aiqbench analysis
This paper gives a statistical account of how many labeled questions and how many sampled generations per model are needed to learn weights for an ensemble of LLMs at test time. The bounds are theoretical and apply to a simplified two-model, two-answer setting, so practical gains for production systems are not established. Practitioners should note the proposed "identification floor" of N^(-β): under this analysis, adding questions alone cannot push ensemble error below a level set by the sampling budget per question.
Two Sample Sizes in Test-Time LLM Ensembling: Buffered ERM and Minimax Theory
arXiv:2610.21363v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time scaling can improve the performance of large language models by generating multiple answers to a question and aggregating them. Weighted ensembles extend this idea by drawing answers from several models, with the weights determining how often each model is used. Learning these weights from a training dataset involves two sample sizes: $Q$ labeled questions and $N$ generations per model and question. We study their interplay through the clean risk, the population error of the ensemble's infinite-generation voting rule. Under a margin condition with exponent $\beta$, we show that empirical risk minimization (ERM) with a calibrated margin buffer achieves excess risk of order $Q^{-1/2}+N^{-\beta/2}$, up to logarithmic factors, for fixed numbers of models and candidate answers. To investigate the optimality of this dependence on $Q$ and $N$, we analyze a simplified submodel with two models and two possible answers per question. We characterize its minimax excess risk up to constants by a Hellinger modulus for a binomial-mixture experiment. Polynomial approximation and spectral analysis reveal three regimes. When questions are relatively scarce, the $Q^{-1/2}$ term governs learning and the general buffered ERM is optimal. In an intermediate regime, pooling generation counts across questions improves upon estimating each answer distribution separately, with only logarithmic gains from additional questions. With sufficiently many questions, the minimax excess risk reaches an $N^{-\beta}$ identification floor that persists even with infinitely many questions. The submodel's lower bounds also apply to general ensembles, matching the buffered-ERM upper bound up to logarithmic factors when questions are scarce and in parts of the intermediate regime. Questions remain about the transitions between regimes and the construction of matching pooled estimators for general ensembles.
Abstract:Test-time scaling can improve the performance of large language models by generating multiple answers to a question and aggregating them. Weighted ensembles extend this idea by drawing answers from several models, with the weights determining how often each model is used. Learning these weights from a training dataset involves two sample sizes: $Q$ labeled questions and $N$ generations per model and question. We study their interplay through the clean risk, the population error of the ensemble's infinite-generation voting rule. Under a margin condition with exponent $\beta$, we show that empirical risk minimization (ERM) with a calibrated margin buffer achieves excess risk of order $Q^{-1/2}+N^{-\beta/2}$, up to logarithmic factors, for fixed numbers of models and candidate answers. To investigate the optimality of this dependence on $Q$ and $N$, we analyze a simplified submodel with two models and two possible answers per question. We characterize its minimax excess risk up to constants by a Hellinger modulus for a binomial-mixture experiment. Polynomial approximation and spectral analysis reveal three regimes. When questions are relatively scarce, the $Q^{-1/2}$ term governs learning and the general buffered ERM is optimal. In an intermediate regime, pooling generation counts across questions improves upon estimating each answer distribution separately, with only logarithmic gains from additional questions. With sufficiently many questions, the minimax excess risk reaches an $N^{-\beta}$ identification floor that persists even with infinitely many questions. The submodel's lower bounds also apply to general ensembles, matching the buffered-ERM upper bound up to logarithmic factors when questions are scarce and in parts of the intermediate regime. Questions remain about the transitions between regimes and the construction of matching pooled estimators for general ensembles.
Statistics Theory (math.ST); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
arXiv:2610.21363 [math.ST]
(or arXiv:2610.21363v1 [math.ST] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21363 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 372 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026
A Deep Dive into LDS Optimizations on AMD Instinct MI450 GPUs
AMD · Aug 28, 2026

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 15, 2026

How can LLM RL Work Despite Information-Theoretic Inefficiency
LessWrong · Oct 16, 2026