The paper argues that additional computation from the same large language model (LLM) during test time does not necessarily provide independent evidence, as errors are correlated across repeated samples, reasoning depth, and self-evaluation. It introduces DIA (Disagreement-triggered Independent Arbitration), which uses disagreement between intermediate and final predictions as a signal of instability and resolves it by having a small panel of heterogeneous models independently solve the question. Across seven benchmarks and two base models, DIA outperforms full chain-of-thought in most settings, achieving significant gains while using fewer tokens and activating only on a subset of examples.
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:2608. 15303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time compute can substantially improve Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning performance, yet how and when additional compute helps remains poorly understood.
arXiv:2610.23246v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reasoning systems increasingly improve answers by incorporating additional context into the model's input, from multi-agent debate, where agents read...
arXiv:2608. 10928v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by allocating additional inference-time compute to generate extended chain-of-thought reasoning.
arXiv:2609.16055v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time compute has emerged as a major approach to improving the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing test-time reasonin...
Test-time scaling has become a major way to improve large language model reasoning, but its orchestration has remained designer-engineered: a fixed sample budget, a fixed refinement loop, a fixed scoring rule, or a fixed search policy decides how compute is spent, leaving the model in charge of solving but not of orchestration. We introduce ATLAS, an agentic test-time scaling framework in which an LLM orchestrator owns the control loop end-to-end.
arXiv:2606. 01667v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling has become a major way to improve large language model reasoning, but its orchestration has remained designer-engineered: a fixed sample budget, a fixed refinement loop, a fixed scoring rule, or a fixed search policy decides how compute is spent, leaving the model in charge of solving but not of orchestration.
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:2608. 11403v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-consistency (SC) via majority vote is a widely used way to spend inference-time compute: sample N chains of thought, return the plurality answer.
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.
arXiv:2604. 01161v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibiting test-time scaling behavior, such as extended reasoning traces and self-verification, have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex, long-term reasoning tasks.
The paper proposes a unified framework for test‑time reasoning methods, framing them as recursion operators—GROW, PRUNE, and BRANCH—applied to an agent’s reasoning trace. Experiments across five benchmarks and three frontier models show that BRANCH, which samples and selects among multiple reasoning paths, consistently outperforms the other operators and a single‑pass chain‑of‑thought baseline, improving accuracy by an average of 5.98 percentage points. The study also highlights the importance of paired evaluation and careful handling of scoring‑pipeline failures, as these factors can significantly alter comparative outcomes.