# Who Thinks Best Depends on How Long You Let Them: Budget-Dependent Rankings in LLM Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12150 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.12150/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 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, 9 of 9)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21187/) (2024)
- [Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16419/) (2025)
- [L1: Controlling How Long A Reasoning Model Thinks With Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04697/) (2025)
- [Large Language Model Routing with Benchmark Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15789/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Standard evaluation of large language models assumes stable model rankings across inference conditions. We challenge this assumption by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels (64--4,096), evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks (56,476 inferences). We report four findings: (i) 3--19% of items exhibit non-monotone behavior (accuracy decreasing with more budget), even after controlling for truncation, and this phenomenon is model-specific (cross-model overlap: 6--14%). (ii) Model rankings reverse across budgets on all benchmarks (p < 0.01, McNemar). (iii) Oracle analysis reveals model complementarity up to +27.8pp, most pronounced at constrained budgets. (iv) A budget-aware router captures 14.1% of the oracle gap cross-domain; budget features help within-domain (+1.6 to +5.7pp) but are domain-specific and hurt transfer (-1.2pp). These results argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.