arXiv AI

Refining Over Resampling: Test-Time Self-Correction for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2608. 05643v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by using additional inference compute, but wider sampling alone can suffer from diminishing returns: new rollouts often repeat existing answer patterns instead of adding useful reasoning diversity.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 14

Chopthin-Consensus Power Sampling: A Diversity-Preserving Approach to LLM Decoding

Chopthin-Consensus Power Sampling (CCPS) is a new inference-time decoding method for large language models that uses the Chopthin resampler to preserve diversity among particle trajectories. By enforcing an upper bound on weight ratios instead of equal-weight resampling, CCPS maintains a richer set of distinct reasoning paths and guarantees a lower bound on effective sample size. Coupled with a semantic-majority selection mechanism, CCPS achieves higher oracle coverage and matches or surpasses baseline accuracy on multiple reasoning benchmarks.

By Minoo Ahmadi, Seyedarmin Azizi, Erfan Baghaei Potraghloo, Mehdi Kamal, Massoud Pedram
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Planned Test-Time Scaling with Coordinated Reasoning Paths

The paper introduces Planned Test-Time Scaling (PTTS), a method that replaces independent sampling of reasoning branches with a coordinated joint policy. PTTS uses a planner to generate distinct solution outlines for each branch and an executor to produce full solutions, thereby improving coverage of complementary reasoning modes. Two variants—PTTS‑ZS (zero‑shot) and PTTS‑RL (reinforcement‑learned)—demonstrate significant gains on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, with PTTS‑RL achieving up to a 13.4‑point improvement in pass@64 over repeated sampling.

By Xueqing Wu, Langxing Bai, Hritik Bansal, Po-Nien Kung, Shuo Li, Hao Liu, Nanyun Peng, Kai-Wei Chang
arXiv AI
2d ago

ReSolve: Reusing Candidate Reasoning through Selective Generative Moderation

ReSolve is a training‑free inference method that reuses candidate reasoning by selectively moderating generative outputs. It examines existing derivations when candidates disagree or lack a parseable answer, then incorporates new solutions into a bounded loop. On 130 competition‑mathematics problems, ReSolve achieves 100 and 99 correct answers with significantly fewer tokens than eight‑sample self‑consistency, while a controlled ablation shows that visible derivations improve accuracy.

By Bangji Yang, Jiajun Fan, Hongba Ma, Xi Zhu, Weizhi Zhang, Minghao Guo, Ye Li, Hamid Palangi, Jiaxuan You
arXiv AI
Aug 11

How Much Backtracking is Enough? Exploring the Interplay of SFT and RL in Enhancing LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2505. 24273v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) suggest that reinforcement learning (RL) effectively internalizes search strategies, yielding significant improvements on challenging reasoning tasks through extended chains of thought.

By Hongyi James Cai, Junlin Wang, Xiaoyin Chen, Bhuwan Dhingra
arXiv AI
Jun 15

Fractured Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

arXiv:2505. 12992v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Inference-time scaling techniques have significantly bolstered the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by harnessing additional computational effort at inference without retraining.

By Baohao Liao, Hanze Dong, Yuhui Xu, Doyen Sahoo, Christof Monz, Junnan Li, Caiming Xiong
arXiv AI
Jul 14

LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.

By Ning Liu
arXiv AI
Jul 15

Rethinking Reward Models for Multi-Domain Test-Time Scaling

arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.

By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song