Official implementation from Papers with Code · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- Stars
- 3
- Last push
- Mar 1, 2026 (109d ago)
Risk flags
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Benedikt Stroebl, Sayash Kapoor, Arvind Narayanan
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Recent research has generated hope that inference scaling, such as resampling solutions until they pass verifiers like unit tests, could allow weaker models to match stronger ones. Beyond inference, this approach also enables training reasoning models, where data is curated using rejection sampling against a verifier. However, we show that this approach is fundamentally limited when verifiers are imperfect and have a ...
non-zero probability of producing false positives. Resampling cannot decrease this probability, so it imposes an upper bound to the accuracy of resampling-based inference scaling, regardless of compute budget. Our analysis shows that there is a strong correlation between the model's single-sample accuracy and its false positive rate on HumanEval and MBPP, whose unit tests have limited coverage. Therefore, no amount of inference scaling of weaker models can enable them to match the single-sample accuracy of a sufficiently strong model. Empirical results show that optimal sampling attempts are often fewer than 10, as the negative utility of false positives outweighs benefits, bending inference scaling curves downward. Finally, false positives may have other undesirable qualities, like poor adherence to coding style conventions.
Some benchmark signal exists in the extracted evidence, but it is not structured strongly enough yet for a confident benchmark decision.
Recent research has generated hope that inference scaling, such as resampling solutions until they pass verifiers like unit tests, could allow weaker models to match stronger ones.
Only historical official repository was found (benediktstroebl/inference-scaling-limits).
Open benediktstroebl/inference-scaling-limitsHardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 80/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Official implementation from Papers with Code · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
Only a historical official implementation is available.
Use with caution for new projects; verify against current tooling and maintained community alternatives.
Hardware requirements
Dependencies pinned, manual setup needed
Quick start
git clone https://github.com/benediktstroebl/inference-scaling-limits.git
pip install -r requirements.txt No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXNeed human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.