Year: 2026
Type: preprint
Abstract: Aggregating several LLM responses to the same question can improve accuracy, but every method that does so must decide where the responses should differ. Established test-time scaling methods such as self-consistency vary only the reasoning path, resampling from a fixed input. The input modification offers several further options: the wording of the question can be rephrased, the spelling can be perturbed, and the accompanying images can be transformed. We study Test-Time Augmentation (TTA), which aggregates predictions across transformed versions of the input, and use it to ask where diversity is best injected. Comparing these options across six benchmarks at a matched number of inference calls, we find that where the diversity comes from matters more than how much of it there is. Meaning-preserving paraphrases of the input yield the largest accuracy gains (+1.80 pp over a single call) and reach peak accuracy with the fewest samples. Yet, they are not the most diverse: character-level noise makes the responses disagree far more often (37.8% versus 27.4%) while gaining less accuracy, and perturbing two modalities at once falls below the single-call baseline. Not all diversity is equally useful: perturbations that keep the meaning intact produce disagreement that aggregation can use, while those that corrupt it produce disagreement that is wrong. Overall, our results suggest that for mid-tier LLMs such as Claude Haiku, varying how a question is phrased is a better use of an inference call than varying the reasoning path. Our TTA implementation is available at github.com/aws-samples/sample-genai-reflection-for-bedrock.
Source: arXiv (Cornell University)
Authors: Kozodoi, Nikita, Afolabi, Zainab, Butler, Jack
Language: English
Topic: Topic Modeling
Subfield: Artificial Intelligence
Field: Computer Science
Domain: Physical Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7202197917