mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Predicting Inference-Time Scaling Gains from Labeled Validation-Set Output Statistics

arXiv 2606.02981 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Best-of-N inference scaling (drawing N candidate answers from a language model and returning the one a reward model ranks highest) improves accuracy by an amount that varies across models, but predicting that amount in advance currently requires running the procedure end-to-end. Prior work links cheap statistics of a model's sampled outputs and validation-set correctness (how often samples agree, how diverse they are, how confident the model is, and where correct samples appear) to model behavior, but does not isolate which of these form a stable, compact predictor of best-of-N gain. We fit ridge predictors on features computed from a single labeled validation-set sampling pass, use bootstrap-Lasso as a stability analysis of the candidate feature set, and give a concentration analysis with an explicit linear-approximation residual. Across three base-model families, six post-training methods, and math and reasoning task domains, the stability analysis identifies a strict three-feature core spanning prompt-level agreement spread, label-assisted first-correct-sample position, and completion-length variance; a compact ridge predictor built from this core plus an entropy add-on reaches Spearman ρ = 0.90 with actual best-of-N gain under a reward-model verifier. The intended use is labeled validation-set screening of candidate configurations before paying the full reward-model scoring cost.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 15 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2026.

Builds on

15 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters6 Aug
  2. 2024Inference Scaling Laws: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal Inference for Problem-Solving with Language Models1 Aug
  3. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know11 Jul

Other references · 12

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  4. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  5. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
  6. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
  7. 2024Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Samplingcited by 991
  8. 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
  9. 2024Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMscited by 327
  10. 2024KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimizationcited by 264
  11. 2024Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performancecited by 130
  12. 2023Revealing the structure of language model capabilitiescited by 40

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resampling
  2. 2025Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignment
  3. 2026Revisiting the (Sub)Optimality of Best-of-N for Inference-Time Alignment
  4. 2025Demystifying LLM-as-a-Judge: Analytically Tractable Model for Inference-Time Scaling
  5. 2025OptScale: Probabilistic Optimality for Inference-time Scaling
  6. 2024Keep Guessing? When Considering Inference Scaling, Mind the Baselines
  7. 2026Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning LLMs: Inference Regimes, Evaluation, and Reproducibility
  8. 2025Efficient Test-Time Scaling via Self-Calibration