Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in generating functional code, leading to numerous AI-based coding assistant tools. However, their reliance on the perplexity objective during both training and inference primarily emphasizes functionality, often at the expense of efficiency--an essential consideration for real-world coding tasks. Interestingly, we observed that well-trained LLMs inherently possess knowledge about code efficiency, but this potential remains underutilized with standard decoding approaches. To address this, we design strategic prompts to activate the model's embedded efficiency understanding, effectively using LLMs as efficiency critiques to guide code generation toward higher efficiency without sacrificing--and sometimes even improving--functionality, all without the need for costly real code execution. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets (EffiBench, HumanEval+, COFFE, Mercury) across multiple representative code models demonstrate up to a 70.6% reduction in average execution time and a 13.6% decrease in maximum memory usage, highlighting the computational efficiency and practicality of our approach compared to existing alternatives.

A common paradigm to improve the performance of large language models is optimizing for a reward model. Reward models assign a numerical score to an LLM's output that indicates, for example, how likely it is to align with user preferences or safety goals. However, reward models are never perfect. They inevitably function as proxies for complex desiderata such as correctness, helpfulness, and safety. By overoptimizing for a misspecified reward, we can subvert intended alignment goals and reduce overall performance - a phenomenon commonly referred to as reward hacking.

Test-time scaling (TTS) has proven effective in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Verification plays a key role in TTS, simultaneously influencing (1) reasoning performance and (2) compute efficiency, due to the quality and computational cost of verification. In this work, we challenge the conventional paradigms of verification, and make the first attempt toward systematically investigating the impact of verification granularity--that is, how frequently the verifier is invoked during generation, beyond verifying only the final output or individual generation steps. To this end, we introduce Variable Granularity Search (VG-Search), a unified algorithm that generalizes beam search and Best-of-N sampling via a tunable granularity parameter $g$. Extensive experiments with VG-Search under varying compute budgets, generator-verifier configurations, and task attributes reveal that dynamically selecting $g$ can improve the compute efficiency and scaling behavior. Building on these findings, we propose adaptive VG-Search strategies that achieve accuracy gains of up to 3.1\% over Beam Search and 3.6\% over Best-of-N, while reducing FLOPs by over 52\%. We will open-source the code to support future research.

Sampling multiple outputs from a Large Language Model (LLM) and selecting the most frequent (Self-consistency) or highest-scoring (Best-of-N) candidate is a popular approach to achieve higher accuracy in tasks with discrete final answers. Best-of-N (BoN) selects the output with the highest reward, and with perfect rewards, it often achieves near-perfect accuracy. With imperfect rewards from reward models, however, BoN fails to reliably find the correct answer and its performance degrades drastically. We consider the distribution of BoN's outputs and highlight that, although the correct answer does not usually have a probability close to one under imperfect rewards, it is often the most likely outcome. This suggests that the mode of this distribution can be more reliably correct than a sample from it. Based on this idea, we propose Majority-of-the-Bests (MoB), a novel selection mechanism that estimates the output distribution of BoN via bootstrapping and selects its mode. Experimental results across five benchmarks, three different base LLMs, and two reward models demonstrate consistent improvements over BoN in 25 out of 30 setups. We also provide theoretical results for the consistency of the bootstrapping. MoB serves as a simple, yet strong alternative to BoN and self-consistency, and more broadly, motivates further research in more nuanced selection mechanisms.

The safe and effective deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) involves a critical step called alignment, which ensures that the model's responses are in accordance with human preferences. Prevalent alignment techniques, such as DPO, PPO and their variants, align LLMs by changing the pre-trained model weights during a phase called post-training. While predominant, these post-training methods add substantial complexity before LLMs can be deployed. Inference-time alignment methods avoid the complex post-training step and instead bias the generation towards responses that are aligned with human preferences. The best-known inference-time alignment method, called Best-of-N, is as effective as the state-of-the-art post-training procedures. Unfortunately, Best-of-N requires vastly more resources at inference time than standard decoding strategies, which makes it computationally not viable.

Recent visual autoregressive (AR) models have shown promising capabilities in text-to-image generation, operating in a manner similar to large language models. While test-time computation scaling has brought remarkable success in enabling reasoning-enhanced outputs for challenging natural language tasks, its adaptation to visual AR models remains unexplored and poses unique challenges. Naively applying test-time scaling strategies such as Best-of-N can be suboptimal: they consume full-length computation on erroneous generation trajectories, while the raster-scan decoding scheme lacks a blueprint of the entire canvas, limiting scaling benefits as only a few prompt-aligned candidates are generated. To address these, we introduce GridAR, a test-time scaling framework designed to elicit the best possible results from visual AR models. GridAR employs a grid-partitioned progressive generation scheme in which multiple partial candidates for the same position are generated within a canvas, infeasible ones are pruned early, and viable ones are fixed as anchors to guide subsequent decoding. Coupled with this, we present a layout-specified prompt reformulation strategy that inspects partial views to infer a feasible layout for satisfying the prompt. The reformulated prompt then guides subsequent image generation to mitigate the blueprint deficiency. Together, GridAR achieves higher-quality results under limited test-time scaling: with N=4, it even outperforms Best-of-N (N=8) by 14.4% on T2I-CompBench++ while reducing cost by 25.6%. It also generalizes to autoregressive image editing, showing comparable edit quality and a 13.9% gain in semantic preservation on PIE-Bench over larger-N baselines.

