ATEST: Adaptive Resource-Aware Test-Time Scaling for LLM Inference
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Test-time scaling (TTS) improves large language model (LLM) reasoning by sampling multiple answers, but fixed sampling budgets ignore both query difficulty and the changing energy cost of inference under GPU contention. We measure up to a 4.1-fold increase in energy for the same four-sample query as GPU load rises. We present ATEST, a resource-aware TTS framework that jointly considers the expected value of additional samples and their current GPU cost. ATEST-Online, its default mode, requires no offline calibration: it incrementally generates samples, estimates the stability of the plurality answer, monitors live GPU conditions, and learns step energy cost online to decide when to stop. ATEST-Calibrated instead selects a per-query budget using offline accuracy and cost models, favoring deployments with stable loads. We evaluate both modes on four reasoning and question-answering datasets using Phi-3-mini on an NVIDIA A100 under controlled varying load, and test transfer to an NVIDIA L40S and Qwen2.5-3B. Across the four A100 datasets, ATEST-Online answers every query without exceeding the energy budget, while achieving the highest or statistically tied accuracy and reducing sampling as load increases. On GSM8K at high load, it achieves 60.0% accuracy with no deferrals, versus 44.0% accuracy and 42.4% deferrals for ATEST-Calibrated. Ablations show that online cost learning drives adaptation to load. Including offline profiling, ATEST-Online uses 42 times less GPU time and 48 times less energy than ATEST-Calibrated for the evaluated workload. Online control trades higher tail latency and lower throughput on short tasks for robustness under varying load; offline calibration remains competitive under stable conditions.
Results and benchmarks
Test-time scaling (TTS) improves large language model (LLM) reasoning by sampling multiple answers, but fixed sampling budgets ignore both query difficulty and the changing energy cost of inference under GPU contention.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural language processing | GSM8K | Accuracy | 500 | paper-derived |
| Natural language processing | ARC | Accuracy | 0.794 | paper-derived |
| Natural language processing | MATH | Accuracy | 95 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Active
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Strong
- Stars
- 5
- Last push
- Oct 22, 2026 (8d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Low confidence match
- Maintenance
- Active
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Oct 22, 2026 (8d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Dependency manifest missing
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- We evaluate both modes on four reasoning and question-answering datasets using Phi-3-mini on an NVIDIA A100 under controlled varying load, and test transfer to an NVIDIA L40S and Q
- Across the four A100 datasets, ATEST-Online answers every query without exceeding the energy budget, while achieving the highest or statistically tied accuracy and reducing samplin
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- will-rice/tts-papers
Confidence: Low · 5 stars
- MobinaKashaniyan/MobinaKashaniyan.github.io
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Natural language processing
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.