More Bang for the Buck: Improving the Inference of Large Language Models at a Fixed Budget using Reset and Discard (ReD)
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The performance of large language models (LLMs) on verifiable tasks is usually measured by pass@k, the probability of answering a question correctly at least once in k trials. At a fixed budget, a more suitable metric is coverage@cost, the average number of unique questions answered as a function of the total number of attempts. We connect the two metrics and show that the empirically-observed power-law behavior in pass@k leads to a sublinear growth of the coverage@cost (diminishing returns). To solve this problem, we propose Reset-and-Discard (ReD), a query method of LLMs that increases coverage@cost for a given budget, regardless of the pass@k form. Moreover, given a pass@k, we can quantitatively predict the savings in the total number of attempts using ReD. If pass@k is not available for the model, ReD can infer its power-law exponent. Experiments on three LLMs across coding (HumanEval), math (GSM8K), and reasoning (MMLU-Pro) benchmarks demonstrate that ReD substantially reduces the required attempts, tokens, and USD cost to reach a desired coverage, while also offering an efficient way to measure inference power-laws. ReD's advantage is maintained for imperfect verifiers and outperforms the tested allocation baselines.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jan 2026.
Builds on
28 of 69 references.
References · 28
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 4,993
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
- 2024Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Samplingcited by 946
- 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 895
- 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 791
- 2024DistServe: Disaggregating Prefill and Decoding for Goodput-optimized Large Language Model Servingcited by 595
- 2023Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modelingcited by 486
16 more
- 2023Scaling Data-Constrained Language Modelscited by 391
- 2019SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Codecited by 176
- 2024From Decoding to Meta-Generation: Inference-time Algorithms for Large Language Modelscited by 136
- 2024Smaller, Weaker, Yet Better: Training LLM Reasoners via Compute-Optimal Samplingcited by 60
- 2024Code Repair with LLMs gives an Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoffcited by 50
- 2025CodeMonkeys: Scaling Test-Time Compute for Software Engineeringcited by 46
- 2024Reasoning in Token Economies: Budget-Aware Evaluation of LLM Reasoning Strategiescited by 44
- 2024The Larger the Better? Improved LLM Code-Generation via Budget Reallocationcited by 41
- 2025How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (Laws)?cited by 40
- 2024A Simple Model of Inference Scaling Lawscited by 36
- 2025To Backtrack or Not to Backtrack: When Sequential Search Limits Model Reasoningcited by 24
- 2025Efficient Prediction of Pass@k Scaling in Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2024Mitigating Tail Narrowing in LLM Self-Improvement via Socratic-Guided Samplingcited by 13
- 2025DISC: Dynamic Decomposition Improves LLM Inference Scalingcited by 9
- 2024Stochastic Resetting Mitigates Latent Gradient Bias of SGD from Label Noisecited by 4
- 2025First-Passage Approach to Optimizing Perturbations for Improved Training of Machine Learning Modelscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.