Not All Test-Time Compute Is Evidence: Model-Specific Bias in LLM Reasoning

Test-time compute can substantially improve Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning performance, yet how and when additional compute helps remains poorly understood. We study Divergent-Convergent Reasoning (DCR), a simple two-phase primitive consisting of an exploration phase that generates multiple candidate solutions followed by a convergent reconciliation phase. We present three core results. First, we show that even a single reconciliation step can reliably amplify correct minority reports: across datasets, DCR often recovers the correct answer when correct exploration outputs are in the minority, a regime where majority voting fails. Second, we introduce recursive DCR, an autoregressive reconciliation system that iteratively analyzes disagreements and allocates additional test-time compute. Recursive DCR achieves higher accuracy than fixed-compute baselines-reaching 93.3% on AIME 2024 and 92.0% on AIME 2025-while using roughly 27% less compute on average, demonstrating that attentive resource allocation is superior to uniform scaling. Third, we analyze disagreement among exploration outputs via a simple, training-free dispersion metric. Dispersion reveals a structured relationship between disagreement and test-time gains: in regimes where DCR is effective, higher disagreement among exploration outputs is associated with larger accuracy improvements from reconciliation. Together, these results show that disagreement, often viewed as noise, can be systematically exploited to improve test-time reasoning and reveal emerging scaling laws for agentic LLM systems.

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).