arXiv AI By Yasushi Sakai, Allen Song, Kent Larson

When Does Delegation Beat Majority? A Delegation-Based Aggregator for Multi-Sample LLM Inference

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 08098v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Majority voting over sampled answers is the dominant unsupervised aggregator for multi-sample LLM inference.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

Rules Before Oracles: Auditable, User-Configurable Argument Selection for Deliberative Polling

The paper proposes a transparent, user‑configurable rule for selecting arguments in deliberative polls, replacing opaque learned rankers. It formalises argument selection over bipolar justification sets, introduces seven civic recommender criteria, and presents a one‑hop reversed endorsement flow rule that meets them. Experiments on 17,000 simulated runs show the rule performs comparably to random on coverage but outperforms other methods on endorsement mass and robustness under adversarial pressure.

By Muntaser Syed, Markus Zanker, Marius Silaghi
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
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
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
Sep 12

When Agents Disagree: Bayesian Backward Reasoning as a Label-Free Anchor for Multi-Agent Collective Decision-Making

The paper introduces Bayesian backward reasoning as a label‑free anchor for multi‑agent collective decision‑making. By constructing reverse posteriors from explicit likelihoods, the authors obtain differently factorized approximations of the underlying posterior, reducing shared errors among agents. Using Jensen‑Shannon divergence to rank agents, they propose three aggregation strategies—hard selection (MinJS), soft reweighting (FwdJS), and log‑linear fusion (LogLin)—which consistently outperform baseline methods on the DDXPlus benchmark across five LLM backbones, especially when agents disagree.

By Ken Chen, Wei Wang, Sachith Seneviratne, Hansani Weeratunge, Saman Halgamuge
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Auditing Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning Trees Outperforms Majority Vote and LLM-as-Judge

The paper introduces AgentAuditor, a method that improves multi-agent large language model (LLM) reasoning by structuring agent outputs into a Reasoning Tree that captures agreements and divergences, rather than relying on simple majority voting. AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing evidence at key divergence points, enabling efficient localized verification. The authors also propose Anti-Consensus Preference Optimization (ACPO) to train the adjudicator with evidence-verified supervision, reducing reliance on misleading majority cues. Across four MAS frameworks and multiple reasoning benchmarks, AgentAuditor consistently outperforms majority voting, achieving up to 5% absolute accuracy gains while remaining token‑efficient.

By Wei Yang, Shixuan Li, Heng Ping, Peiyu Zhang, Paul Bogdan, Jesse Thomason