What If We Allocate Test-Time Compute Adaptively?
Ahsan Bilal, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Muhammad Umer, Ali Subhan, Hassan Rizwan, Ayesha Mohsin, Dean Hougen
Abstract
Test-time compute scaling allocates inference computation uniformly, uses fixed sampling strategies, and applies verification only for reranking. In contrast, we propose a verifier-guided adaptive framework treating reasoning as iterative trajectory generation and selection. For each problem, the agent runs multiple inference iterations. In each iteration, it optionally produces a high-level plan, selects a set of reasoning tools and a compute strategy together with an exploration parameter, and then generates a candidate reasoning trajectory. A process reward model (PRM) serves as a unified control signal: within each iteration, step-level PRM scores are aggregated to guide pruning and expansion during generation, and across iterations, aggregated trajectory rewards are used to select the final response. Across datasets, our dynamic, PRM-guided approach consistently outperforms direct test-time scaling, yielding large gains on MATH-500 and several-fold improvements on harder benchmarks such as AIME24 and AMO-Bench. We characterize efficiency using theoretical FLOPs and a compute intensity metric penalizing wasted generation and tool overhead, demonstrating that verification-guided allocation concentrates computation on high-utility reasoning paths.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c3855d57-49e1-47b2-b253-64a977375de8Builds on8
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
- Majority of the Bests: Improving Best-of-N via BootstrappingAmin Rakhsha, Kanika Madan, Tianyu Zhang, Amir-massoud Farahmand et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 6 citations
- Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human AnnotationsPeiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu et al.ACL 2024
- GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language ModelsIman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Hooman Shahrokhi, Oncel Tuzel et al.ICLR 2025
Related papers
- Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally Can be More Effective than Scaling Parameters for ReasoningCharlie Victor Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aviral KumarICLR 2025
- Solve-Detect-Verify: Inference-Time Scaling with Flexible Generative VerifierJianyuan Zhong, Zeju Li, Zhijian Xu, Xiangyu Wen et al.ACL 2026 · 3 citations
- Know What You Don't Know: Uncertainty Calibration of Process Reward ModelsYoung-Jin Park, Kristjan Greenewald, Kaveh Alimohammadi, Hao Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 21 citations
- SCALE: Selective Resource Allocation for Overcoming Performance Bottlenecks in Mathematical Test-time ScalingYang Xiao, Chunpu Xu, Ruifeng Yuan, Jessie Wang et al.AAAI 2026 · 1 citation
- MUR: Momentum Uncertainty guided Reasoning for Large Language ModelsHang Yan, Fangzhi Xu, Rongman Xu, Yifei Li et al.ACL 2026 · 12 citations
