Abstract
Test-time scaling improves LLM accuracy but multiplies inference cost, making the accuracy gained per unit of compute the metric that matters in deployment. Self-consistency is one of the established approaches, which spends this budget entirely on the output side by sampling repeated reasoning paths. We study Test-Time Augmentation (TTA), which extends self-consistency by also perturbing the input, aggregating predictions across transformed versions of the input, and ask whether input-side diversity converts compute into accuracy more efficiently than output-side diversity. We perform a systematic, matched-compute comparison: we evaluate three simple input-side strategies (semantic rephrasing, lexical perturbations, and visual transformations) across six datasets covering general and multilingual knowledge, mathematical reasoning, multi-modal question answering, and sentiment classification, against chain-of-thought prompting and self-consistency. Semantic rephrasing delivers consistent and statistically significant accuracy gains while Pareto-dominating self-consistency on cost-effectiveness, delivering roughly 1.8X more accuracy per dollar and outperforming it on five of six tasks. We further analyze the number of augmentations, multi-modal strategies, and base model scaling, finding that TTA is most cost-effective for mid-tier models where a stronger model is unavailable or too expensive. Our findings indicate that for current mid-tier LLMs, varying the input converts inference compute into accuracy more efficiently than varying the reasoning path alone. The TTA implementation is available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09351
