Inference-Time Scaling

While recent advancements in inference-time learning have improved LLM reasoning on Text-to-SQL tasks, current solutions still struggle to perform well on the most challenging tasks in the Bird-Bench (BIRD) benchmark. This is due to inadequate solution space exploration, which is necessary to uncover promising candidate queries that can be further refined to produce the correct output. To address this challenge, we introduce CA-SQL, a novel Text-to-SQL pipeline that utilizes the estimated difficulty of a task to dynamically scale the breadth of the exploration for generating solution candidates. In addition, we use a custom prompt seeding method, based on principles of evolutionary search, to further elicit exploratory behavior from the base LLM and a novel voting method to select the best candidate solution at the end of the search. Experiments demonstrate that our solution achieves a state-of-the-art score of 51.72% on the "challenging" tier of BIRD development set problems, using only GPT-4o-mini, out-performing other in-context learning approaches, even those that leverage larger models. Overall, our method attains a competitive 61.06% execution accuracy and 68.77% Soft F1 score on the BIRD development dataset.

Beyond training-time optimization, scaling test-time computation has emerged as a key paradigm to extend the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, most existing methods adopt a rigid Planning-before-Trial (PbT) policy, which inefficiently allocates test-time compute by incurring planning overhead even on directly solvable problems. We propose Planning-after-Trial (PaT), an adaptive policy for code generation that invokes a planner only upon verification failure. This adaptive policy naturally enables a heterogeneous model configuration: a cost-efficient model handles generation attempts, while a powerful model is reserved for targeted planning interventions. Empirically, across multiple benchmarks and model families, our approach significantly advances the cost-performance Pareto frontier. Notably, our heterogeneous configuration achieves performance comparable to a large homogeneous model while reducing inference cost by approximately 69%.

Inference-time scaling methods rely on Process Reward Models (PRMs), which are often poorly calibrated and overestimate success probabilities. We propose, to our knowledge, the first use of conditional optimal transport for calibrating PRMs, modifying conditional OT (CondOT) map learning \cite{bunne2022supervised} to estimate a monotonic conditional quantile function over success probabilities estimated by the PRM, conditioned on PRM hidden states. This yields structurally valid quantile estimates and enables efficient extraction of confidence bounds at arbitrary levels, which we integrate into the instance-adaptive scaling (IAS) framework of \cite{park2025know}. We evaluate on mathematical reasoning benchmarks spanning moderate-difficulty problems (MATH-500) and harder out-of-distribution problems (AIME). For PRMs with reliable ranking signals, our method substantially improves calibration over both uncalibrated PRMs and quantile regression. On downstream Best-of-N IAS performance, our method generally improves over uncalibrated PRMs. These results establish conditional optimal transport as another principled and practical approach to PRM calibration, offering structural guarantees and flexible uncertainty estimation.

We introduce Recursive Agent Optimization (RAO), a reinforcement learning approach for training recursive agents: agents that can spawn and delegate sub-tasks to new instantiations of themselves recursively. Recursive agents implement an inference-time scaling algorithm that naturally allows agents to scale to longer contexts and generalize to more difficult problems via divide-and-conquer. RAO provides a method to train models to best take advantage of such recursive inference, teaching agents when and how to delegate and communicate. We find that recursive agents trained in this way enjoy better training efficiency, can scale to tasks that go beyond the model's context window, generalize to tasks much harder than the ones the agent was trained on, and can enjoy reduced wall-clock time compared to single-agent systems.

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.

Scaling test-time compute has emerged as a powerful mechanism for enhancing Large Language Model (LLM) performance. However, standard post-training paradigms, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), optimize the likelihood of individual samples under a base policy, creating a misalignment with test time procedures that rely on aggregated or filtered outputs. In this work, we propose Compute Aligned Training, which aligns training objectives with test-time strategies. By conceptualizing inference strategies as operators on the base policy, we derive new loss functions that maximize performance when said strategies are applied. We instantiate such loss functions for SFT and RL across common test time strategies. Finally, we provide empirical evidence that this training method substantially improves test time scaling over standard training.

Inference-time scaling for LLM reasoning has focused on three axes: chain depth, sample breadth, and learned step-scorers (PRMs). We introduce a fourth axis, granularity of external verbal supervision, via Verbal Process Supervision (VPS), a training-free framework that uses structured natural-language critique from a stronger supervisor to guide an iterative generate-critique-refine loop up to a round budget R. Across GPQA Diamond, AIME 2025, and LiveCodeBench V6 (covering both closed and open models), VPS yields three key results. First, on GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.4 (High) | GPT-5.4 (Low) reaches 94.9% at R=4, surpassing the 94.1% state of the art without gradient updates. Second, on AIME 2025, VPS enables strong weak-actor rescue, boosting scores from 11.7-26.7% to 63.3-90.0% (up to +63.3 points). Third, at matched compute, VPS outperforms Reflexion by +8.5 to +12.1 points and Self-Consistency@5 by +5.0 pp (GPQA) and +8.3 pp (LiveCodeBench), isolating critique granularity as the key driver. Performance scales with the supervisor-actor capability gap (Pearson r=0.90) and degrades when errors are not linguistically expressible (e.g., code synthesis), motivating hybrid verbal-executable methods. These results establish critique granularity as a new axis of inference-time scaling.

