Introduction
In the evolving landscape of large language models (LLMs), few topics have garnered as much attention—and sparked as much ingenuity—as the drive to enhance reasoning capabilities. Over the past few years, the field has witnessed astonishing leaps forward, from models that can hold reasonably coherent dialogues to systems that can write code, solve intricate puzzles, or even generate mathematical proofs. Yet, despite the remarkable progress, one fundamental challenge lingers: how do we get models not just to produce longer or more fluent text, but to think more deeply and more accurately, especially on complex tasks?
Traditionally, improvements in language modeling performance have come from scaling up model size and training data. Increasing the number of parameters and pre-training on massive corpora has undeniably yielded more powerful models. However, this approach comes at a steep cost. Training extremely large models can become prohibitively expensive, both financially and environmentally. Moreover, even massive models sometimes fail on tasks that require robust logical reasoning or careful step-by-step deductions. The industry’s fixation on ever-growing parameter counts is giving way to a more balanced perspective: maybe bigger isn’t always better, especially when we consider inference-time strategies that can allow a model to “think longer” about a question without necessarily making the model itself bigger.
Recent research at Hugging Face has demonstrated that significant performance improvements in open-source language models are indeed possible by intelligently scaling compute at inference time. Rather than just making the model larger, these researchers focused on how the model uses its inference resources—how it can, in effect, allocate more “mental bandwidth” to challenging questions. By doing so, they managed to boost performance dramatically on complex reasoning tasks, sometimes matching or even surpassing the performance of models that are many times larger.
This idea is related to the concept of “test-time compute scaling.” While it’s not entirely new—inspiration can be drawn from methods long used in game-playing AI, such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), and from recent methods like Tree-of-Thought (ToT)—the Hugging Face team’s work shows that these techniques can be adapted and applied directly to LLMs. By dynamically adjusting how much computation is spent on a single inference, their approach allows a model to explore multiple reasoning paths, verify solutions, and converge on a higher-quality answer.
OpenAI’s mysterious “o1” model has also hinted at the importance of test-time reasoning enhancements. Although details about OpenAI’s approach remain unclear, what Hugging Face researchers have done is lay out a more transparent and open-source methodology. By applying a variety of search strategies and reward models at inference time, they not only caught up to but, in some cases, have exceeded the performance of much larger models. Such results underscore a crucial insight: scaling reasoning can be as effective as scaling model size.
In this blog post, we’ll explore how Hugging Face’s researchers have managed to achieve these gains. We’ll delve into their methods—ranging from basic “Best-of-N” strategies to more complex search approaches like Diverse Verifier Tree Search (DVTS). We’ll discuss how integrating reward models and verifiers at inference time can guide the model toward better solutions. We’ll also examine benchmarks like GSM8K and MATH, where these methods have achieved impressive results. Along the way, we’ll consider the implications of these advancements, the challenges that remain, and what the future might hold for inference-time compute scaling in the open-source LLM ecosystem.
Background: Why Scale Compute at Inference?
For years, improvements in LLM capabilities primarily came from the “pre-training scale-up approach“: build bigger models and train them on more data. This “bigger is better” paradigm led to impressive results, culminating in extremely large models like GPT-4 or LLaMA variants with tens or even hundreds of billions of parameters. However, scaling in this manner is costly and is quickly reaching a point of diminishing returns.
Inference-time scaling offers a different path. Instead of making a model inherently more complex, inference-time methods dynamically allocate more computational resources to a single query. Imagine a human student tackling a difficult math problem: the student can spend more time and thought on the problem, maybe break it down into simpler parts, or consider multiple solution attempts before finalizing the answer. Similarly, an LLM can be guided to “think harder” about a problem by using reasoning strategies that involve multiple solution paths, verifying partial solutions, and potentially rethinking steps where errors seem likely.
