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.
Abstract
Test-time compute scaling is a primary driver of performance in large reasoning models (LRMs), but extreme inefficiency bounds current approaches, shifting the critical question from \emph{how much} compute to spend, to \emph{where} to allocate it. We formalize test-time reasoning as a constrained compute allocation problem over partial trajectories. Under a fixed hardware budget, existing paradigms fail to actively allocate the compute to the most promising partial progress: traditional parallel sampling treats traces independently and induces severe memory bottlenecks, while subtractive pruning starves hardware and fails to actively and sufficiently shift the output distribution. To overcome this dichotomy, we introduce Gambit, an inference algorithm that executes \emph{thought-level beam search}. 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. Extensive evaluations across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that Gambit strictly dominates existing baselines. Under identical hardware constraints, our method yields up to a +6.7\% absolute accuracy gain on HMMT-24 and +3.3\% on AIME-25 over pruning baselines, delivers $>2\times$ higher throughput on trace completion, and reduces total token consumption by up to 68.5\% relative to standard parallel sampling.
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
An exam-style evaluation framework is introduced for studying the global budget allocation of reasoning language models when multiple problems share an end-to-end cost or latency constraint, in which a model must distribute one shared token budget across questions with different difficulty and point values.
Chenrui Fan, Yize Cheng, Ming Li et al.· 0 citations
This survey systematizes recent progress in tree-search-based reasoning, viewing inference as instance-specific optimization rather than decoding, and introduces a Unified Design Space spanning search topology, evaluation signals, and control dynamics to unify a fragmented literature.
Jiaqi Wei, Xiang Zhang, Yue-Jin Yang et al.· 0 citations
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.
Inference-time search with large language models (LLMs) often concentrates on a small set of structurally or semantically similar trajectories, leaving alternatives underexplored---a failure mode we call \textit{reasoning basin collapse}. We introduce BASIN, a training-free, structure-aware selection method that groups reasoning states into basins and penalizes repeated visits to the same strategy, thereby reallocating search across genuinely distinct reasoning paths under a fixed compute budget. Under matched inference budgets, BASIN improves over Tree of Thoughts (ToT) by up to $+22$pp on Game of 24 and $+6.7$pp on MuSR. A quality-aware variant, QA-BASIN, further improves robustness by preserving high-quality basins when unconditional diversification over-explores. To explain when basin-aware selection helps, we introduce the redundancy gap $\Delta$, which measures how differently search concentrates for correct versus incorrect predictions: standard ToT often operates near $\Delta \approx 0$, while BASIN consistently shifts $\Delta$ positive. More broadly, BASIN suggests structure-aware selection as a simple and general approach to improving inference-time reasoning. Code can be found at https://github.com/GitHubLuCheng/basin.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves language-model reasoning, but how these gains relate to inference-time decoding and search remains unclear. Does RL create reasoning the base model lacks, or shift the rollout distribution toward trajectories it can already reach but rarely samples? We study this behaviorally with a Unified Decoding Framework (UDF), which expresses token-level sampling, beam-like search, tree search, and sequence-level resampling as executable policies over a shared budgeted operating space, scored post hoc with pass@$k$, self-consistency, best-of-$N$, and first-finish success. Using paired Base/RL checkpoints from SimpleRL-Zoo, we ask whether an RL default-policy curve can be approximated by a structured path of Base operating points. On Math500, AIME, GPQA, and IFEval, the pass@$k$ recovery path follows a Budgeted Operating-Point Transition Rule (BOPTR), $N_{\mathrm{Base}} \approx \alpha N_{\mathrm{RL}}^{\beta}$, with benchmark-conditioned exponents. On Qwen2.5-7B, BOPTR gives the lowest transfer error among the non-oracle rules we test, 3.41 pp (95% CI [2.32, 5.53]); a three-seed replication gives 3.07 $\pm$ 0.39 pp. The rule extends to ten models across four families (3.28 to 4.87 pp on checkpoints added after fitting), to four benchmarks it was never fitted on (5.03 pp vs. 4.44 pp in fit), and holds without an RL checkpoint for the target model (4.19 pp) or without RL supervision of any kind (5.08 pp). These results support a qualified internalized-search reading: under the recipe we test, much of the measured RL gain corresponds to a change in sampling efficiency toward operating points the base model can already reach under search. We treat the scaling patterns as descriptive of this recipe and cohort, report where they break down, and use UDF and BOPTR as behavioral diagnostics rather than evidence of parameter-level equivalence.
Wen-He Sun, Cun-Xiang Wang, Zijun Yao et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
