands the capability boundary of LLM agents on compositional tool-use tasks, shown by non-converging pass curves at large k with increasing T, while SFT regresses it and the effect is absent on simpler tasks.

  30. PAC-MCTS: Bias-Aware Pruning for Robust LLM-Guided Search and Planning

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PAC-MCTS supplies bias-aware confidence bounds for pruning in LLM-guided MCTS, with O((Δ-4L)^{-2}) upper and Ω((Δ-2L)^{-2}) lower sample-complexity guarantees and up to 78% fewer API calls on Blocksworld and ALFWorld.

  31. Towards Unconstrained Human-Object Interaction

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces the U-HOI task and shows MLLMs plus a language-to-graph pipeline can handle human-object interactions without any predefined vocabulary at training or inference time.

  32. AdverMCTS: Combating Pseudo-Correctness in Code Generation via Adversarial Monte Carlo Tree Search

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    AdverMCTS frames code generation as a minimax game where an attacker evolves tests to expose flaws in solver-generated code, yielding more robust outputs than static-test baselines.

  33. AI Achieves a Perfect LSAT Score

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Language models achieve a perfect LSAT score, with experiments showing that internal thinking phases and a fine-tuned process reward model are key to high performance on logical reasoning questions.

  34. Can LLMs Deobfuscate Binary Code? A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models into Pseudocode Deobfuscation

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM deobfuscation of binaries to pseudocode depends more on reasoning ability and task-specific fine-tuning than on model size, with reasoning models showing robustness across ISAs and obfuscation levels on the new Bi...

  35. Sampling for Quality: Training-Free Reward-Guided LLM Decoding via Sequential Monte Carlo

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Sequential Monte Carlo sampling from a reward-augmented sequence distribution improves LLM performance on HumanEval by up to 54.9% and MATH500 by up to 8.8%, outperforming standard sampling and GRPO.

  36. Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    o1-like models overthink easy tasks; self-training reduces compute use without accuracy loss on GSM8K, MATH500, GPQA, and AIME.

  37. Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Coconut lets LLMs perform reasoning directly in continuous latent space by recycling hidden states as inputs, outperforming standard chain-of-thought on search-intensive logical tasks with better accuracy-efficiency t...

  38. Nice Fold or Hero Call: Learning Budget-Efficient Thinking for Adaptive Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    BET reduces reasoning tokens by about 55% on average while improving performance across benchmarks by learning to short-solve easy queries, fold early on unsolvable ones, and preserve budget for hard solvable queries.

  39. Decaf: Improving Neural Decompilation with Automatic Feedback and Search

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Decaf uses compiler feedback and search to improve neural decompilation, boosting semantic success rate from 26.0% to 83.9% on ExeBench Real -O2 split.

  40. Engagement Process: Rethinking the Temporal Interface of Action and Observation

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Engagement Process decouples actions and observations into separate time-based event streams within a POMDP structure to explicitly model timing mismatches, deliberation latency, and multi-rate interactions.

  41. fg-expo: Frontier-guided exploration-prioritized policy optimization via adaptive kl and gaussian curriculum

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    FG-ExPO improves GRPO by adaptively scaling the KL penalty with batch accuracy and sampling questions via a Gaussian centered at 0.5 accuracy, delivering up to 13.34 point gains on AIME 2025 pass@32.

  42. Likelihood scoring for continuations of mathematical text: a self-supervised benchmark with tests for shortcut vulnerabilities

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new benchmark uses separate predictor and scorer LLMs to test whether forecast strings improve likelihood of hidden mathematical equation continuations, with controls that detect priming shortcuts.

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

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Tail-extrapolated estimators approximate best-of-N policy gradients from limited training rollouts by leveraging upper-tail reward statistics under structural assumptions.

  44. Breaking the Reward Barrier: Accelerating Tree-of-Thought Reasoning via Speculative Exploration

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SPEX accelerates Tree-of-Thought LLM reasoning 1.2-3x via speculative path selection, dynamic budget allocation across queries, and adaptive early termination, with up to 4.1x when combined with token speculative decoding.

  45. Active Testing of Large Language Models via Approximate Neyman Allocation

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Active testing via surrogate semantic entropy stratification and approximate Neyman allocation reduces MSE by up to 28% versus uniform sampling and saves about 23% of the labeling budget on language and multimodal benchmarks.

  46. RubricRefine: Improving Tool-Use Agent Reliability with Training-Free Pre-Execution Refinement

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RubricRefine raises average tool-use reliability to 0.86 on M3ToolEval across seven models by scoring candidate code against generated contract rubrics before execution, beating prior inference-time methods at 2.6X lo...

