Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Test-time scaling is widely adopted in STEM and reasoning benchmarks, where allocating more computational effort to inference has been shown to yield higher performance.
“This approach is widely adopted in STEM and reasoning benchmarks [70], where allocating more computational effort to inference has been shown to yield higher performance.”
From When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research (2025) · cites this paper as [70]
The Datasets section (page not supplied) says the study focuses on the MATH benchmark, and the Discussion and Future Work section reports performance gains from allocating test-time compute adaptively. The paper does not establish that this approach is widely adopted across STEM and reasoning benchmarks; it also says gains depend on problem difficulty and can be small on the hardest questions. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn other domains such as math or common-sense reasoning, parallel sampling with self-consistency has been shown to be highly competitive.
“This contrasts with findings in other domains, such as math or common-sense reasoning, where parallel sampling with self-consistency has been shown to be highly competitive (Snell et al., 2024).”
From The Illusion of Diminishing Returns: Measuring Long Horizon Execution in LLMs (2025) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
In “Using revisions at inference-time” (page unavailable), the paper compares parallel sampling with majority voting on math problems and says sequential revisions narrowly outperform it. That supports parallel sampling as a competitive approach in the studied setting, but our copy does not establish the claimed result for common-sense reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.80)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWu et al. (2024) and Snell et al. (2024) demonstrated that small models with scaling strategies such as majority voting, best-of-n, and weighted voting can outperform larger models when using the same amount of FLOPs.
“Wu et al. (2024) and Snell et al. (2024) demonstrated that small models with scaling strategies such as majority voting, best-of-n, and weighted voting can outperform larger models when using the same amount of FLOPs.”
From Multi-Agent Reasoning Improves Compute Efficiency: Pareto-Optimal Test-Time Scaling (2026) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
The Abstract and “Test-time Search Against a PRM Verifier” report that a smaller model using additional test-time compute can outperform a 14× larger model in a FLOPs-matched comparison, chiefly on easier and intermediate problems; the most challenging problems showed little benefit. The paper discusses majority voting and best-of-N, but its “Best-of-N weighted” method selects an answer using a verifier, not weighted voting. It does not establish that each strategy listed in the claim outperforms a larger model. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTest-time scaling consistently improves performance on challenging math and code problems that require reasoning by increasing computational resources allocated during inference.
“This approach consistently improves performance on challenging math and code problems that require reasoning by increasing the computational resources allocated during inference [8,158].”
From Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [158]
The Datasets section says the experiments focus on the MATH benchmark, and the Test-time Search Against a PRM Verifier section reports that additional test-time compute can improve outputs under some conditions. But that section reports very little benefit on the most challenging questions, while Further improving test-time compute scaling describes small gains on hard problems. The paper does not establish the claim for code problems or support 'consistently' across challenging problems (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe agentic loop acts as a powerful test-time scaling mechanism.
“This agentic loop acts as a powerful test-time scaling mechanism [25, 17, 32], utilizing the reasoning capabilities [31] of LLMs at each turn while grounding them through environment responses.”
From The Complexity Trap: Simple Observation Masking Is as Efficient as LLM Summarization for Agent Context Management (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
The ‘Test-time Search Against a PRM Verifier’ section reports that iteratively refining an answer can be an effective use of test-time compute, particularly for easier problems. It does not establish that an agentic loop grounded in environment responses is a powerful scaling mechanism; the paper studies answer revision and verifier-guided search instead. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Test-time scaling and inference-time adaptation provide promising pathways for enhancing cross-domain generalization.
“Recent advancements in test-time scaling and inference-time adaptation provide promising pathways for enhancing cross-domain generalization (Snell et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025l).”
From A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
The Introduction and Section 6 describe test-time computation and iterative inference-time revisions that can improve LLM responses on reasoning problems. They do not establish that these methods enhance cross-domain generalization; the paper’s analysis focuses on math reasoning rather than transfer across domains. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTest-time scaling and inference-time adaptation techniques allow agents to dynamically allocate additional reasoning capacity to unfamiliar scenarios by scaling computational resources during inference, avoiding the need for increasing model parameters.
“These techniques allow agents to dynamically allocate additional reasoning capacity to unfamiliar scenarios by scaling computational resources during inference, avoiding the need for increasing model parameters.”
From A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredScaling inference-time computation improves language model performance through repeated sampling, longer reasoning trajectories, search, and multi-agent collaboration.
