mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

From Discovery to Decision: Finite-Budget Recoverability in LLM Voting

arXiv 2610.01014 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking

Abstract (arXiv)

Voting over multiple LLM responses is a common primitive in test-time scaling and ensemble inference. Collecting more responses can expand the candidate pool and increase the chance that a correct answer is discovered. Under a fixed call budget, a discovered answer still needs to accumulate enough support within the remaining calls to become the final plurality winner, creating a discovery-to-decision gap. In this work, we characterize this gap through the realized vote state and remaining call budget. We derive a sharp recoverability threshold and show that, as sampling proceeds, the observed candidate set can only expand while the set of reachable endpoint winners can only contract, inducing a candidate-level conversion window. Under a specified iid response law, the same state yields exact finite-horizon endpoint probabilities. We further show that merging wrong-answer identities preserves single-call correctness and cannot improve plurality accuracy, and that the effect of redistributing wrong-answer probability depends on the realized vote state. Singleton reachability yields a gold-free exact locking certificate. For a known answer universe, its first trigger is the earliest prefix at which all admissible continuations yield the same fixed-budget output. Empirically, most discovered-but-unselected correct answers lose reachability only after discovery. In a controlled Word16 study, input permutation improves raw-plurality accuracy by 21.1 points with essentially unchanged single-call correctness. Exact locking saves 28-30% of calls at a 16-call budget while preserving every fixed-budget output.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 31 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

31 of 42 references.

Closest ancestors · 13

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026When Self-Consistency Backfires: Majority Vote Hurts the Majority of Hard Science Problems for Small LLMs11 Aug
  2. 2026Oracle Gap and Signal Fidelity: A Fixed-Pool Diagnostic for Test-Time Collaboration20 Jul
  3. 2026When More Sampling Hurts: The Modal Ceiling and Correlation Ceiling of Test-Time Scaling27 Jun
  4. 2026MARS: Margin-Adversarial Risk-controlled Stopping for Parallel LLM Test-time Scaling11 Jun
  5. 2026PETS: A Principled Framework Towards Optimal Trajectory Allocation for Efficient Test-Time Self-Consistency18 Feb
  6. 2025Optimal Self-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning with Large Language Models15 Nov
  7. 2025Deep Think with Confidence21 Aug
  8. 2025ROC-n-reroll: How verifier imperfection affects test-time scaling16 Jul
  9. 2025Sample Complexity and Representation Ability of Test-time Scaling Paradigms5 Jun
  10. 2024Provable Scaling Laws for the Test-Time Compute of Large Language Models29 Nov
  11. 2024Escape Sky-high Cost: Early-stopping Self-Consistency for Multi-step Reasoning19 Jan
  12. 2023Found in the Middle: Permutation Self-Consistency Improves Listwise Ranking in Large Language Models11 Oct
1 more
  1. 2023Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs19 May

Other references · 18

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  3. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  4. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
  5. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  6. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  7. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  8. 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
  9. 2024Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Samplingcited by 946
  10. 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 533
  11. 2026Gemma 4 Technical Reportcited by 187
  12. 2024The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resamplingcited by 51
6 more
  1. 2025How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (Laws)?cited by 40
  2. 2026Single-Agent LLMs Outperform Multi-Agent Systems on Multi-Hop Reasoning Under Equal Thinking Token Budgetscited by 28
  3. 2025On the Effect of Sampling Diversity in Scaling LLM Inferencecited by 18
  4. 2026Optimal Bayesian Stopping for Efficient Inference of Consistent LLM Answerscited by 7
  5. 2026EMS: Multi-Agent Voting via Efficient Majority-then-Stoppingcited by 2
  6. 2026Candidate supply and answer selection shape the value of LLM judging in multi-agent systemscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Two Calls, Two Moments, and the Vote-Accuracy Curve of Repeated LLM Inference
  2. 2025Best-of-Majority: Minimax-Optimal Strategy for Pass@k Inference Scaling
  3. 2026When the Judge Should Not Decide: Evidence-Locked, Non-Compensatory Selection Bounds LLM-Judge Failure in Reasoning Pipelines
  4. 2026Refining Over Resampling: Test-Time Self-Correction for LLM Reasoning
  5. 2026LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning
  6. 2025The Sequential Edge: Inverse-Entropy Voting Beats Parallel Self-Consistency at Matched Compute
  7. 2026Statistical Scouting Finds Debate-Safe but Not Debate-Useful Cases: A Matched-Ceiling Study of Open-Weight LLM Reasoning Protocols
  8. 2026ReSolve: Reusing Candidate Reasoning through Selective Generative Moderation