Predicting Inference-Time Scaling Gains from Labeled Validation-Set Output Statistics

Test-time scaling (TTS) improves large language models (LLMs) by allocating additional compute at inference time. In practice, TTS is often achieved through parallel scaling: generating multiple candidate responses and selecting the best via a Best-of-N (BoN) strategy. Its effectiveness therefore hinges on the scoring function. Learned scorers such as process reward models (PRMs) can be strong, but they are expensive to train and run. Lightweight confidence heuristics based on token log-probabilities are much cheaper, yet we find that they often perform substantially worse. To improve on lightweight confidence heuristics without incurring the full cost of stronger learned scorers, we introduce SCATR, a simple and efficient BoN ranking method that learns a lightweight scorer from a small calibration set using hidden representations from the base model. Across coding and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SCATR improves over prior confidence-based baselines by up to 9%. Relative to LoRA fine-tuning on the same calibration data, it achieves comparable accuracy with up to 8000x fewer trainable parameters and much lower compute, reducing training and inference latency by up to 150x and 1000x, respectively. SCATR is also competitive with strong PRM baselines, and in several settings improves accuracy by up to 7.8% on math and 4.2% on coding while enabling up to 1000x faster inference. Overall, SCATR offers a strong accuracy-efficiency trade-off for scalable test-time selection.

Large language models are increasingly deployed with test-time strategies: sample $N$ responses, score them with a reward model or verifier, and return the best. This deployment rule exposes a mismatch in post-training: standard objectives optimize the mean reward of a single response, whereas best-of-$N$ performance is governed by the upper tail of the reward distribution. Recent test-time-aware objectives partly address this mismatch, but typically assume that training can use the same per-prompt rollout budget as deployment, which is impractical when post-training must cover many prompts while deployment can allocate much larger per-prompt test-time compute. We study this budget-mismatch regime, where only $m\ll N$ per-prompt rollouts are available during training but the target objective is best-of-$N$ deployment. Under structural assumptions on the reward tails, we show that the policy gradient of the best-of-$N$ objective can be approximated from a much smaller rollout group by extrapolating upper-tail statistics. This yields a family of Tail-Extrapolated estimators for best-of-$N$-oriented post-training: a simple direct estimator, Tail-Extrapolated Advantage (TEA), and a fixed-order debiased Prefix-TEA estimator based on moment cancellation. Experiments on instruction-following tasks show that TEA and Prefix-TEA improve best-of-$N$ performance across different language models, reward models and datasets under various training and test-time budget settings.

Advances in inference methods have enabled language models to improve their predictions without additional training. These methods often prioritize raw performance over cost-effective compute usage. However, computational efficiency is key for real-world applications with resource constraints. We provide a systematic analysis of the inference scaling strategies self-consistency, self-refinement, multi-agent debate, and mixture-of-agents, to study their computational performance tradeoffs. We evaluate methods on two reasoning benchmarks (MMLU-Pro, BBH) and include extensive parameter configurations (e.g., scaling the number of parallel predictions, agents, and debate rounds) across different model sizes. Across 34 configurations and over 100 evaluations, we compute the Pareto-optimal front to select methods that achieve the best accuracy with the lowest computational budget. Notably, inference scaling improves accuracy by up to +7.1% points over chain-of-thought at the highest evaluated budgets (20x the CoT compute budget) on MMLU-Pro. With an equal computing budget, debate and mixture-of-agents outperform self-consistency by 1.3% and 2.7% points, respectively. While self-consistency saturates earlier, multi-agent gains persist, particularly on more complicated tasks. We identify a simple multi-agent design guideline: mixture-of-agents is most efficient when the number of parallel generations exceeds the number of sequential aggregations.