Scaling Test-Time Compute Without Verification or RL is Suboptimal
Amrith Setlur, Nived Rajaraman, Sergey Levine, Aviral Kumar
Abstract
Scaling only test-time compute Scaling training data and test-time compute Figure 1: Scaling test-time compute: (Top) Given a set of problems, verifier-free (VF) methods query expert traces, whereas verifier-based (VB) methods collect reward annotations for rollouts from the base LLM. Crucially, one aims to mimic "good" traces and the other seeks to improve via access to verification. We prove a √ 𝐻 gap between a simple VB method and any VF method as we scale data 𝑛 and compute 𝐻. (Bottom) Fixing 𝑛, and scaling 𝐻, we verify the gap between VF and VB in practice by comparing the performance of the recently released S1 model [43] trained with a VF approach: supervised distillation, and a simple VB method: best-of-N search (left). For the models we train, we also compare VF and VB when we scale both test compute and verifier training data, where the gap between VF and VB grows, matching our theoretical result (right).
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 33 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers33
- Learning to Reason under Off-Policy GuidanceJianhao Yan, Yafu Li, Zican Hu, Zhi Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 310 citations
- ReasoningBank: Scaling Agent Self-Evolving with Reasoning MemorySiru Ouyang, Jun Yan, I-Hung Hsu, Yanfei Chen et al.ICLR 2026 · 244 citations
- The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Entropy Minimization in LLM ReasoningShivam Agarwal, Zimin Zhang, Lifan Yuan, Jiawei Han et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 185 citations
- The Surprising Effectiveness of Negative Reinforcement in LLM ReasoningXinyu Zhu, Mengzhou Xia, Zhepei Wei, Wei-Lin Chen et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 177 citations
- e3: Learning to Explore Enables Extrapolation of Test-Time Compute for LLMsAmrith Setlur, Matthew Y. R. Yang, Charlie Victor Snell, Jeremiah Greer et al.ICLR 2026 · 66 citations
Builds on25
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language ModelsShunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,068 citations
- STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With ReasoningEric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, Noah D. GoodmanNeurIPS 2022 · 1,126 citations
- Scaling Laws for Reward Model OveroptimizationLeo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob HiltonICML 2023 · 963 citations
- Bridging Offline Reinforcement Learning and Imitation Learning: A Tale of PessimismParia Rashidinejad, Banghua Zhu, Cong Ma, Jiantao Jiao et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 373 citations
Related papers
- Table-R1: Inference-Time Scaling for Table Reasoning TasksZheyuan Yang, Lyuhao Chen, Arman Cohan, Yilun ZhaoEMNLP 2025 · 2 citations
- Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally Can be More Effective than Scaling Parameters for ReasoningCharlie Victor Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aviral KumarICLR 2025
- How Far Can Unsupervised RLVR Scale LLM Training?Bingxiang He, Yuxin Zuo, Zeyuan Liu, Shangziqi Zhao et al.ICLR 2026 · 31 citations
- Incentivizing LLMs to Self-Verify Their AnswersFuxiang Zhang, Jiacheng Xu, Chaojie Wang, Ce Cui et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 20 citations
- S²R: Teaching LLMs to Self-verify and Self-correct via Reinforcement LearningRuotian Ma, Peisong Wang, Cheng Liu, Xingyan Liu et al.ACL 2025 · 13 citations
