From Discovery to Decision: Finite-Budget Recoverability in LLM Voting
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
- 2026When Self-Consistency Backfires: Majority Vote Hurts the Majority of Hard Science Problems for Small LLMs11 Aug
- 2026Oracle Gap and Signal Fidelity: A Fixed-Pool Diagnostic for Test-Time Collaboration20 Jul
- 2026When More Sampling Hurts: The Modal Ceiling and Correlation Ceiling of Test-Time Scaling27 Jun
- 2026MARS: Margin-Adversarial Risk-controlled Stopping for Parallel LLM Test-time Scaling11 Jun
- 2026PETS: A Principled Framework Towards Optimal Trajectory Allocation for Efficient Test-Time Self-Consistency18 Feb
- 2025Optimal Self-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning with Large Language Models15 Nov
- 2025Deep Think with Confidence21 Aug
- 2025ROC-n-reroll: How verifier imperfection affects test-time scaling16 Jul
- 2025Sample Complexity and Representation Ability of Test-time Scaling Paradigms5 Jun
- 2024Provable Scaling Laws for the Test-Time Compute of Large Language Models29 Nov
- 2024Escape Sky-high Cost: Early-stopping Self-Consistency for Multi-step Reasoning19 Jan
- 2023Found in the Middle: Permutation Self-Consistency Improves Listwise Ranking in Large Language Models11 Oct
1 more
Other references · 18
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 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
- 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 533
- 2026Gemma 4 Technical Reportcited by 187
- 2024The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resamplingcited by 51
6 more
- 2025How Do Large Language Monkeys Get Their Power (Laws)?cited by 40
- 2026Single-Agent LLMs Outperform Multi-Agent Systems on Multi-Hop Reasoning Under Equal Thinking Token Budgetscited by 28
- 2025On the Effect of Sampling Diversity in Scaling LLM Inferencecited by 18
- 2026Optimal Bayesian Stopping for Efficient Inference of Consistent LLM Answerscited by 7
- 2026EMS: Multi-Agent Voting via Efficient Majority-then-Stoppingcited by 2
- 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
- 2026Two Calls, Two Moments, and the Vote-Accuracy Curve of Repeated LLM Inference
- 2025Best-of-Majority: Minimax-Optimal Strategy for Pass@k Inference Scaling
- 2026When the Judge Should Not Decide: Evidence-Locked, Non-Compensatory Selection Bounds LLM-Judge Failure in Reasoning Pipelines
- 2026Refining Over Resampling: Test-Time Self-Correction for LLM Reasoning
- 2026LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning
- 2025The Sequential Edge: Inverse-Entropy Voting Beats Parallel Self-Consistency at Matched Compute
- 2026Statistical Scouting Finds Debate-Safe but Not Debate-Useful Cases: A Matched-Ceiling Study of Open-Weight LLM Reasoning Protocols
- 2026ReSolve: Reusing Candidate Reasoning through Selective Generative Moderation