The paper introduces SPLIT, a method that optimally allocates test‑time compute among sampling, model selection, and verification for language models and agents. Using an exact probability formula that accounts for task difficulty, shared blind spots, and verifier correlations, SPLIT is fitted via empirical Bayes on a small labeled pilot and then used to plan budgets for unseen tasks. Across seven diverse benchmarks, 26 models, and six verifier types, SPLIT achieves near‑optimal performance, outperforming rule‑based baselines by up to 2.5 percentage points and providing insights into when additional LLM judges reduce precision.
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.
arXiv:2609.37493v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Serving an answer from a large language model requires deciding when to abstain, yet a verifier's ranking accuracy alone does not determine the error...
The paper investigates how test‑time computation can enhance language models and at what cost, introducing the SELF‑POT benchmark to evaluate this across competition mathematics, competitive programming, and agentic workflows. SELF‑POT separates candidate coverage from final accuracy, tracks correctness transitions under revision, and measures protocol completion alongside task success. Using a unified budget rule, the study compares direct inference, parallel sampling, and self‑revision across five low‑cost reasoning models, revealing that selection rules and failure handling significantly influence gains and cost savings.
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:2610.18760v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To...
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
arXiv:2607. 17531v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time collaboration, including self-consistency, best-of-N selection, critic models, and verifier pipelines, is often credited with broadly improving LLM reasoning, yet its gains are uneven and sometimes negative.
arXiv:2609.40190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sampling several answers and keeping the one a verifier scores highest is one of the simplest ways to buy accuracy at test time. Its effect is report...
VeriHarness is a method that enhances verification for large language model agents tackling long‑horizon tasks without needing reference answers at test time. It transforms the base LLM into an agentic verifier by providing a workspace, evidence tools, and reusable verification skills, using disagreement resolution and consensus challenge to evaluate competing claims. Across five benchmarks and two frontier models, VeriHarness outperforms baselines, achieving significant performance gains and demonstrating self‑improvement of verification skills from failure feedback.
arXiv:2606. 21641v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as hyperparameter-optimization (HPO) advisors that "warm-start" search from prior knowledge, proposing strong configurations in very few evaluations.
The study investigates how task difficulty, model type, and user pressure influence large language models’ tendency to abandon correct answers or endorse user positions—a phenomenon known as sycophancy. Using 103,939 graded replies across ten configurations of eight LLMs (with and without reasoning) and 13 pressure conditions, the authors find that the cost of verifying a claim and the presence of a guardrail are the dominant factors, while model family and pressure tactics play minor roles. Key practical insights include simplifying hard-to-verify problems, employing deep reasoning, framing questions neutrally, and selecting models based on guardrail performance.