  47. Forge: Quality-Aware Reinforcement Learning for NP-Hard Optimization in LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    OPT-BENCH trains LLMs on NP-hard optimization via quality-aware RLVR, achieving 93.1% success rate and 46.6% quality ratio on Qwen2.5-7B while outperforming GPT-4o and transferring gains to other domains.

  48. Hint Tuning: Less Data Makes Better Reasoners

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Hint Tuning uses an instruct model as a difficulty probe to create 1K multi-level hint examples that train reasoning models to calibrate chain-of-thought length, cutting tokens by 31.5% on average across 4B-32B models...

  49. AIPO: : Learning to Reason from Active Interaction

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AIPO trains LLMs to expand their reasoning capability boundary via active multi-agent interaction with Verify, Knowledge, and Reasoning agents during RLVR, using importance sampling and clipping to handle feedback, th...

  50. Revisiting Transformer Layer Parameterization Through Causal Energy Minimization

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CEM recasts Transformer layers as energy minimization steps, enabling constrained parameterizations like weight sharing and low-rank interactions that match standard baselines in 100M-scale language modeling.

  51. Distributional Process Reward Models: Calibrated Prediction of Future Rewards via Conditional Optimal Transport

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Conditional optimal transport is used to turn raw PRM outputs into monotonic quantile functions that improve calibration and downstream Best-of-N performance on MATH-500 and AIME.

  52. Power Distribution Bridges Sampling, Self-Reward RL, and Self-Distillation

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The power distribution is the target of power sampling, the closed-form solution to self-reward KL-regularized RL, and the basis for power self-distillation that matches sampling performance at lower cost.

  53. OGPO: Sample Efficient Full-Finetuning of Generative Control Policies

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    OGPO is a sample-efficient off-policy method for full finetuning of generative control policies that reaches SOTA on robotic manipulation tasks and can recover from poor behavior-cloning initializations without expert data.

  54. Distilling Long-CoT Reasoning through Collaborative Step-wise Multi-Teacher Decoding

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CoRD uses collaborative multi-teacher step-wise decoding with perplexity-guided beam search to generate higher-quality Long-CoT data that lets smaller models reach near-teacher performance with less supervision.

  55. Counting as a minimal probe of language model reliability

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Language models have limited stable counting capacity well below context limits and rely on a finite set of count-like internal states, collapsing to guessing once exhausted.

  56. The Perceptual Bandwidth Bottleneck in Vision-Language Models: Active Visual Reasoning via Sequential Experimental Design

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    VLMs suffer from a perceptual bandwidth bottleneck; the paper formalizes active visual reasoning as sequential Bayesian optimal experimental design, derives a coverage-resolution proxy objective, and introduces the tr...

  57. The Perceptual Bandwidth Bottleneck in Vision-Language Models: Active Visual Reasoning via Sequential Experimental Design

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    VLMs improve high-resolution reasoning by framing it as sequential Bayesian optimal experimental design, using a coverage-resolution proxy and the FOVEA procedure to acquire task-relevant visual evidence, yielding gai...

  58. When Less is Enough: Efficient Inference via Collaborative Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    A large model generates a compact reasoning signal that a small model uses to solve tasks, reducing the large model's output tokens by up to 60% on benchmarks like AIME and GPQA.

  59. State Stream Transformer (SST) V2: Parallel Training of Nonlinear Recurrence for Latent Space Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SST V2 introduces parallel-trainable nonlinear recurrence in latent space to let transformers reason continuously across positions, delivering +15 points on GPQA-Diamond and halving remaining GSM8K errors over matched...

  60. Length Value Model: Scalable Value Pretraining for Token-Level Length Modeling

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LenVM models token-level remaining generation length as a bounded discounted value function derived from constant negative per-token rewards, providing a scalable proxy for generation horizon.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 117 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Coming soon, 2024

    Training revision models with synthetic data. Coming soon, 2024. 16

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Andrieu, N

    C. Andrieu, N. De Freitas, A. Doucet, and M. I. Jordan. An introduction to mcmc for machine learning. 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    R. Anil, A. M. Dai, O. Firat, M. Johnson, D. Lepikhin, A. Passos, S. Shakeri, E. Taropa, P. Bailey, Z. Chen, E. Chu, J. H. Clark, L. E. Shafey, Y. Huang, K. Meier-Hellstern, G. Mishra, E. Moreira, M. Omernick, K. Robinson, S. Ruder, Y. Tay, K. Xiao, Y. Xu, Y. Zhang, G. H. Abrego, J. Ahn, J. Austin, P. Barham, J. Botha, J. Bradbury, S. Brahma, K. Brooks, M...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Y. Bai, S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirhoseini, C. McKinnon, C. Chen, C. Olsson, C. Olah, D. Hernandez, D. Drain, D. Ganguli, D. Li, E. Tran- Johnson, E. Perez, J. Kerr, J. Mueller, J. Ladish, J. Landau, K. Ndousse, K. Lukosuite, L. Lovitt, M. Sellitto, N. Elhage, N. Schiefer, N. Mercado, N. DasSarma, R. ...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    W., Owen, S., and Frankle, J

