More Test-Time Compute Can Hurt: Overestimation Bias in LLM Beam Search

Beam-search-based test-time methods provide an effective way to improve large language model (LLM) performance on long-horizon generation by pruning invalid reasoning paths early, leading to significantly improved reasoning efficiency and more favorable test-time cost scaling. Despite strong empirical success, the theoretical understanding of beam search remains limited. In this paper, we study the test-time compute guarantee of the commonly used beam search framework that uses the model's internal log-likelihood for intermediate scoring, while relying on an external reward model only after a complete response is generated. We first establish a lower bound for vanilla beam search, showing that at least $Ω(C^\star(x)^2)$ samples are required for the optimal response to survive, where $C^\star(x)$ is the token-level coverage coefficient for prompt $x$. This motivates our modified confidence-filtered beam search (CF-Beam), which reduces the sufficient coverage dependence from quadratic to nearly linear under prefix competitiveness, for fixed horizon, gap, and target accuracy. We then show that the regret of CF-Beam is upper-bounded by the probability of rare failure events and the reward estimation error scaled by a path-level coverage coefficient, where the rare-failure term vanishes as per-step sampling increases. Our results highlight a fundamental advantage of beam search over sequence-level inference methods such as Best-of-N and Best-of-Majority. While the guarantees of these approaches typically involve coverage coefficients that grow exponentially with the horizon $L$, CF-Beam controls the dominant search-induced term through a token-level coverage coefficient that scales polynomially with $L$. Our numerical experiments further confirm that beam search is more robust on hard instances and under increasing reasoning horizons.

Test-time compute scaling is a primary driver of performance in large reasoning models (LRMs), but extreme inefficiency bounds current approaches, shifting the critical question from how much compute to spend, to where to allocate it. We formalize test-time reasoning as a constrained compute allocation problem over partial trajectories. Under a fixed hardware budget, existing paradigms fail to actively allocate the compute to the most promising partial progress: traditional parallel sampling treats traces independently and induces severe memory bottlenecks, while subtractive pruning starves hardware and fails to actively and sufficiently shift the output distribution. To overcome this dichotomy, we introduce Gambit, an inference algorithm that executes thought-level beam search. By periodically pruning unpromising trajectories and immediately branching from high-quality prefixes, Gambit dynamically concentrates compute onto the most promising reasoning traces via a light-weight scorer probing hidden states while maintaining continuous high hardware utilization. Extensive evaluations across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that Gambit strictly dominates existing baselines. Under identical hardware constraints, our method yields up to a +6.7% absolute accuracy gain on HMMT-24 and +3.3% on AIME-25 over pruning baselines, delivers $>2\times$ higher throughput on trace completion, and reduces total token consumption by up to 68.5% relative to standard parallel sampling.

Multiple-choice and candidate-selection evaluations are widely used to assess LLM reasoning and decision-making, yet most benchmarks contain relatively small candidate sets. It remains unclear whether conclusions drawn from these settings remain valid as the candidate space scales. We systematically evaluate LLMs as the number of competing candidates increases and find substantial accuracy degradation across tasks, prompting strategies, and model scales. Controlled analyses show that standard long-context retrieval explanations cannot fully account for this degradation. Instead, we identify two systematic failure patterns. First, gold-margin collapse: the score gap between the correct answer and the strongest distractor progressively shrinks, driven primarily by weakening confidence in the correct answer. Second, earlier candidate preferences become increasingly difficult to overturn, with later candidates exerting progressively weaker influence on the final prediction. Motivated by these findings, we evaluate hierarchical partitioning and permutation-based inference, which improve accuracy by roughly 20 percentage points at $N=160$ on both HotpotQA and MIMIC. Overall, our results identify candidate-set scale as an important evaluation-protocol variable and show that strong small-option performance does not necessarily imply robust large-scale candidate comparison.