“Scaling inference-time computation improves language model performance through repeated sampling, longer reasoning trajectories, search, and multi-agent collaboration (Brown et al., 2024;Snell et al., 2024;Du et al., 2023).”
From GitSwarm: Decentralized Compounding Inference (2026) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
The Abstract and “Using revisions at inference-time” report performance gains from test-time computation, including sampling longer revision chains; the paper also studies verifier-guided search and parallel sampling. “Augmenting LLMs with test-time compute” discusses longer sequences as another approach. Our copy does not show that this paper establishes performance gains through multi-agent collaboration; multiagent debate appears only in its References. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent literature shows that model performance can improve significantly with respect to the number of tokens sampled at inference time.
“Recent literature shows that model performance can improve significantly with respect to the number of tokens sampled at inference time [40], so it's natural to wonder if the lack of speedup is driven by limited token spend.”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Techniques like Self-Consistency or test-time compute scaling aggregate multiple samples to improve reliability, effectively merging the distribution p(y|x) into a single robust prediction.
“Techniques like Self-Consistency (Chen et al., 2023) or test-time compute scaling (Snell et al., 2024) aggregate multiple samples to improve reliability, effectively merging the distribution p(y|x) into a single robust prediction.”
From Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
AZR is compatible for further test-time scaling.
“compatible for further test-time scaling (Snell et al., 2024).”
From Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data (2025) · cites this paper as Snell et al., 2024
The section “Further improving test-time compute scaling” discusses combining test-time methods, but does not address AZR or its compatibility with them. Searches for “AZR” and “compatible for further test-time scaling” found no passage establishing that specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- 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. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.03476.
- J. S. B. T. Evans. Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75(4): 451-468, 1984.
- L. Gao, A. Madaan, S. Zhou, U. Alon, P. Liu, Y. Yang, J. Callan, and G. Neubig. Pal: Program-aided language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10435. · arXiv
- 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. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02226. · arXiv
- A. L. Jones. Scaling scaling laws with board games, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104. 03113.
- D. Kahneman. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5):1449-1475, 2003.
- D. Kahneman. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, first paperback edition edition, 2013.
- L. Kocsis and C. Szepesv'ari. Bandit based monte-carlo planning. In European conference on machine learning, pages 282-293. Springer, 2006.
- 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. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16789. · arXiv
- 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. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17935. · arXiv
- W. Saunders, C. Yeh, J. Wu, S. Bills, L. Ouyang, J. Ward, and J. Leike. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators, 2022.
- 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. · arXiv
- 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. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12366. · arXiv
- C. Snell, E. Wallace, D. Klein, and S. Levine. Predicting emergent capabilities by finetuning. Conference on Language Modeling 2024, 2024.
- R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Second edition, 2018.
- 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. Koura, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lavril, J. Lee, D. Liskovich, Y. Lu, Y. Mao, X. Martinet, T. Mihaylov, P. Mishra, I. Molybog, Y. Nie, A. Poulton, J. Reizenstein, R. Rungta, K. Saladi, A. Schelten, R. Silva, E. M. Smith, R. Subramanian, X. E. Tan, B. Tang, R. Taylor, A. Williams, J. X. Kuan, P. Xu, Z. Yan, I. Zarov, Y. Zhang, A. Fan, M. Kambadur, S. Narang, A. Rodriguez, R. Stojnic, S. Edunov, and T. Scialom. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288. · arXiv
- R. Wang, E. Zelikman, G. Poesia, Y. Pu, N. Haber, and N. D. Goodman. Hypothesis search: Inductive reasoning with language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05660. · arXiv
- 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. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.09629.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Muennighoff, N., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Li, X. L., Fei-Fei, L., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Liang, P., Candes, E., & Hashimoto, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1025 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Zhang, Z., Yao, Y., Zhang, A., Tang, X., Ma, X., He, Z., Wang, Y., Gerstein, M., Wang, R., Liu, G., et al. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3719341 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Xiao, C., Cai, J., Zhao, W., Lin, B., Zeng, G., Zhou, J., Zheng, Z., Han, X., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01137-0 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“…to be more efficient and compact 15–19 ; and (3) the inference scaling law indicates that allowing LLMs to generate more tokens for ‘thinking’ during the inference stage is crucial for improving performance in complex reasoning tasks 20–22 , further increasing the demand for efficient inference.”
Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space
Hao, S., Sukhbaatar, S., Su, D., Li, X., Hu, Z., Weston, J., & Tian, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06769 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“One promising direction is pretraining LLMs with continuous thoughts, which may enable models to generalize more effectively across a wider range of reasoning scenarios.”
Absolute Zero: Reinforced Self-play Reasoning with Zero Data
Zhao, A., Wu, Y., Yue, Y., Wu, T., Xu, Q., Yue, Y., Lin, M., Wang, S., Wu, Q., Zheng, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Muennighoff, N., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Li, X. L., Fei-Fei, L., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Liang, P., Candès, E., & Hashimoto, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.19393 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“We classify test-time scaling methods into 1) Sequential , where later computations depend on earlier ones (e.g., a long reasoning trace), and 2) Parallel , where computations run independently (e.g., majority voting) (Snell et al., 2024; Brown et al., 2024).”
Yager, K. G. (2024) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d4dd00178h · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity
Becker, J., Rush, N., Barnes, E., & Rein, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.09089 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Recent literature shows that model performance can improve significantly with respect to the number of tokens sampled at inference time [40], so it’s natural to wonder if the lack of speedup is driven by limited token spend.”
Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI
Hammond, L., Chan, A., Clifton, J., Hoelscher-Obermaier, J., Khan, A., McLean, E., Smith, C., Barfuss, W., Foerster, J., Gavenčiak, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14143 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A Survey of Post-Training Scaling in Large Language Models
Lai, H., Liu, X., Gao, J., Cheng, J., Qi, Z., Xu, Y., Yao, S., Zhang, D., Du, J., Hou, Z., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.140 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Kapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Siegel, Z. S., Nadgir, N., & Narayanan, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.01502 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“We evaluate five agent architectures: • Uncompiled: We do not optimize the agent’s prompt or include instructions on formatting Hot-PotQA queries.”
Artsi, Y., Klang, E., Collins, J. D., Glicksberg, B. S., Korfiatis, P., Nadkarni, G. N., & Sorin, V. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.03.18.25324193 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research
Son, G., Hong, J., Fan, H., Nam, H., Ko, H., Lim, S., Song, J., Choi, J., Paulo, G., Yu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11855 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“This approach is widely adopted in STEM and reasoning benchmarks [70], where allocating more computational effort to inference has been shown to yield higher performance.”
Zeng, Z., Cheng, Q., Yin, Z., Zhou, Y., & Qiu, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.232 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning
Ye, Y., Huang, Z., Xiao, Y., Chern, E., Xia, S., & Liu, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03387 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Instead of focusing on scaling model parameters and training data (Kaplan et al., 2020), recent work has shifted to exploring test-time scaling (OpenAI, 2024; Snell et al., 2024), i.e., increasing the number of tokens to improve performance.”
Aggarwal, P., Parno, B., & Welleck, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06176 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Bai, L., Huang, Z., Wang, X., Sun, J., Mihalcea, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Pentland, A., & Pei, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22750 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“This non-monotonic trend is consistent with recent findings on inverse test-time scaling (Snell et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2025; Gema et al., 2025; Zeng et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025; Aggarwal et al., 2025), which show that additional reasoning steps or longer chains of thought do not necessarily…”
SWE-Search: Enhancing Software Agents with Monte Carlo Tree Search and Iterative Refinement
Antoniades, A., Örwall, A., Zhang, K., Xie, Y., Goyal, A., & Wang, W. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.20285 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Recently, researchers have started exploring how different methods scale with inference-time (OpenAI, 2024; Snell et al., 2024; Dubey et al., 2024).”
Gao, H.-A., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21046 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models
Sui, Y., Chuang, Y.-N., Wang, G., Zhang, J., Zhang, T., Yuan, J., Liu, H., Wen, A., Zhong, S., Zou, N., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“This approach consistently improves performance on challenging math and code problems that require reasoning by increasing the computational resources allocated during inference [5,77].”
BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games
Paglieri, D., Cupiał, B., Coward, S., Piterbarg, U., Wolczyk, M., Khan, A., Pignatelli, E., Kuciński, Ł., Pinto, L., Fergus, R., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13543 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“This could be due to the models’ inability to retrieve relevant computational circuits (Olah et al., 2020), limitations to inference-time budget (Snell et al., 2024), or representational expressivity.”
