Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University · Xingchen AGI Lab, China Telecom Artificial Intelligence (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China · Bilibili Inc., China · School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Canada · Engineering Research Center of Knowledge-Driven Human-Machine Intelligence, MOE, China · International Center of Future Science, Jilin University
Test-time scaling can improve LLM reasoning, but existing approaches typically adapt generation or apply answer selection after a predetermined generation schedule. We study within-instance allocation: under a hard per-instance prompt-plus-completion token cap, when should inference stop, generate another candidate, or spend residual tokens adjudicating candidates already observed? BOSS is a training-free policy for this three-way decision, with worst-case budget checks before every generation and judge call. Its key contribution is online generation-adjudication allocation under one shared token ledger. Across two Llama-3.1 models and four reasoning benchmarks, BOSS attains the highest accuracy in 22 of 24 model-task-budget cells under the common hard cap. At Llama-3.1-8B and B=4k, it reaches 60.5 macro-average accuracy versus 58.6 for Adaptive-Consistency, 59.1 for TALE-EP, and 58.9 for fixed-schedule League. On identical Stage-I candidate pools, randomized A/B judging with repeated voting improves plurality from 58.4 to 60.3, with the full BOSS selector reaching 60.5. Approximately matched-cost controls further characterize how the benefit of adjudication changes with available inference budget. Together, these results establish generation-adjudication allocation as a distinct design axis for reasoning under strict per-instance caps.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of BOSS. Under the same hard cap B , BOSS allocates residual tokens online among Return , Generate , and Adjudicate .
GSM8K (EM)
MATH (EM)
GPQA-D (Acc)
MMLU-Pro (Acc)
Method
2k
4k
8k
2k
4k
8k
2k
4k
8k
2k
4k
8k
Base model: Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
CoT@1 (Greedy)
84.5
51.9
30.4
48.3
SC (budgeted)
85.8
87.3
88.1
54.7
56.6
58.0
33.1
35.7
37.0
49.9
51.2
52.2
ESC ( Li et al., 2024 )
86.2
87.6
88.3
55.3
56.8
58.4
33.5
36.1
37.2
50.3
51.6
52.5
FFS ( Agarwal et al., 2025 )
86.9
87.2
87.5
54.5
55.7
56.0
32.2
33.3
33.8
49.5
50.1
50.8
Table 1: Accuracy (%) under fixed per-instance token budgets B . The budget counts all prompt and completion tokens consumed by each inference policy. Values are averaged over 5 random seeds. CoT@1 (Greedy) is budget-invariant because one deterministic generation uses far fewer tokens than the smallest budget ( 2k ); identical values across budgets are shown in merged cells. GPQA-D denotes GPQA-Diamond. Bold indicates the best result within each model block and column.
Method / control
Macro (%)
Adaptive-Consistency ( Aggarwal et al., 2023 )
58.6
TALE-EP ( Han et al., 2025 )
59.1
League (fixed schedule)
58.9
BOSS
60.5
No novelty transition
59.0
Fixed generation–selection split
59.3
Table 2: Targeted controls at Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and B=4k . “Macro” averages all four benchmarks. Same-pool rows reuse exactly the same Stage-I candidates and change only the selector.
Method
Mean tokens
Macro (%)
BOSS
≈ 2,500
58.4
Adaptive-Consistency
2,508
58.6
BOSS
≈ 3,100
59.4
TALE-EP
3,074
59.1
BOSS
≈ 3,850
60.3
League
3,853
58.9
Table 3: Approximately cost-matched operating points for Llama-3.1-8B.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Generation cap Lgen
1024
Judge cap Ljudge
4
Judge replicates R
3
Consensus threshold τcons
0.70
Consensus gap mgap
2
Novelty window W
4
Appendix
Table 4: BOSS hyperparameters. Values are fixed after development tuning and are not selected using reported test instances.
League (Fixed)
BOSS (Adaptive)
B
Gen.
Judge
Total
Util.%
Judge%
Gen.
Judge
Total
Util.%
Judge%
1k
523
414
937
93.7
44.2
958
0
958
95.8
0.0
2k
812
1103
1915
95.8
57.6
1445
492
1937
96.9
25.4
4k
1634
2219
3853
96.3
57.6
1903
2044
3947
98.7
51.8
8k
2542
5237
7779
97.2
67.3
1987
5924
7911
98.9
74.9
Appendix
Table 7: Mean realized token utilization over 5 random seeds. All prompt and completion tokens are counted.