Language models are increasingly used in scientific discovery to generate hypotheses, propose candidate solutions, implement systems, and iteratively refine them. At the core of these trial-and-error loops lies evaluation: the process of obtaining feedback on candidate solutions via verifiers, simulators, or task-specific scoring functions. While prior work has highlighted the importance of evaluation, it has not explicitly formulated the problem of how evaluation-driven discovery loops can be scaled up in a principled and effective manner to push the boundaries of scientific discovery, a problem this paper seeks to address. We introduce Simple Test-time Evaluation-driven Scaling (SimpleTES), a general framework that strategically combines parallel exploration, feedback-driven refinement, and local selection, revealing substantial gains unlocked by scaling evaluation-driven discovery loops along the right dimensions. Across 21 scientific problems spanning six domains, SimpleTES discovers state-of-the-art solutions using gpt-oss models, consistently outperforming both frontier-model baselines and sophisticated optimization pipelines. Particularly, we sped up the widely used LASSO algorithm by over 2x, designed quantum circuit routing policies that reduce gate overhead by 24.5%, and discovered new Erdos minimum overlap constructions that surpass the best-known results. Beyond novel discoveries, SimpleTES produces trajectory-level histories that naturally supervise feedback-driven learning. When post-trained on successful trajectories, models not only improve efficiency on seen problems but also generalize to unseen problems, discovering solutions that base models fail to uncover. Together, our results establish effective evaluation-driven loop scaling as a central axis for advancing LLM-driven scientific discovery, and provide a simple yet practical framework for realizing these gains.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as complex agentic systems that scale with task complexity. While prior work has extensively explored model- and system-level scaling, algorithm- and task-level scaling remain largely unaddressed, constraining the full potential of agentic systems. At the algorithm level, allocating additional inference-time computation can enhance workflow capacity but introduces cross-path redundancy: overlapping computations across multiple reasoning branches. At the task level, complex tasks can be decomposed into subproblems and delegated across multiple agents for improved scalability and parallelism. However, existing infrastructures' scheduling is unaware of the existence of multiple agents, missing opportunities to optimize resource allocation. We propose Hive, a multi-agent infrastructure that enables algorithm- and task-level scaling. Hive features a description frontend that captures per-agent behavior and supports test-time scaling algorithms. Leveraging this specification, our backend introduces two key mechanisms: Logits Cache that reuses intermediate logits across redundant sampling paths to mitigate cross-path redundancy at the algorithm level, and Agent-Aware Scheduling that efficiently allocates compute and KV-cache resources according to agent contributions at the task level. Experiments show that Logits Cache achieves an average speedup of $1.11\times$-$1.76\times$ for re-sampling, and Agent-Aware Scheduling reduces the hotspot miss rate by $33\%$-$51\%$.

In this work, we present FRIGID, a framework with a novel diffusion language model that generates molecular structures conditioned on mass spectra via intermediate fingerprint representations and determined chemical formulae, training at the scale of hundreds of millions of unlabeled structures. We then demonstrate how forward fragmentation models enable inference-time scaling by identifying spectrum-inconsistent fragments and refining them through targeted remasking and denoising. While FRIGID already achieves strong performance with its diffusion base, inference-time scaling significantly improves its accuracy, surpassing 18% Top-1 accuracy on the challenging MassSpecGym benchmark and tripling the Top-1 accuracy of the leading methods on NPLIB1. Further empirical analyses show that FRIGID exhibits log-linear performance scaling with increasing inference-time compute, opening a promising new direction for continued improvements in de novo structural elucidation. FRIGID code is publicly available at https://github.com/coleygroup/FRIGID

Whether language models can systematically generalize remains actively debated. Yet empirical performance is jointly shaped by multiple factors such as training data, training paradigms, and inference-time strategies, making failures difficult to interpret. We introduce a controlled synthetic environment based on shortest-path planning, a canonical composable sequential optimization problem. The setup enables clean separation of these factors and supports two orthogonal axes of generalization: spatial transfer to unseen maps and length scaling to longer-horizon problems. We find that models exhibit strong spatial transfer but consistently fail under length scaling due to recursive instability. We further analyze how distinct stages of the learning pipeline influence systematic problem-solving: for example, data coverage sets capability limits; reinforcement learning improves training stability but does not expand those limits; and inference-time scaling enhances performance but cannot rescue length-scaling failures.

