跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1072新增论文
+845其中 AI 相关
+94已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 20:39 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-09 13:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 21:29 — 2026-11-09 21:29(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 20:39最近发现新增版本:2026-11-09 13:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-07 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

18,172 已收录论文15,506 AI 相关4,527 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 20:38(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2510.11620

Advancing the Pareto Frontier of Test-Time Scaling with Multi-Path Plan Aggregation

Siheng Xiong, Ali Payani, Faramarz Fekri

原文摘要

Test-time scaling seeks to improve reasoning through additional inference-time computation, commonly using solution sampling with majority voting to select the final answer. However, repeated sampling can reproduce correlated errors, limiting the accuracy gains from additional computation. We introduce Multi-Path Plan Aggregation (MPPA), which learns planning and answer selection using separate LoRA adapters on a shared frozen backbone. The planner jointly generates $K$ short plans, each guiding a separate solution generated by the frozen executor; the aggregator then scores the resulting solutions and selects the final answer. Joint planning encourages complementary approaches suited to the executor's capabilities, while learned selection uses reasoning evidence to identify correct candidates. Alternating optimization improves planning and aggregation through supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning. Across five mathematics and science benchmarks and three backbones, MPPA improves accuracy--token trade-offs compared with training-free and training-based baselines. With three plans, it achieves higher average accuracy than eight directly sampled solutions with majority voting or the same learned aggregator, while reducing output tokens by 47--54%. Evaluation with task-provided subtasks further demonstrates higher final-task accuracy than direct sampling with majority voting or learned aggregation at either the task or subtask level.

cs.CL