This approach is not entirely unlike what has been done in other areas of AI. For instance, in game-playing AI (like AlphaGo or AlphaZero), a powerful yet relatively fixed “policy and value network” is combined with a sophisticated search technique (MCTS) at inference time. The search iterates over possible moves and outcomes, allocating more computation to promising branches, and ultimately arrives at stronger solutions than the policy network would alone.
OpenAI’s so-called “o1” model—a system rumored to scale inference compute—also suggests that spending more inference-time resources can yield substantial performance gains. However, the exact details of OpenAI’s approach remain undisclosed. Hugging Face’s recent demonstrations bring transparency, showing that open-source models can benefit from similar principles.
Hugging Face’s Approach: From Basic to Complex Search Strategies
Hugging Face researchers have explored a spectrum of methods for scaling compute at inference. These methods vary in complexity and computational cost, but all share a common goal: to leverage more reasoning time to achieve better results.
- Best-of-N:
The simplest approach is to generate multiple candidate answers (N candidates) and then select the best one. This “best-of-N” approach already helps: even if each candidate is sampled from the same model, exploring multiple samples can yield a better final answer. It’s a brute-force way of increasing “compute” at test time—just generate more candidates and pick the best. But how to pick the best? That’s where verifiers come in. - Beam Search with Process Reward Models (PRM):
Beam search is a well-known decoding strategy that keeps track of multiple candidate sequences (beams) and expands them step-by-step. Traditionally used in machine translation, beam search tries to find the highest-probability sequence. Hugging Face researchers, however, integrated a Process Reward Model (PRM) to guide the beam search. The PRM scores partial solutions, so the search doesn’t just rely on the language model’s probabilities but also on how “good” each partial solution seems. By doing this, they managed to explore more reasonable solution paths and prune less promising ones. - Diverse Verifier Tree Search (DVTS):
Going beyond beam search, the team introduced a more complex method—Diverse Verifier Tree Search. DVTS aims not only to find a good solution but to ensure diversity among the candidate solutions considered. The idea is to branch out widely, generating multiple reasoning paths that differ significantly from one another, and use verifiers to evaluate these paths. By maintaining diversity in the search space, the model can avoid getting stuck in local optima.
Each of these search strategies incrementally builds on the previous ones, offering a trade-off between computational cost and performance gains. DVTS, in particular, stands out as a method that encourages the model to explore multiple distinct solution paths, increasing the likelihood that at least one of them is correct.
The Role of Verifiers and Reward Models
Central to all these approaches are verifiers or reward models. Verifiers are models (or model components) specifically designed to evaluate a solution candidate’s correctness. Rather than just relying on the LLM’s next-token probabilities, verifiers assess whether a proposed solution meets certain criteria, such as mathematical correctness, logical consistency, or adherence to factual information.
Hugging Face’s experiments showed that verifiers are crucial for guiding the search process. In test scenarios on mathematics problems, for example, a verifier can check if a derived answer is numerically correct. On logical or reasoning tasks, a verifier might ensure that a solution doesn’t violate previously stated facts or constraints.
A known benchmark in this context is ProcessBench, which tests the robustness and generalizability of verifiers. Although current verifiers are not perfect, their ability to prune bad solutions and highlight promising ones leads to significant performance improvements. They play a role akin to a teacher who checks a student’s homework step-by-step, ensuring that the reasoning is valid before moving on.
From ToT to FoT: The Forest-of-Thought Framework
One promising line of research is the “Forest-of-Thought” (FoT) framework, a concept that evolves from existing reasoning structures like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Tree-of-Thought (ToT). CoT methods emerged as a prompting technique that encourages LLMs to “show their work” by generating intermediate steps. Tree-of-Thought extended this idea by considering multiple branching reasoning paths.
FoT pushes this idea even further. Instead of just one tree of thought, FoT integrates multiple trees or reasoning structures (including MCTSr—MCTS reasoning adapted for language models). By having multiple independent “trees” exploring different solution routes, FoT can yield a rich forest of potential answers.