    C. Blakeney, M. Paul, B. W. Larsen, S. Owen, and J. Frankle. Does your data spark joy? performance gains from domain upsampling at the end of training, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.03476

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    G. Chen, M. Liao, C. Li, and K. Fan. Alphamath almost zero: process supervision without process, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Cobbe, V

    K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Y. Du, S. Li, A. Torralba, J. B. Tenenbaum, and I. Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    J. S. B. T. Evans. Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning.British Journal of Psychology, 75(4): 451–468, 1984

    work page 1984

  10. [10]

    X. Feng, Z. Wan, M. Wen, S. M. McAleer, Y. Wen, W. Zhang, and J. Wang. Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    L. Gao, A. Madaan, S. Zhou, U. Alon, P. Liu, Y. Yang, J. Callan, and G. Neubig. Pal: Program-aided language models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10435

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    S., Menon, A

    S. Goyal, Z. Ji, A. S. Rawat, A. K. Menon, S. Kumar, and V. Nagarajan. Think before you speak: Train- ing language models with pause tokens, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02226. 17

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Hendrycks, C

    D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Kadavath, A. Arora, S. Basart, E. Tang, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Hoffmann, S

    J. Hoffmann, S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, E. Buchatskaya, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, D. de Las Casas, L. A. Hendricks, J. Welbl, A. Clark, T. Hennigan, E. Noland, K. Millican, G. van den Driessche, B. Damoc, A. Guy, S. Osindero, K. Simonyan, E. Elsen, J. W. Rae, O. Vinyals, and L. Sifre. Training compute-optimal large language models, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Chen, S. Mishra, H. S. Zheng, A. W. Yu, X. Song, and D. Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    A. L. Jones. Scaling scaling laws with board games, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2104. 03113

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Kahneman

    D. Kahneman. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics.The American Economic Review, 93(5):1449–1475, 2003

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Kahneman.Thinking, fast and slow

    D. Kahneman.Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, first paperback edition edition, 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Kocsis and C

    L. Kocsis and C. Szepesv’ari. Bandit based monte-carlo planning. InEuropean conference on machine learning, pages 282–293. Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Lewkowycz, A

    A. Lewkowycz, A. Andreassen, D. Dohan, E. Dyer, H. Michalewski, V. Ramasesh, A. Slone, C. Anil, I. Schlag, T. Gutman-Solo, Y. Wu, B. Neyshabur, G. Gur-Ari, and V. Misra. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Y. Li, Z. Lin, S. Zhang, Q. Fu, B. Chen, J.-G. Lou, and W. Chen. Making large language models better reasoners with step-aware verifier, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Lightman, V

    H. Lightman, V. Kosaraju, Y. Burda, H. Edwards, B. Baker, T. Lee, J. Leike, J. Schulman, I. Sutskever, and K. Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Madaan, N

    A. Madaan, N. Tandon, P. Gupta, S. Hallinan, L. Gao, S. Wiegreffe, U. Alon, N. Dziri, S. Prabhumoye, Y. Yang, S. Gupta, B. P. Majumder, K. Hermann, S. Welleck, A. Yazdanbakhsh, and P. Clark. Self- refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    McAleese, R

    N. McAleese, R. Pokorny, J. F. Cerón Uribe, E. Nitishinskaya, M. Trębacz, and J. Leike. Llm critics help catch llm bugs.OpenAI, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Y. Qin, S. Liang, Y. Ye, K. Zhu, L. Yan, Y. Lu, Y. Lin, X. Cong, X. Tang, B. Qian, S. Zhao, L. Hong, R. Tian, R. Xie, J. Zhou, M. Gerstein, D. Li, Z. Liu, and M. Sun. Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world apis, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16789

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    C. Qu, S. Dai, X. Wei, H. Cai, S. Wang, D. Yin, J. Xu, and J.-R. Wen. Tool learning with large language models: A survey, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17935

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Y. Qu, T. Zhang, N. Garg, and A. Kumar. Recursive introspection: Teaching foundation models how to self-improve. 2024. 18

