ARBITER: Reasoning Trajectory Basins and Majority Vote Failures in Test-Time Sampling

Sampling multiple responses improves language model reasoning, but uniform compute allocation is inefficient: easy questions are over-sampled while hard questions remain under-explored. We propose Uncertainty-Aware Budget Allocation (UAB), a concave integer optimization framework that reallocates a fixed sampling budget based on per-question uncertainty estimated at no additional inference cost. In Phase 1, every question receives one generation; its average negative log-likelihood (ANLL), extracted directly from output log-probabilities, serves as a difficulty signal while the generation contributes to the final vote. In Phase 2, the remaining budget is allocated by a marginal-greedy algorithm that solves a concave coverage-maximization surrogate exactly: uncertain questions receive more sampling budget while confident questions receive fewer additional samples. Evaluated on six open-weight and black-box models spanning 1.5B to 27B parameters and five reasoning benchmarks covering math, logic, and preference tasks, UAB outperforms baselines by up to +3% in average accuracy and up to +5% on individual benchmarks, with the largest gains in low-resource settings, requiring no auxiliary model or additional LLM call. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/manhitv/UAB.

Inference-time sampling can elicit strong reasoning abilities from language models without additional training. Existing power-sampling methods do so by sharpening the distribution over full generated outputs, favoring completions that are individually likely under the model. We argue that this is the wrong object to target for reasoning: a completion entangles a reasoning trace with a final answer, whereas what matters is whether an answer is supported by many plausible reasoning paths. We therefore shift the target from the full-output distribution to the sharpened answer marginal, making self-consistency an inference-time objective rather than a post-hoc voting criterion. Surprisingly, this marginal target admits an efficient approximation: we propose a simple, purely autoregressive parallel sampling algorithm that approximately samples from the sharpened answer marginal, eliciting stronger performance than standard power sampling on mathematics and coding benchmarks while being orders of magnitude faster.

Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution. We study a third signal, free at inference time: cross-model consensus, the degree to which independently trained models, each solving the problem once, agree on a final answer. We treat the panel as an LLM-jury, in which the structure of agreement, not any model's score of another, is the verification signal. Across seven benchmarks it selects correct answers better than self-consistency and far better than a model scoring its own candidates: on competition math it closes the entire gap to an oracle selector, while self-scoring closes almost none. The mechanism is error decorrelation: independently trained models err differently, so their wrong answers scatter while the correct one accumulates agreement. We make this precise with a parameter-free law, derived in closed form, that predicts consensus accuracy from three measured panel statistics to a mean absolute error of $0.03$ and exposes the method's ceiling: a shared-error floor where models share a misconception, near zero on math but non-trivial on science. Against four trained verifiers spanning discriminative, outcome, and generative reward models, the free LLM-jury matches the strongest inside their math training domain and is the top selector outside it. Cross-model consensus is thus a verifier we can characterize in advance: a law that says when to trust it, and a floor that marks where it cannot.