Best-of-Evidence (BoE) is introduced, an inference-time selection framework that keeps the BoN candidate pool fixed, represents reusable claims with a signed candidate--factor graph, and allocates a limited budget to evidence actions that can change the final choice.
Abstract
BoN improves model outputs by sampling several candidates and selecting one with a proxy score, but it assumes that complete candidates can be evaluated reliably. Many vision-language tasks instead provide only partial verification: a finding, span, value, region, or relation may be checkable even when no dependable whole-response verifier exists. Moreover, the same claim may recur across candidates with opposing stances, allowing one observation to support part of the pool and contradict another. We introduce Best-of-Evidence (BoE), an inference-time selection framework that keeps the BoN candidate pool fixed, represents reusable claims with a signed candidate--factor graph, and allocates a limited budget to evidence actions that can change the final choice. BoE formalizes selection under partial verification and provides a practical score-based controller, with the zero-budget case recovering the underlying BoN decision. Theoretically, we show that residual evidence capacity limits any evidence-driven improvement and that shared factor queries can achieve an O(log K) versus {\Theta}(K) query separation in a factor-code model. Common-ledger experiments on four medical VQA settings show that BoE can improve fixed-pool selection and rescue some BoN failures when evidence is reliable, contrastive, and decision-relevant, while also revealing the channel-quality and candidate-generation limits that prevent universal gains.
This framework yields a practical pre-deployment diagnostic: estimate the oracle gap, then measure coverage, signal fidelity, and harm before investing in collaboration.
This work introduces CALVER (Causal Axiom-Level VERification), a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria, including -separation, backdoor adjustment, and intervention, and selects the highest-scoring candidate without consulting a reference answer.
Omatharv Bharat Vaidya, C. Jerzak, Zayne Sprague et al.· 0 citations
Standard evaluation of large language models is challenged by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels, evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks, and finding three findings that argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.
Rodrigo Guedes de Souza, Alison R. Panisson· 1 citation
This work introduces the missing candidate-free control under the same maximum output-token allowance and stratify by the number of correct candidates, finding that conditioning on an all-wrong candidate pool lowers accuracy relative to a fresh solve.
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 verification signal is the structure of agreement itself, with no model scoring another's work. 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.
Item-sensitivity, defined as whether a model's choice depends on the specific input rather than on its own output prior, is widely reported as evidence of task competence. We show this evidence is necessary but not sufficient using a forced-choice signalling task abstracted from the board game Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. In this environment, the reference points against which a coordinate should be judged (a fit-maximising strategy, a posterior-maximising strategy, and uniform random selection) are all computable in closed form. Across seven language models, two model families, a post-training ablation, and three independent scoring rules, every one of 21 model-by-rule cells is reliably item-sensitive. Yet 8 of those 21 cells are not statistically distinguishable from a chooser that ignores the item and selects at random, and 5 score worse than random at describing the target. Item-sensitivity and distance from random correlate at only r = 0.30. We call this consistency without alignment and argue it generalises to any evaluation that relies on item-sensitivity, permutation consistency, or self-consistency without an independent reference for the measured quantity. We further find that a literal-similarity baseline with no pragmatics outperforms most tested language models, that adding a pragmatic layer over two baseline similarity sources moves choosers toward random rather than toward the Bayesian reference, and that a standard labelled multiple-choice format carries no measurable content signal here. All results represent the model side of a pre-registered instrument; a matched human condition is designed and piloted but not yet collected.
Cris Huynh· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