Empowering Large Language Model Agent through Step-Level Self-Critique and Self-Training
Zhai, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Lin, T., Xu, K., Yang, C., Feng, D., Ding, B., & Wang, H. (2025) · Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3726302.3729965 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationObservational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance
Ruan, Y., Maddison, C. J., & Hashimoto, T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.10938 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
The Illusion of Diminishing Returns: Measuring Long Horizon Execution in LLMs
Sinha, A., Arun, A., Goel, S., Staab, S., & Geiping, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.09677 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“This contrasts with findings in other domains, such as math or common-sense reasoning, where parallel sampling with self-consistency has been shown to be highly competitive (Snell et al., 2024).”
Mamba-3: Improved Sequence Modeling using State Space Principles
Lahoti, A., Li, K. Y., Chen, B., Wang, C., Bick, A., Kolter, J. Z., Dao, T., & Gu, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15569 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…modeling accuracy by +2.2 over Transformers, +1.9 points over Mamba-2, and +1.8 over GDN, while Mamba-3 (SISO) improves over the next best model, GDN, by +0.6 points. the perplexity of Mamba-2 with state size 128, effectively achieving the same language modeling performance with half the latency .”
InfluentialLatentEvolve: Self-Evolving Test-Time Scaling in Latent Space
Zhang, G., Meng, F., Wan, G., Li, Z., Wang, K., Yin, Z., Bai, L., & Yan, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24771
“This can involve multiple samples from a single LLM (Brown et al., 2024; Snell et al., 2024) or sampling from multiple heterogeneous LLMs (Zhang et al., 2025d; Ye et al., 2025).”
Multi-Agent Reasoning Improves Compute Efficiency: Pareto-Optimal Test-Time Scaling
Wunderlich, F. V., Kaesberg, L. B., Wahle, J. P., Ruas, T., & Gipp, B. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 4: Student Research Workshop) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-srw.1
“Wu et al. (2024) and Snell et al. (2024) demonstrated that small models with scaling strategies such as majority voting, best-of-n, and weighted voting can outperform larger models when using the same amount of FLOPs.”
Self-Critique Guided Iterative Reasoning for Multi-hop Question Answering
Chu, Z., Fan, H., Chen, J., Wang, Q., Yang, M., Liang, J., Wang, Z., Li, H., Tang, G., Liu, M., et al. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.123
Quantization Hurts Reasoning? An Empirical Study on Quantized Reasoning Models
Liu, R., Sun, Y., Zhang, M., Bai, H., Yu, X., Yu, T., Yuan, C., & Hou, L. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04823
“Test-time scaling has become a prevalent technique for enhancing reasoning model performance (Snell et al., 2024; Muennighoff et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025).”
ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification
Lee, H., Oh, S., Kim, J., Shin, J., & Tack, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14565
“Test-time scaling for LLMs. Recent works explored that scaling test-time computation, such as best-of-N sampling, can be even better than scaling train-time computation for performance (Snell et al., 2024).”
Agentic Plan Caching: Test-Time Memory for Fast and Cost-Efficient LLM Agents
Zhang, Q., Wornow, M., Wan, G., & Olukotun, K. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14852
“Specifically, the Plan stage is often implemented via test-time compute techniques [13, 47] like chain-of-thought reasoning [53], which can require numerous LLM queries and access to expensive LLMs ( e.g., reasoning models).”
Rethinking Mixture-of-Agents: Is Mixing Different Large Language Models Beneficial?
Li, W., Lin, Y., Xia, M., & Jin, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00674
“As the community is becoming more aware of scaling inference time computing (Brown et al., 2024; Snell et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024), one natural question to ask is: Given a strong model, does Self-MoA’s performance scale with the number of repeated samples?”
Heterogeneous Swarms: Jointly Optimizing Model Roles and Weights for Multi-LLM Systems
Feng, S., Wang, Z., Goyal, P., Wang, Y., Shi, W., Xia, H., Palangi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Tsvetkov, Y., Lee, C.-Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04510
“Scaling Multi-LLM Collaboration Recent research explored the inference-time scaling of a single, often gargantuan, LLM [82, 5, 100].”
InfluentialRecursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…— was established by Self-Refine [6] and Reflexion [17] in 2023, and inference-time iteration was given a scaling-law treatment by Snell et al. [18], who showed that spending compute on revisions and search at test time can outperform spending it on a larger model, and framed such compute…”
MEM1: Learning to Synergize Memory and Reasoning for Efficient Long-Horizon Agents
Zhou, Z., Qu, A., Wu, Z., Kim, S., Prakash, A., Rus, D., Zhao, J., Low, B. K. H., & Liang, P. P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15841
“Recently, inference-time scaling has emerged as a promising direction for enabling complex reasoning, with prior research incorporating evaluators ( e.g., verifier, reward model) [46, 31] or world models [9].”
Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks
Haase, J., Gonnermann-Müller, J., Hanel, P. H. P., Leins, N., Kosch, T., Mendling, J., & Pokutta, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21339
“Techniques like Self-Consistency (Chen et al., 2023) or test-time compute scaling (Snell et al., 2024) aggregate multiple samples to improve reliability, effectively merging the distribution p ( y | x ) into a single robust prediction.”
SWE-Master: Unleashing the Potential of Software Engineering Agents via Post-Training
Song, H., Huang, L., Sun, S., Jiang, J., Le, R., Cheng, D., Chen, G., Hu, Y., Chen, Z., Jia, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03411
“Test-Time scaling (TTS) significantly enhances the performance of SWE agents by leveraging increased inference-time compute to navigate complex task spaces [38, 39].”
Purified OPSD: On-Policy Self-Distillation Without Losing How to Think
Shen, Z., Tong, J., Yan, S., Shen, C., Chen, H., Ye, W., Hu, X., Miao, R., Wang, H., Zhao, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.02234
“Models such as OpenAI o1 [Jaech et al., 2024], DeepSeek-R1 [Guo et al., 2025], and QwQ [Team, 2024] have shown that scaling test-time compute through longer reasoning chains can be more effective than scaling model parameters [Snell et al., 2024].”
SealQA: Raising the Bar for Reasoning in Search-Augmented Language Models
Pham, T., Nguyen, N., Zunjare, P., Chen, W., Tseng, Y.-M., & Vu, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.01062
“…is embodied in reasoning models , which leverage reinforcement learning and other techniques to guide inference-time strategies such as chain-of-thought reasoning, recursive refinement, and real-time search [Muennighoff et al., 2025, Guo et al., 2025, Snell et al., 2024, Geiping et al., 2025].”
Lindenbauer, T., Slinko, I., Felder, L., Bogomolov, E., & Zharov, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21433
Locality-aware Fair Scheduling in LLM Serving
Cao, S., Wang, Y., Mao, Z., Hsu, P.-L., Yin, L., Xia, T., Li, D., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14312
From Harm to Help: Turning Reasoning In-Context Demos into Assets for Reasoning LMs
Wang, H., Liang, W., Fu, Z., Zheng, N., Zhang, Y., Tong, Y., Zhu, T., Jiang, H., Li, C., Wu, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.23196
Implicit Language Models are RNNs: Balancing Parallelization and Expressivity
Schöne, M., Rahmani, B., Kremer, H., Falck, F., Ballani, H., & Gladrow, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.07827
GitSwarm: Decentralized Compounding Inference
Shah, V., Samanta, A., Dahal, P., Plekhanov, M., Wu, C.-J., Yih, S., Munos, R., Fergus, R., Foerster, J., Salakhutdinov, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.04862
Twin: Playing an Unknown Game with a Test-Time Digital Twin
Skoutnev, A., Acharya, K., Longhitano, G., Udell, M., Ellis, K., & Drori, I. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.14490
Cartridges: Lightweight and general-purpose long context representations via self-study
Eyuboglu, S., Ehrlich, R., Arora, S., Guha, N., Zinsley, D., Liu, E., Tennien, W., Rudra, A., Zou, J., Mirhoseini, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.06266
TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning
Zuo, Y., Zhang, K., Sheng, L., Qu, S., Cui, G., Zhu, X., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Long, X., Hua, E., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“Prior research [25, 40] indicates that TTS is more efficient than scaling during pre-training [19].”
Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist
Gottweis, J., Weng, W.-H., Daryin, A., Tu, T., Sirkovic, P., Myaskovsky, A., Glowaty, G., Weissenberger, F., Orlandi, A., Popovici, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.18864 · Cited by 158
MAS-GPT: Training LLMs to Build LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
Ye, R., Tang, S., Ge, R., Du, Y., Yin, Z., Chen, S., & Shao, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03686
- Authors
- Snell, C., Lee, J., Xu, K., & Kumar, A.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2408.03314
- OpenAlex
- W4406492615
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- large language models, test-time compute scaling, self-improving agents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