Selector
Recovery (%)
Harm (%)
Randomized A/B + repeated
22.8
2.0
Full BOSS selector
25.1
2.2
Appendix
Table 9: Error-correction behavior on identical Stage-I candidate pools. Recovery is measured when plurality is wrong but the correct hypothesis is present; harm is measured when plurality is initially correct.
Variant
MATH
GPQA-D
Avg
BOSS (Full)
59.4
39.5
60.5
No early stop
58.0
38.7
59.6
No novelty transition
58.1
37.6
59.0
Fixed gen.–sel. split
58.5
38.1
59.3
Fixed-order single-vote judge
56.8
35.0
57.7
Round-robin scheduling
57.4
37.1
58.8
Appendix
Table 10: Component ablation at B=4k with Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Selected columns are shown; “Avg” averages all four benchmarks.
B
Gen.
Judge
Entry (%)
Fallback (%)
2k
1445
492
31.8
65.6
4k
1903
2044
84.1
12.4
8k
1987
5924
94.1
1.2
Appendix
Table 11: Observed BOSS allocation by hard budget. Gen./Judge are mean realized tokens; Entry/Fallback are trajectory rates.
Sampling multiple responses improves language model reasoning, but uniform compute allocation is inefficient because 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 using uncertainty estimated from the initial samples themselves. In Phase-1, every question receives a small fixed number of generations. Their answer disagreement, measured by vote entropy, provides a difficulty signal while these generations contribute to the final vote. In Phase-2, the remaining budget is allocated by a marginal-greedy algorithm that optimally solves a concave coverage-maximization surrogate, concentrating samples on questions whose initial answers disagree. Across five open-weight models (1.5B--27B parameters) and five reasoning benchmarks of varying difficulty, UAB improves average accuracy by +2.3% over uniform allocation, and achieves gains of up to +5.5% on individual benchmarks, with the largest gains in low-resource settings. Moreover, UAB meets the target budget exactly and requires no auxiliary model or additional LLM calls. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/manhitv/UAB.
Manh Nguyen, Sunil Gupta, Hung Le
Applied Artificial Intelligence Initiative Deakin University, Australia
Scaling test-time compute via extended reasoning has become a key paradigm for improving the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing approaches optimize reasoning under fixed or uniformly sampled token budgets, ignoring the fundamental mismatch between problem difficulty and allocated compute. This leads to overthinking on easy problems and underthinking on hard ones, resulting in suboptimal token efficiency across diverse reasoning scenarios. In this paper, we propose Budget-Adaptive Curriculum Reasoning (BCAE), a unified framework that jointly optimizes reasoning quality and token efficiency through three synergistic components: (1) a budget-conditioned unified policy that embeds the token budget as a continuous conditioning signal, eliminating the need for decoupled thinking and summarization strategies; (2) a curriculum-aware budget scheduler that adaptively shifts the training budget distribution from easy to hard problems based on real-time learning progress; and (3) a truncation-aware dense reward mechanism that provides fine-grained credit assignment at intermediate reasoning steps via process-level verification. We further introduce Budget-Conditioned Advantage Estimation (BCAE), a novel variance reduction technique that conditions the advantage baseline on the sampled budget, yielding more stable policy gradients. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH, GSM8K, AIME, and Minerva Math) demonstrate that BACR consistently outperforms other strong baselines across all token budgets, achieving up to 8.3% accuracy improvement under tight budgets while reducing average token consumption by 34% compared to unconstrained reasoning.
Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance with sufficient computation, but they do not inherently know how much computation a task requires. We study budgeted inference-time reasoning for multiple problems under a strict global token constraint and formulate it as an Ordered Stochastic Multiple-Choice Knapsack Problem (OS-MCKP). This perspective highlights a meta-cognitive requirement---anticipating problem difficulty and allocating computation strategically. We propose ROI-Reasoning, a two-stage framework that endows LLMs with intrinsic, budget-aware rationality. First, Meta-Cognitive Fine-Tuning teaches models to predict reasoning cost levels and decide whether a problem is worth attempting before generation. Next, Rationality-Aware Reinforcement Learning optimizes sequential decision making under a hard token budget, allowing models to learn long-horizon allocation strategies. Experiments across mathematical reasoning, multiple-choice question answering, and code generation show that ROI-Reasoning improves scores and generally reduces reference-order regret under tight budgets, with up to a 417% relative score improvement over the strongest same-backbone baseline in mathematics.
Muyang Zhao, Chunhao Tian, Qi Qi +1
Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China