A common paradigm to improve the performance of large language models is optimizing for a reward model. Reward models assign a numerical score to an LLM's output that indicates, for example, how likely it is to align with user preferences or safety goals. However, reward models are never perfect. They inevitably function as proxies for complex desiderata such as correctness, helpfulness, and safety. By overoptimizing for a misspecified reward, we can subvert intended alignment goals and reduce overall performance, a phenomenon commonly referred to as reward hacking. In this work, we characterize reward hacking in inference-time alignment and demonstrate when and how we can mitigate it by hedging on the proxy reward. We study this phenomenon under Best-of-$n$ (BoN) and Soft Best-of-$n$ (SBoN), and we introduce Best-of-Poisson (BoP) that provides an efficient, near-exact approximation of the optimal reward-KL divergence policy at inference time. We show that the characteristic pattern of hacking as observed in practice (where the true reward first increases before declining) is an inevitable property of a broad class of inference-time mechanisms, including BoN and BoP. To counter this effect, we introduce HedgeTune, an efficient algorithm to find the optimal inference-time parameter. We demonstrate that hedging mitigates reward hacking and achieves superior reward-distortion tradeoffs on math, reasoning, and human-preference setups.

Text-to-SQL, the task of translating natural language questions into SQL queries, has significantly advanced with the introduction of Large Language Models (LLMs), broadening database accessibility for a wide range of users. Despite substantial progress in generating valid SQL, current LLMs still struggle with complex queries. To address this limitation, test-time strategies such as Best-of-N (BoN) and Majority Voting (Maj) are often employed, based on the assumption that LLMs can produce correct answers after multiple attempts. However, these methods rely on surface-level heuristics, selecting the syntactically correct query through execution-based BoN (ex-BoN) or the most frequently generated one through Majority Voting. Recently, Outcome Reward Models (ORMs), which assign utility scores to generated outputs based on semantic correctness, have emerged as a promising reinforcement learning approach for improving model alignment. We argue that ORMs could serve as an effective new test-time heuristic, although their application in this context remains largely underexplored. In this work, we propose a unified framework for training ORMs tailored to the Text-to-SQL task and assess their effectiveness as a test-time heuristic within the BoN strategy. We benchmark ORMs against ex-BoN and Maj across the BIRD and Spider datasets, fine-tuning diverse open-source LLMs from the Qwen2, Granite3, and Llama3 families. Results show that ORMs outperform ex-BoN and Maj, achieving execution accuracy gains of +4.33% (BIRD) and +2.10% (Spider) over ex-BoN, and +2.91% (BIRD) and +0.93% (Spider) over Maj. We further demonstrate that finetuning models already aligned with SQL generation, such as OmniSQL, yields superior ORM performance. Additionally, we observe that ORMs achieve competitive results on simple queries and benefit more from an increased number of candidates compared to ex-BoN and Maj.

LLM alignment remains a critical challenge. Inference-time methods provide a flexible alternative to fine-tuning, but their uniform computational effort often yields suboptimal alignment. We hypothesize that for many alignment tasks, the initial tokens of a response are disproportionately more critical. To leverage this principle, we introduce AdaSearch, a novel blockwise search strategy. It adaptively allocates a fixed computational budget using a sampling schedule, focusing search effort on these critical tokens. We apply AdaSearch to sequential decoding and introduce its tree-search counterpart, AdaBeam. Our comprehensive evaluation across eight LLMs demonstrates that AdaSearch outperforms strong Best-of-N and fine-tuning baselines. Specifically, win-rates improve by over 10% for harmlessness generation, controlled sentiment generation, and for mathematical reasoning tasks relative to Best-of-N.

While chain-of-thought prompting with Best-of-N (BoN) selection has become popular for mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs), its linear structure fails to capture the branching and exploratory nature of complex problem-solving. In this work, we propose an adaptive algorithm to maximize process reward model (PRM) scores over the intractable action space, and investigate whether PRM-guided tree search can improve mathematical reasoning by exploring multiple partial solution paths. Across $23$ diverse mathematical problems using Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct with its associated PRM as a case study, we find that: (1) PRM-guided tree search shows no statistically significant improvements over BoN despite higher costs, (2) Monte Carlo tree search and beam search outperform other PRM-guided tree search methods, (3) PRMs poorly approximate state values and their reliability degrades with reasoning depth, and (4) PRMs generalize poorly out of distribution. This underperformance stems from tree search's greater reliance on unreliable PRM scores, suggesting different reward modeling is necessary before tree search can effectively enhance mathematical reasoning in LLMs.