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Sardana and J

    N. Sardana and J. Frankle. Beyond chinchilla-optimal: Accounting for inference in language model scaling laws, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Saunders, C

    W. Saunders, C. Yeh, J. Wu, S. Bills, L. Ouyang, J. Ward, and J. Leike. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators, 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Rl on incorrect synthetic data scales the efficiency of llm math reasoning by eight-fold.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14532, 2024

    A. Setlur, S. Garg, X. Geng, N. Garg, V. Smith, and A. Kumar. Rl on incorrect synthetic data scales the efficiency of llm math reasoning by eight-fold.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14532, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, X. Bi, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and D. Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Sharma, S

    A. Sharma, S. Keh, E. Mitchell, C. Finn, K. Arora, and T. Kollar. A critical evaluation of ai feedback for aligning large language models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12366

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Shinn, F

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, E. Berman, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning, 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Singh, J

    A. Singh, J. D. Co-Reyes, R. Agarwal, A. Anand, P. Patil, X. Garcia, P. J. Liu, J. Harrison, J. Lee, K. Xu, A. Parisi, A. Kumar, A. Alemi, A. Rizkowsky, A. Nova, B. Adlam, B. Bohnet, G. Elsayed, H. Sedghi, I. Mordatch, I. Simpson, I. Gur, J. Snoek, J. Pennington, J. Hron, K. Kenealy, K. Swersky, K. Mahajan, L. Culp, L. Xiao, M. L. Bileschi, N. Constant, R...

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Snell, E

    C. Snell, E. Wallace, D. Klein, and S. Levine. Predicting emergent capabilities by finetuning. Conference on Language Modeling 2024, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Stechly, M

    K. Stechly, M. Marquez, and S. Kambhampati. Gpt-4 doesn’t know it’s wrong: An analysis of iterative prompting for reasoning problems, 2023

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto.Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Second edition, 2018

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    G. Team. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Y. Tian, B. Peng, L. Song, L. Jin, D. Yu, H. Mi, and D. Yu. Toward self-improvement of llms via imagination, searching, and criticizing, 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models

    H.Touvron, L.Martin, K.Stone, P.Albert, A.Almahairi, Y.Babaei, N.Bashlykov, S.Batra, P.Bhargava, S. Bhosale, D. Bikel, L. Blecher, C. C. Ferrer, M. Chen, G. Cucurull, D. Esiobu, J. Fernandes, J. Fu, W. Fu, B. Fuller, C. Gao, V. Goswami, N. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, S. Hosseini, R. Hou, H. Inan, M. Kardas, V. Kerkez, M. Khabsa, I. Kloumann, A. Korenev, P. S. Ko...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Uesato, N

    J. Uesato, N. Kushman, R. Kumar, F. Song, N. Siegel, L. Wang, A. Creswell, G. Irving, and I. Higgins. Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback, 2022. 19

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Valmeekam, M

    K. Valmeekam, M. Marquez, and S. Kambhampati. Can large language models really improve by self-critiquing their own plans?, 2023

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Villalobos and D

    P. Villalobos and D. Atkinson. Trading off compute in training and inference, 2023. URLhttps: //epochai.org/blog/trading-off-compute-in-training-and-inference . Accessed: 2024-07-03

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    P. Wang, L. Li, Z. Shao, R. X. Xu, D. Dai, Y. Li, D. Chen, Y. Wu, and Z. Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations, 2023

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    R. Wang, E. Zelikman, G. Poesia, Y. Pu, N. Haber, and N. D. Goodman. Hypothesis search: Inductive reasoning with language models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05660

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y. Cao, and K. Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models, 2023

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Z. Yuan, H. Yuan, C. Li, G. Dong, K. Lu, C. Tan, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou. Scaling relationship on learning mathematical reasoning with large language models, 2023

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Zelikman, Y

    E. Zelikman, Y. Wu, J. Mu, and N. D. Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning, 2022

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Zelikman, Georges Harik, Yijia Shao, Varuna Jayasiri, Nick Haber, and Noah D

    E. Zelikman, G. Harik, Y. Shao, V. Jayasiri, N. Haber, and N. D. Goodman. Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.09629. 20 Appendices A. Related Work Language model reasoning.Language model performance on challenging mathematical reasoning tasks has rapidly improved in recent years [...

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    predicted difficulty

    improving the LLM proposal distribution by either applying targeted optimization on specific reasoning tasks by finetuning with RL [32, 35, 49, 50] enabling models to critique and revise their answers iteratively [4, 8, 23, 30]; 3) enabling LLMs to benefit from additional test-time computation by finetuning verifiers [6, 7, 10, 22, 40, 42, 45, 48]. Our wo...

    work page 2048