Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
60 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
8 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters (2408.03314v1)

Published 6 Aug 2024 in cs.LG and cs.CL
Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters

Abstract: Enabling LLMs to improve their outputs by using more test-time computation is a critical step towards building generally self-improving agents that can operate on open-ended natural language. In this paper, we study the scaling of inference-time computation in LLMs, with a focus on answering the question: if an LLM is allowed to use a fixed but non-trivial amount of inference-time compute, how much can it improve its performance on a challenging prompt? Answering this question has implications not only on the achievable performance of LLMs, but also on the future of LLM pretraining and how one should tradeoff inference-time and pre-training compute. Despite its importance, little research attempted to understand the scaling behaviors of various test-time inference methods. Moreover, current work largely provides negative results for a number of these strategies. In this work, we analyze two primary mechanisms to scale test-time computation: (1) searching against dense, process-based verifier reward models; and (2) updating the model's distribution over a response adaptively, given the prompt at test time. We find that in both cases, the effectiveness of different approaches to scaling test-time compute critically varies depending on the difficulty of the prompt. This observation motivates applying a "compute-optimal" scaling strategy, which acts to most effectively allocate test-time compute adaptively per prompt. Using this compute-optimal strategy, we can improve the efficiency of test-time compute scaling by more than 4x compared to a best-of-N baseline. Additionally, in a FLOPs-matched evaluation, we find that on problems where a smaller base model attains somewhat non-trivial success rates, test-time compute can be used to outperform a 14x larger model.

Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters

The paper by Snell et al. addresses the pressing question of how effectively LLMs can use additional computation during inference to improve performance on challenging prompts. This research seeks to illuminate the trade-offs between scaling test-time compute and pretraining compute, a topic of substantial concern for both theoretical understanding and practical applications of LLMs.

Summary of Methods and Key Findings

Key Issues Addressed

  1. Mechanisms for Scaling Test-Time Compute: The authors analyze two primary mechanisms—(1) searching against dense, process-based verifier reward models and (2) updating the model's distribution over responses adaptively at test time.
  2. Evaluation on Problem Difficulty: The paper finds that the effectiveness of these methods varies depending on prompt difficulty, necessitating an adaptive "compute-optimal" strategy.

Main Contributions

  • Compute-Optimal Scaling Strategy: Introducing a strategy that adaptively allocates test-time compute based on prompt difficulty to maximize performance.
  • Empirical Findings:
    • Significant Efficacy of Test-Time Computation: On various problem difficulty levels, compute-optimal scaling can outperform a best-of-N baseline using about 4x less computation.
    • Trade-off Between Pretraining and Inference: For easier tasks and specific conditions, scaling inference compute can outperform pretraining a much larger model.

Detailed Analysis

Proposer and Verifier Framework (Section 2)

The paper embraces a unified perspective where inference-time methods refine the model's response distribution via modifications at both the input and output levels. The authors investigate process-based reward models (PRMs) and models trained to revise their own answers iteratively, known as revision models.

Search and Beam Search (Section 3)

A comparative evaluation of different search algorithms against PRMs highlights that while beam search outperforms at lower generation budgets, it becomes less effective at higher budgets due to over-optimization. Lookahead search, despite being a sophisticated method, underperforms due to inefficiencies in handling intermediate PRM predictions.

Revisions Over Parallel Sampling (Section 4)

The paper finds that a ratio of sequential revisions (iterative self-improvements) to parallel sampling can optimize test-time computation effectively. For easier problems, sequential revisions are more beneficial, while difficult problems benefit from a balanced approach of both sequential and parallel sampling.

Implications

Practical Implications

  • Deployment in Resource-Constrained Environments: Smaller models augmented with test-time compute could be employed in scenarios where large-scale models are infeasible, such as on-device applications.
  • Adaptive Compute Allocation: The notion of compute-optimal scaling provides a framework for dynamically adjusting test-time computation based on real-time evaluation of problem difficulty, relevant to both cost and performance optimization.

Theoretical Implications

  • Improving Self-Improvement Algorithms: Automated iterative self-improvement using test-time compute hints at the development of more autonomous agents capable of operating with reduced human intervention.
  • Trade-off Understanding: The analysis challenges the conventional wisdom of purely relying on scaling pretraining and opens avenues for more nuanced strategies that balance pretraining and inference compute.

Future Work

The paper underscores several avenues for future exploration. Key areas include further optimizing the trade-offs between pretraining and inference compute, finding efficient methods to predict prompt difficulty dynamically, and integrating test-time compute strategies more deeply with training regimes.

Conclusion

Snell et al. provide a rigorous and insightful analysis demonstrating that smart allocation of test-time compute can substantially enhance LLM performance, thus offering an alternative to simply scaling model parameters. The findings have broad implications for deploying LLMs efficiently and advancing state-of-the-art self-improving AI systems. Future developments in adaptive compute allocation and integrated training-inference strategies are promising areas poised to further this impactful research.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Charlie Snell (16 papers)
  2. Jaehoon Lee (62 papers)
  3. Kelvin Xu (25 papers)
  4. Aviral Kumar (74 papers)
Citations (127)
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com