Skip to content

Test-Time Scaling via Error Localization

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.21453 · 0 citations · 39 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work introduces Test-Time Scaling via Error Localization (TTEL), an inference-time algorithm that utilizes fixed or environment feedback to perform token-level error localization and establishes strictly dominating Pareto frontiers across sequential reasoning domains.

Abstract

Scaling inference-time computation has emerged as a reliable method to improve the performance of large language models on complex reasoning and programming tasks. However, standard approaches such as independent sampling and sequential multi-turn refinement operate without token-level credit assignment, resulting in computational inefficiency, since valid reasoning prefixes are frequently discarded. In this work, we introduce Test-Time Scaling via Error Localization (TTEL), an inference-time algorithm that utilizes fixed or environment feedback to perform token-level error localization. By comparing conditional probabilities under informed feedback against a null-context baseline, TTEL isolates the step at which an error occurred. The algorithm then truncates the trajectory and branches a new generation, maximally reusing the valid prefix. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that TTEL establishes strictly dominating Pareto frontiers across sequential reasoning domains, measured by pass-at-k vs. generated-token cost. With Qwen3-8B on LiveCodeBench, TTEL attains a pass@64 of 71.0% while generating approximately half as many tokens as independent sampling (360.4k vs. 735.0k). Generalizing to math benchmarks AIME-2025 and HMMT-2025, TTEL cleanly outperforms competing test-time baselines across both Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Prefix Sliding for efficient test-time scaling

Prefix Sliding is proposed, which discards tokens during reasoning that are not part of the prefix or the window of the last few thousand tokens, allowing for efficient long-horizon test-time scaling.

Niklas Muennighoff, Zhengyuan Wang, Zeya Chen et al. · 1 citation · ⚡1
Preprint Aug 2026

Thought-Level Beam Search for Reasoning

By periodically pruning unpromising trajectories and immediately branching from high-quality prefixes, Gambit dynamically concentrates compute onto the most promising reasoning traces via a light-weight scorer probing hidden states while maintaining continuous high hardware utilization.

Lijie Yang, Hongyin Luo, Jia-Wei Zhao et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Test-Time Scaling in the Wild: Why Exploitation, Not Exploration, Is the Bottleneck

The first compute-normalised comparison of five TTS families across five open-ended generation benchmarks spanning medicine, law, finance, general chat, and creative writing is conducted - grounded in a unified framework that decomposes the effectiveness of each method's token budget into exploration and exploitation.

Davide Romano, Kanak Raj, Jerrod Parker et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling

A critical limitation of existing confidence-based VF-TTS methods is demonstrated by showing that such methods catastrophically break down on complex tasks, and a novel selection framework, consilience, is introduced, a novel selection framework that explicitly evaluates the temporal asymmetry of confidence in reasonin...

Lecheng Kong, Like Hui, Hai-Tao Mao et al. · 0 citations
Conference Jul 2026

Toward Reliable LLM Code Generation: Adaptive Routing Framework for Ambiguous Requirements

Natural-language requirements for program synthesis are often incomplete or ambiguous, yet large language models are commonly expected to generate code in a single pass. Prior clarification-based methods address this issue by asking follow-up questions when sampled candidate programs disagree, but fixed clarify-on-disa...

Muhammad Ahmed, Edwar Tiu, Niyati Nikunj Kapadia et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Profiling Lightweight Large Language Models

These results show that selecting lightweight LLMs by size, FLOPs, latency, or accuracy alone can select the wrong deployment candidate; PTME profiling exposes configurations that preserve useful accuracy at lower physical cost.

Tomohiro Harada, Enrique Alba, Gabriel Luque · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.