# Interpretable Adaptive Sampling for LLM Test-Time Scaling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03961 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03961/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 25 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [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)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05271/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Crowdsourcing Multiple Choice Science Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06209/) (2017)
- [A Survey on Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models: What, How, Where, and How Well?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24235/) (2025)
- [Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18581/) (2025)
- [Can 1B LLM Surpass 405B LLM? Rethinking Compute-Optimal Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06703/) (2025)
- [Towards Thinking-Optimal Scaling of Test-Time Compute for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18080/) (2025)
- [Rethinking Interpretability in the Era of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01761/) (2024)
- [GTA1: GUI Test-time Scaling Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05791/) (2025)
- [Trae Agent: An LLM-based Agent for Software Engineering with Test-time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23370/) (2025)
- [Efficient Test-Time Scaling via Self-Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00031/) (2025)
- [Revisiting the Test-Time Scaling of o1-like Models: Do they Truly Possess Test-Time Scaling Capabilities?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12215/) (2025)
- [InstructZero: Efficient Instruction Optimization for Black-Box Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03082/) (2023)
- [Atom of Thoughts for Markov LLM Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12018/) (2025)
- [Z1: Efficient Test-time Scaling with Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00810/) (2025)
- [MCTS-Judge: Test-Time Scaling in LLM-as-a-Judge for Code Correctness Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12468/) (2025)
- [Benchmark Test-Time Scaling of General LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.18998/) (2026)
- [Kinetics: Rethinking Test-Time Scaling Laws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05333/) (2025)
- [Rethinking the Role of Prompting Strategies in LLM Test-Time Scaling: A Perspective of Probability Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10981/) (2025)
- [Can Test-Time Scaling Improve World Foundation Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24320/) (2025)
- [FastTTS: Accelerating Test-Time Scaling for Edge LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.00195/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Sample Count Is Not Enough: Candidate-Generation Strategy Shapes the Energy and Performance of LLM Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.19499/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by generating and aggregating multiple candidate answers, yet many pipelines use fixed per-query budgets that spend the same compute on easy and difficult prompts. These fixed budgets are also difficult to inspect because they do not explain why a given prompt receives a particular number of samples. We propose adaptive test-time scaling with a lightweight fuzzy controller that maps interpretable signals, including estimated prompt complexity and model confidence, to a per-query sampling budget. The controller assigns fewer samples to easier or more confident prompts and more samples to harder or less certain prompts, making inference-time compute inspectable rather than fixed or opaque. We evaluate under a fair-alignment protocol with matched decoding settings and controlled answer selection, and compare against best-of-N, compute-aware scaling, and self-certainty-based baselines on question-answering and mathematical reasoning tasks. Across models and datasets, adaptive fuzzy control improves over several standard baselines and remains close to a selector-matched full-budget control while reducing the average number of samples. These findings suggest that interpretable adaptive sampling is a practical direction for more efficient test-time reasoning in large language models.