How Much Can Language Models Gain from Test-Time Computation?

As language model (LM) outputs get more and more natural, it is becoming more difficult than ever to evaluate their quality. Simultaneously, increasing LMs' "thinking" time through scaling test-time compute has proven an effective technique to solve challenging problems in domains such as math and code. This raises a natural question: can an LM's evaluation capability also be improved by spending more test-time compute? To answer this, we investigate employing reasoning models-LMs that natively generate long chain-of-thought reasoning-as evaluators. Specifically, we examine methods to leverage more test-time compute by (1) using reasoning models, and (2) prompting these models to evaluate not only the response as a whole (i.e., outcome evaluation) but also assess each step in the response separately (i.e., process evaluation). In experiments, we observe that the evaluator's performance improves monotonically when generating more reasoning tokens, similar to the trends observed in LM-based generation. Furthermore, we use these more accurate evaluators to rerank multiple generations, and demonstrate that spending more compute at evaluation time can be as effective as using more compute at generation time in improving an LM's problem-solving capability.

Large language models can solve harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute. The term "test-time scaling," however, covers several inference algorithms: extending deliberation along one trajectory, sampling completed candidates and aggregating them by voting or verification, and searching over partial states. These algorithms differ in statistical structure, compute requirements, and failure modes. Treating them as interchangeable under a scalar "budget," or reporting accuracy without specifying the inference protocol, makes results difficult to compare across studies. We study test-time scaling along three axes. First, we formalize it as budgeted inference over the implicit prefix tree of an autoregressive model and distinguish single-trajectory sequential scaling, leaf-level scaling with terminal reduction, and prefix-level scaling. Second, we treat the full inference system as the evaluated object and separate end-to-end performance from candidate-bank diagnostics. We introduce an evaluation profile whose coordinates and simple functionals recover or bound common repeated-sampling metrics, and require compute accounting and uncertainty estimates that match the protocol. Third, we distinguish exact replay from distributional reproducibility and state the requirements for each. We also organize open-weight reasoning models by model-side and interface mechanisms. Our empirical study covers broad knowledge, symbolic reasoning, and competition mathematics, and we publicly release 1,403,520 sampled model attempts. The project website is available at https://mohsenhariri.github.io/scorio/tts. The released datasets are Trace (https://huggingface.co/datasets/harimo/scorio-trace), Lite (https://huggingface.co/datasets/harimo/scorio-lite), Math (https://huggingface.co/buckets/harimo/scorio-math), and SuperGPQA (https://huggingface.co/buckets/harimo/scorio-gpqa).

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.