In the FoT approach described by researchers, each tree in the forest may use a different reasoning strategy—one might use ToT, another might rely on MCTSr, another on DVTS. The results are then combined using sparse activation strategies, dynamic self-correction, and consensus-guided decision-making to produce a final, high-quality answer. As the Hugging Face researchers and other academics have found, this multi-tree reasoning structure can drastically improve model reasoning accuracy, while still keeping computational costs in check through methods like sparse activation and early stopping.
Real-World Performance: Matching and Surpassing Larger Models
The promise of inference-time scaling is perhaps best illustrated by the astonishing results Hugging Face researchers achieved:
- Smaller Models Matching Bigger Models:
According to the Hugging Face team’s experiments, a LLaMA model with just one billion parameters, when combined with intelligent test-time compute scaling, matched the performance of a model eight times larger (8 billion parameters) that did not use these methods. This result underscores that it’s possible to trade extra inference compute for effective performance gains, thereby reducing the need to train extremely large models from the get-go. - Outperforming Very Large Models:
Even more impressively, the researchers report that a 3-billion-parameter model, optimized through test-time scaling techniques, outperformed a 70-billion-parameter model (Llama 3.1) running without these sophisticated inference methods. The ratio of parameter counts—3B vs. 70B—is staggering. That a much smaller model can surpass the reasoning capabilities of one more than twenty times its size simply by allocating inference-time compute more wisely is a strong testament to the power of these techniques. - Excelling in Complex Mathematical Tasks:
On mathematical reasoning tasks, Hugging Face’s optimized approaches achieved near 55% accuracy. Consider that such tasks are notoriously challenging for LLMs, often requiring step-by-step deduction, stable memory of previous steps, and an ability to avoid simple arithmetic or logical errors. The fact that these models can reach performance levels comparable to well-trained domain experts (the team even likened the performance to that of computer science PhD students) is a remarkable achievement.
These breakthroughs suggest that the future of LLM development may be less about making models bigger and more about making them think smarter. By cleverly controlling how much time and compute a model spends on a single query, open-source LLM developers can achieve top-tier performance without resorting to prohibitively large or expensive models.
Benchmarks and Scaling Laws
Extensive testing on well-known benchmarks further validates these claims. For instance, the GSM8K dataset (a large set of math word problems; see GSM8K paper) and the MATH dataset (MATH dataset paper) serve as challenging platforms for evaluating advanced reasoning strategies. In each case, Hugging Face’s approach to test-time compute scaling delivered substantial improvements.
Interestingly, experiments showed a kind of scaling law in performance when using the Forest-of-Thought framework. As the number of activated subtrees increased, model accuracy improved significantly, up to a point. The first few additional subtrees produced major gains by expanding the search space. Subsequent additions continued to help, but with diminishing returns. This scaling behavior mirrors patterns seen in other areas of machine learning, where the benefit of additional resources eventually plateaus.
What’s significant, however, is that Hugging Face’s work confirmed these scaling laws not just for one base model, but for multiple models. By experimenting with LLaMA, Mistral-7B (Mistral info) and GLM-4-9B, they demonstrated that as the number of subtrees in FoT increases, accuracy consistently trends upward. This suggests that the method is robust and transferable across different architectures and model families.
ProcessBench and the Challenge of Verifier Robustness
While the improvements are impressive, Hugging Face researchers acknowledge that today’s verifiers are not perfect. They rely on benchmarks like ProcessBench to measure robustness and generalizability, understanding that verifiers might fail in certain edge cases, be fooled by plausible-sounding yet incorrect reasoning, or struggle with highly complex tasks.
Improving verifier performance is a frontier of this research. Ideally, the model would have a built-in capability to verify its own outputs autonomously, reducing reliance on separately trained verifiers. Achieving this would mean building models that are not just generators of text, but also critical evaluators of their own reasoning processes.
