arXiv:2604. 01170v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While test-time scaling has enabled large language models to solve highly difficult tasks, state-of-the-art results come at exorbitant compute costs.
By Cai Zhou, Zekai Wang, Menghua Wu, Qianyu Julie Zhu, Flora C. Shi, Chenyu Wang, Ashia Wilson, Tommi Jaakkola, Stephen Bates
arXiv:2606. 01682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths.
By Atoosa Chegini, Soheil Feizi
Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths. PRM guided search avoids this by scoring candidate continuations during generation, but requires a reward model trained with step-level labels.
arXiv:2608. 04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute.
By Mohsen Hariri, Weicong Chen, Nahal Shahini, Vikash Singh, Kai Ye, Amirhossein Samandar, Debargha Ganguly, Sreehari Sankar, Yanyan Zhang, Shouren Wang, Jerry Peng, Biyao Zhang, Michael Hinczewski, Vipin Chaudhary
Self-consistency assumes the most frequent answer among sampled reasoning traces is the most reliable, but this can fail in causal reasoning: samples often repeat the same confounding error, and votes fragment across multiple valid answers, letting an invalid answer win despite a valid minority trace. We introduce CALVER (Causal Axiom-Level VERification), a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria, including -separation, backdoor adjustment, and intervention, and selects the highest-scoring candidate without consulting a reference answer.
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:2608. 09351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM accuracy but multiplies inference cost, making the accuracy gained per unit of compute the metric that matters in deployment.
By Nikita Kozodoi, Zainab Afolabi, Jack Butler
arXiv:2608. 15565v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Experience-learning agents for optimization modeling improve by storing verified skills, but existing learners admit knowledge by checking against known answers, which real ticket streams do not provide.
By Junbo Jacob Lian, Huiling Chen, Hanzhang Qin, Chung-Piaw Teo
arXiv:2606. 26836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run.
By Bradley Fowler, Ryan Smith, Daniel Thi Graviet, William Myers, Joshua Greaves, Narmeen Fatimah Oozeer, Ant\'ia Garc\'ia, Philip Quirke, Amirali Abdullah, Fazl Barez, Shriyash Kaustubh Upadhyay
arXiv:2606. 09856v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning typically focuses on deductive tasks such as mathematics and coding where correctness is verifiable.
By Liyi Zhang, Akshay K. Jagadish, Brenden M. Lake, Thomas L. Griffiths
arXiv:2607. 27783v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) explore problems through chain-of-thought, but this exploration is buried in unstructured prose.
By Amruta Parulekar, Jinu Lee, Dilek Hakkani-T\"ur, Hari Sundaram
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?
By Manas Pathak, Xingyao Chen, Shuozhe Li, Amy Zhang, Liu Leqi