Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper investigates methods for improving LLM mathematical reasoning through diverse prompting and majority voting, motivated by the observation that correlated errors limit the benefits of ensembling. They introduce Diverse Prompt Mixer, a strategy assigning different reasoning strategies to different voters, and evaluate it extensively on the AIMO 3 competition dataset. The surprising finding is that model capability is the dominant factor, overshadowing the impact of prompt engineering and diverse prompting strategies, suggesting that selection loss is more critical than prompt loss.
Prompt engineering's dead end? This study finds that model capability trumps prompt-level interventions for mathematical reasoning, suggesting that focusing on model selection and verification may be more fruitful than further prompt optimization.
Majority voting over multiple LLM attempts improves mathematical reasoning, but correlated errors limit the effective sample size. A natural fix is to assign different reasoning strategies to different voters. The approach, Diverse Prompt Mixer, is tested on the AIMO 3 competition: 3 models, 23+ experiments, 50 IMO-level problems, one H100 80 GB, 5-hour limit. Every prompt-level intervention fails. High-temperature sampling already decorrelates errors; weaker strategies reduce accuracy more than they reduce correlation. Across an 8-point capability gap at equal N=8 and every optimization tested, model capability dominates. The gap between the best majority-vote score (42/50) and pass@20 (~45.5) is selection loss, not prompt loss. A verifier-based selector could close it. Prompt engineering cannot.