Applications and Implications
The ability to improve reasoning at inference time has significant implications:
- Cost-Effectiveness:
Developers can achieve top-level performance without training colossal models. Smaller models augmented with these inference techniques can match or surpass much larger models, reducing costs associated with pre-training and fine-tuning at scale. - Green AI and Efficiency:
Smaller models that perform at par with larger models help reduce the environmental impact of AI development. By making smart use of inference-time computation, the carbon footprint associated with large-scale training can be mitigated. - Democratization of LLMs:
The improvements enable open-source communities to build and deploy powerful LLMs on modest hardware. Researchers, startups, and enthusiasts can more easily experiment with advanced reasoning capabilities without needing billion-dollar infrastructure. - Adaptability to Specific Tasks:
Different tasks may require different reasoning depths. With these methods, the inference-time complexity can be dialed up or down as needed. For simple queries, the model can respond quickly; for harder tasks, it can spend more compute exploring multiple reasoning paths, verifying them carefully, and producing a robust final answer.
Challenges and Future Directions
Despite the successes, there remain several open questions and directions for future research:
- Verifier Improvement:
Current verifiers are good but not perfect. Future work will focus on making verifiers more robust, covering a broader range of tasks, and ensuring they can generalize better. A particular aspiration is to develop models that can autonomously verify their reasoning without separate verifier components. - Scalability and Latency Trade-offs:
Allocating more compute at inference time increases latency. For real-world applications that need instant responses, spending extra seconds (or more) exploring reasoning paths might be impractical. Researchers will need to find clever ways to get the best performance-to-latency ratios. - Dynamic Strategies Based on Problem Difficulty:
Not all problems require the same depth of reasoning. Future systems might dynamically estimate the complexity of a query and decide on-the-fly how many resources to allocate. Light queries get a minimal approach, while complex tasks invoke a full forest-of-thought exploration. - Autonomous Reasoning Agents:
Beyond just producing correct outputs, advanced reasoning strategies could lead to the development of autonomous reasoning agents that can solve multi-step tasks, ask clarifying questions, verify their own work, and adapt their reasoning style over time.
Conclusion
Hugging Face’s pioneering work on scaling inference-time compute represents a paradigm shift in LLM development. Their research shows that by applying strategies inspired by search, verification, and dynamic resource allocation, it’s possible to transform a relatively small model into a remarkably capable reasoner. This opens the door to an era where improving LLM performance doesn’t have to mean building ever-larger architectures. Instead, it suggests that we can achieve more with less—focusing on the efficiency and intelligence of inference-time reasoning.
As open-source communities adopt these methods, we’ll likely see a proliferation of smaller, more efficient LLMs that can solve complex tasks with near-human-level accuracy. By integrating approaches such as FoT, DVTS, MCTSr, and expert-verifier-guided decision-making, developers can harness collective reasoning paths in much the same way that human experts debate, explore, and refine solutions before arriving at a final answer.
The trajectory is clear: future LLMs will not just be massive statistical engines; they will be nimble, strategic thinkers capable of allocating computational resources smartly, employing multiple lines of reasoning, verifying their conclusions, and approaching new problems with flexible, adaptive thinking. Hugging Face’s demonstration of significant performance improvements through scaling compute during inference stands as an important milestone along this path—one that sets a new standard for what open-source LLMs can achieve.
References and Further Reading
- Chain-of-Thought prompting (CoT):
Wei et al., 2022, “Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models“ - Tree-of-Thought (ToT):
Yao et al., 2023, “Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models“ - MATH dataset:
Hendrycks et al., 2021, “Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset“ - GSM8K dataset:
Cobbe et al., 2021, “Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems“ - LLaMA model:
Touvron et al., 2023, “LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models“ - Mistral-7B model:, “Mistral 7B“
- GLM models:
Du et al., 2022, “GLM: General Language Model Pretraining with Autoregressive Blank Infilling“ - Hugging Face Blog:
https://huggingface.co/blog
The above references and links can provide more technical and theoretical backgrounds for readers interested in diving deeper into the concepts and findings discussed in this article.
Comments 1