Pith. sign in

REVIEW 14 cited by

Scaling Test-Time Compute Without Verification or RL is Suboptimal

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.12118 v2 pith:G7MHQXAT submitted 2025-02-17 cs.LG cs.CL

Scaling Test-Time Compute Without Verification or RL is Suboptimal

classification cs.LG cs.CL
keywords computetest-timemethodsscalingsearchtracesverificationapproaches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite substantial advances in scaling test-time compute, an ongoing debate in the community is how it should be scaled up to enable continued and efficient improvements with scaling. There are largely two approaches: first, distilling successful search or thinking traces; and second, using verification (e.g., 0/1 outcome rewards, reward models, or verifiers) to guide reinforcement learning (RL) and search algorithms. In this paper, we prove that finetuning LLMs with verifier-based (VB) methods based on RL or search is far superior to verifier-free (VF) approaches based on distilling or cloning search traces, given a fixed amount of compute/data budget. Further, we show that as we scale test-time compute (measured as the output token length) and training data, suboptimality of VF methods scales poorly compared to VB when the base pre-trained LLM presents a heterogeneous distribution over correct solution traces (e.g., different lengths, styles, etc.) and admits a non-sharp distribution over rewards on traces sampled from it. We formalize this condition using anti-concentration [Erd\H{o}s, 1945]. This implies a stronger result that VB methods scale better asymptotically, with the performance gap between VB and VF methods widening as test-time budget grows. We corroborate our theory empirically on both didactic and math reasoning problems with 3/8/32B-sized pre-trained LLMs, where we find verification is crucial for scaling test-time compute.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. CAPS: Cascaded Adaptive Pairwise Selection for Efficient Parallel Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CAPS is a four-stage inference-only cascade that adapts how much of each solution the verifier sees and how comparisons are distributed, halving per-candidate verifier tokens while outperforming uniform pairwise verif...

  2. From Reasoning Traces to Reusable Modules: Understanding Compositional Generalization in Language Model Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.5

    SFT supplies entangled compositional traces of atomic skills and routing modules; RL identifies those modules and enables recombination on novel compositions outside the SFT support.

  3. Oracle Gap and Signal Fidelity: A Fixed-Pool Diagnostic for Test-Time Collaboration

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Training-free LLM collaboration gains are bounded by the fixed pool's oracle gap and then by signal coverage, fidelity, and harm, measurable with a small labeled audit.

  4. From Reasoning Traces to Reusable Modules: Understanding Compositional Generalization in Language Model Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces a hierarchical latent selection model showing SFT supplies raw module materials in compound traces while RL decomposes them to identify atomic modules and enable recombination for new reasoning configurations.

  5. What Does Flow Matching Bring To TD Learning?

    cs.LG 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Flow matching critics outperform monolithic ones in RL by 2x performance and 5x sample efficiency via test-time error recovery through integration and multi-point velocity supervision that preserves feature plasticity.

  6. Asking LLMs to Verify First is Almost Free Lunch

    cs.CL 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    Prompting an LLM to first verify a random/trivial candidate answer before generating its solution consistently improves accuracy over chain-of-thought prompting at small extra token cost.

  7. LoVeC: Reinforcement Learning for Better Verbalized Confidence in Long-Form Generations

    cs.CL 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LoVeC uses RL to train LLMs to output verbalized numerical confidence scores for statements in long-form text, achieving better calibration than self-consistency baselines on QA datasets while being 20x faster.

  8. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Entropy Minimization in LLM Reasoning

    cs.LG 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Entropy minimization on self-generated outputs elicits strong reasoning in pretrained LLMs, matching or exceeding supervised RL methods on benchmarks.

  9. OpenVLThinker: Complex Vision-Language Reasoning via Iterative SFT-RL Cycles

    cs.CV 2025-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Iterative SFT-RL cycles enable a 7B LVLM to develop sophisticated visual chain-of-thought reasoning and improve performance on math and general reasoning benchmarks.

  10. Test-Time Scaling for Small VLMs on Multilingual Visual MCQ

    cs.CL 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5

    On EXAMS-V, token budget and parseability dominate chain count, PRM-guided search, and selectors for small VLMs; the policy model itself yields the largest gain.

  11. On the Generalization Gap in Self-Evolving Language Model Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Closed-loop self-evolution on LLMs improves reasoning on Knights and Knaves tasks but plateaus short of oracle-supervised levels, with multi-turn revision nearly matching it for large models.

  12. A Predictive Law for On-Policy Self-Distillation From World Feedback

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A linear relationship between initial student-self-teacher performance gap and OPSD improvement provides a predictive law across contexts and model families.

  13. Measure Twice, Click Once: Co-evolving Proposer and Visual Critic via Reinforcement Learning for GUI Grounding

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A co-evolving proposer-critic RL framework improves GUI grounding accuracy by letting the model critique its own proposals rendered on screenshots.

  14. Advances and Challenges in Foundation Agents: From Brain-Inspired Intelligence to Evolutionary, Collaborative, and Safe Systems

    cs.AI 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    This survey frames foundation agents using brain-inspired modular architectures and reviews challenges in evolution, collaboration, and safety.