Test-time compute methods can significantly improve the reasoning capabilities and problem-solving accuracy of large language models. However, these approaches require substantially more computational resources, with most computation wasted on exploring low-diversity branches where the model already exhibits high confidence. We observe that a small subset of uncertain reasoning steps has a disproportionately large impact on final prediction accuracy, and branching at these points tends to yield higher-quality and more diverse candidate reasoning steps. Therefore, we introduce Entropy-Gated Branching: a novel inference technique that dynamically allocates computational resources by selectively expanding prediction sequences only at points of high uncertainty. Our method leverages entropy as a gating mechanism to identify when branching is most beneficial, coupled with an external feedback model to rank and prune candidate branches. Empirical results on mathematical and financial reasoning benchmarks show that this strategy improves accuracy by 22.6% over standard inference while operating 31%-75% faster across math benchmarks than test-time beam search with higher performance. Our results show that dynamic resource allocation during inference can substantially improve both efficiency and effectiveness, offering a more scalable pathway to enhanced LLM reasoning capabilities. We release our code and tools here[<https://github.com/JXL884/entropy_gated_branching>]

The Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) program is one of the most widely recognized financial certifications globally. In this work, we test a variety of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on mock CFA exams to provide an overview of their financial analysis capabilities using the same evaluation standards applied for human professionals. We benchmark five leading proprietary models and eight open-source models on all three levels of the CFA through challenging multiple-choice and essay questions. We find that flagship proprietary models perform relatively well and can solidly pass levels I and II exams, but fail at level III due to essay questions. Open-source models generally fall short of estimated passing scores, but still show strong performance considering their size, cost, and availability advantages. We also find that using textbook data helps bridge the gap between open-source and proprietary models to a certain extent, despite reduced gains in CFA levels II and III. By understanding the current financial analysis abilities of LLMs, we aim to guide practitioners on which models are best suited for enhancing automation in the financial industry.