Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques existing confidence-based verifier-free test-time scaling (VF-TTS) methods, revealing their tendency to favor confidently incorrect answers on complex tasks. The authors introduce a novel framework called consilience, which emphasizes a specific confidence trajectory that starts with low initial confidence and ends with high final confidence, promoting exploratory reasoning. Extensive experiments in mathematics and code generation show that consilience significantly outperforms traditional VF-TTS methods, highlighting its potential for enhancing LLM reasoning in real-world applications.
High initial confidence in LLMs can lead to catastrophic failures in complex reasoning tasks, but a new framework shows how to harness confidence trajectories for better outcomes.
Test-time scaling often uses an external verifier, such as compilers and test cases in coding or trained value functions in robotics applications, to obtain high-quality rollouts. Verifier-free test-time scaling (or VF-TTS) is gaining extensive attention as a mechanism to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, primarily because we do not have access to such high-quality verifiers in many real-world applications. Among existing VF-TTS methods, confidence-based VF-TTS methods, which compute and rank rollouts solely by confidence, are particularly promising. Such methods introduce near-zero overhead for sample evaluation and require minimal access to internal model states, making the methods highly flexible across models and tasks. In this paper, we demonstrate a critical limitation of existing confidence-based VF-TTS methods by showing that such methods catastrophically break down on complex tasks. We observe a very interesting phenomenon: uniformly high confidence frequently indicates a failure to explore, favoring confidently wrong answers. To address this, our core insight is that robust cognitive search requires a specific confidence trajectory pattern: such methods perform exploratory branching at the beginning, as manifested by low initial confidence, and converge to a high final confidence solution. To implement this insight, we introduce consilience, a novel selection framework that explicitly evaluates the temporal asymmetry of confidence in reasoning. We operationalize this via a combinatorial metric that actively penalizes high initial confidence while strictly demanding final certainty. Extensive experiments covering both graduate-level mathematics problems and free-form code generation demonstrate that consilience effectively outperforms existing baselines, validating our novel perspective on completion confidence.