The recent success of inference-time scaling in large language models has inspired similar explorations in video diffusion. In particular, motivated by the existence of "golden noise" that enhances video quality, prior work has attempted to improve inference by optimising or searching for better initial noise. However, these approaches have notable limitations: they either rely on priors imposed at the beginning of noise sampling or on rewards evaluated only on the denoised and decoded videos. This leads to error accumulation, delayed and sparse reward signals, and prohibitive computational cost, which prevents the use of stronger search algorithms. Crucially, stronger search algorithms are precisely what could unlock substantial gains in controllability, sample efficiency and generation quality for video diffusion, provided their computational cost can be reduced. To fill in this gap, we enable efficient inference-time scaling for video diffusion through latent reward guidance, which provides intermediate, informative and efficient feedback along the denoising trajectory. We introduce a latent reward model that scores partially denoised latents at arbitrary timesteps with respect to visual quality, motion quality, and text alignment. Building on this model, we propose LatSearch, a novel inference-time search mechanism that performs Reward-Guided Resampling and Pruning (RGRP). In the resampling stage, candidates are sampled according to reward-normalised probabilities to reduce over-reliance on the reward model. In the pruning stage, applied at the final scheduled step, only the candidate with the highest cumulative reward is retained, improving both quality and efficiency. We evaluate LatSearch on the VBench-2.0 benchmark and demonstrate that it consistently improves video generation across multiple evaluation dimensions compared to the baseline Wan2.1 model.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.

Scaling inference-time computation has enabled Large Language Models (LLMs) to achieve strong reasoning performance, but their inherently sequential decoding incurs substantial latency, motivating parallelization of the generation process. However, existing parallel reasoning approaches suffer from performance degradation compared to their sequential counterparts, and often rely on specialized inference engines. We introduce ThreadWeaver, a framework for adaptive parallel reasoning that matches the accuracy of comparably sized sequential reasoning models while significantly reducing inference latency via three key innovations: 1) a two-stage parallel trajectory generator that produces high-quality parallel chain-of-thought data for supervised fine-tuning; 2) a trie-based rollout design that enables parallel reasoning on any off-the-shelf autoregressive inference engine; and 3) a parallelization-aware reinforcement learning framework that trains the model to balance reasoning accuracy with effective parallelization. Across six challenging math reasoning benchmarks, ThreadWeaver trained on top of Qwen3-8B achieves performance on par with cutting-edge sequential reasoning models (79.9% on AIME24 and 71.9% on average) while delivering up to 1.53x speedup in token latency, establishing a new Pareto frontier between accuracy and efficiency.

Self-consistency (SC) is a widely used test-time inference technique for improving performance in chain-of-thought reasoning. It consists of generating multiple responses, or ``samples", from a large language model (LLM) and selecting the most frequent answer. This procedure can naturally be viewed as a majority vote or empirical mode estimation. Despite its effectiveness, self-consistency is prohibitively expensive at scale when naively applied to datasets, and it lacks a unified theoretical understanding of sample efficiency and scaling behavior. In this paper, we provide the first comprehensive analysis of SC's scaling behavior and its variants, drawing on mode estimation and voting theory. We derive and empirically validate power law scaling for self-consistency across datasets, and analyze the sample efficiency for fixed-allocation and dynamic-allocation sampling schemes. From these insights, we introduce Blend-ASC, a novel variant of self-consistency that dynamically allocates samples to questions during inference, achieving state-of-the-art sample efficiency. Our approach uses 4.8 times fewer samples than vanilla SC on average, outperforming both fixed- and dynamic-allocation SC baselines, thereby demonstrating the superiority of our approach in terms of efficiency. In contrast to existing variants, we note that Blend-ASC is hyperparameter-free, supports batching, and can fit any budget of samples, ensuring it can be easily applied to any self-consistency application.

Reasoning is a hallmark of human intelligence, enabling adaptive decision-making in complex unfamiliar scenarios. In contrast, machine intelligence remains bound to training data, unable to dynamically refine solutions at inference. While recent advances have explored machine reasoning - trading inference-time compute for improved performance - they focus on verbal domains such as mathematical problem-solving where explicit rules govern step-by-step solution generation. Many tasks lack sufficient labelled data and require alternative performance improvement mechanisms, such as inference-time compute. Here we present a paradigm for machine reasoning in vision, enabling performance improvements with increasing thinking time (inference-time compute), even with limited labelled data. Our approach is inspired by dual-process theories of human cognition, integrating a fast-thinking System I module for generating and verifying solutions in familiar tasks, with a slow-thinking System II module that iteratively refines predictions using self-play reinforcement learning, even when task-specific data is limited. This paradigm involves proposing, competing over, and refining solutions until convergence. We demonstrate that extended inference-time compute yields superior performance compared to large-scale supervised learning, foundation models, and human experts in vision tasks. These include computer-vision benchmarks and cancer localisation across five organs, highlighting the potential of inference-time compute for data-scarce problems.

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.