# Optimal Aggregation of LLM and PRM Signals for Efficient Test-Time Scaling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13918 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13918/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 18 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07301/) (2025)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models: What, How, Where, and How Well?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24235/) (2025)
- [Confidence Improves Self-Consistency in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06233/) (2025)
- [PRMBench: A Fine-grained and Challenging Benchmark for Process-Level Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03124/) (2025)
- [Process Reward Model with Q-Value Rankings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11287/) (2024)
- [Evaluation of Best-of-N Sampling Strategies for Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12668/) (2025)
- [Bag of Tricks for Inference-time Computation of LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.07191/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [SCATR: Simple Calibrated Test-Time Ranking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16535/) (2026)
- [Diversity Combining for Multi-Path LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38829/) (2026)
- [Composing Task-specific Agent Harnesses at Test Time with Reusable Primitives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38912/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Process reward models (PRMs) are a cornerstone of test-time scaling (TTS), designed to verify and select the best responses from large language models (LLMs). However, this promise is challenged by recent benchmarks where simple majority voting, which ignores PRM signals, occasionally outperforms standard PRM-based selection. This raises a critical question: How can we effectively utilize verification signals from PRMs for TTS? To address this, we start by developing a theoretical framework for optimally combining signals from both the LLM and the PRM. Our framework reveals that the optimal strategy is a weighted aggregation of responses, a strategy whose effectiveness hinges on estimating weights that capture the complex interplay between the models. Based on our theoretical results, we empirically show that these optimal weighting functions differ significantly across LLM-PRM pairs and, notably, often assign substantial negative weights. Motivated by these insights, we propose efficient pre-computation methods to calibrate these weighting functions. Extensive experiments across 5 LLMs and 7 PRMs demonstrate that our calibration method significantly boosts the TTS efficiency, surpassing the performance of vanilla weighted majority voting while using only 21.3% of the computation. Ultimately, our work demonstrates that investing in a more intelligent aggregation strategy can be a more convincing path to performance gains than simply scaling test-time computation.