Abstract
Sampling-based test-time scaling enhances LLM reasoning by aggregating multiple reasoning paths for the same query. Existing methods use answer frequencies or path confidence to compute candidate scores, which do not explicitly characterize comparisons between competing answers. Inspired by the Condorcet principle in social choice theory, we introduce pairwise confidence comparisons between paths supporting different answers to capture answer-level comparative advantage. We combine this comparative evidence with voting support through a KL-regularized objective. Theoretically, we show that this comparative-advantage is equivalent to the adjustment to the traditional voting logits. In this way, our proposed Pairwise-Guided Logit Adjustment (PGLA) framework allows comparative evidence to compensate for weaker voting support and correct voting-based ranking errors. Experiments on 10 challenging benchmarks including mathematical reasoning, knowledge reasoning, and code generation with 7 models ranging from 1.7B to 32B parameters speak to the effectiveness of this plug-and-play term. Additional evaluations with external reward scores and online sampling further demonstrate its applicability.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18583
