Best-of-Evidence (BoE) is introduced, an inference-time selection framework that keeps the BoN candidate pool fixed, represents reusable claims with a signed candidate--factor graph, and allocates a limited budget to evidence actions that can change the final choice.
Abstract
BoN improves model outputs by sampling several candidates and selecting one with a proxy score, but it assumes that complete candidates can be evaluated reliably. Many vision-language tasks instead provide only partial verification: a finding, span, value, region, or relation may be checkable even when no dependable whole-response verifier exists. Moreover, the same claim may recur across candidates with opposing stances, allowing one observation to support part of the pool and contradict another. We introduce Best-of-Evidence (BoE), an inference-time selection framework that keeps the BoN candidate pool fixed, represents reusable claims with a signed candidate--factor graph, and allocates a limited budget to evidence actions that can change the final choice. BoE formalizes selection under partial verification and provides a practical score-based controller, with the zero-budget case recovering the underlying BoN decision. Theoretically, we show that residual evidence capacity limits any evidence-driven improvement and that shared factor queries can achieve an O(log K) versus {\Theta}(K) query separation in a factor-code model. Common-ledger experiments on four medical VQA settings show that BoE can improve fixed-pool selection and rescue some BoN failures when evidence is reliable, contrastive, and decision-relevant, while also revealing the channel-quality and candidate-generation limits that prevent universal gains.
This framework yields a practical pre-deployment diagnostic: estimate the oracle gap, then measure coverage, signal fidelity, and harm before investing in collaboration.
This work introduces CALVER (Causal Axiom-Level VERification), a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria, including -separation, backdoor adjustment, and intervention, and selects the highest-scoring candidate without consulting a reference answer.
Omatharv Bharat Vaidya, C. Jerzak, Zayne Sprague et al.· 0 citations
Standard evaluation of large language models is challenged by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels, evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks, and finding three findings that argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.
Rodrigo Guedes de Souza, Alison R. Panisson· 1 citation
This work introduces the missing candidate-free control under the same maximum output-token allowance and stratify by the number of correct candidates, finding that conditioning on an all-wrong candidate pool lowers accuracy relative to a fresh solve.
This work treats the panel as an LLM-jury, in which the verification signal is the structure of agreement itself, with no model scoring another's work, and treats cross-model consensus as a verifier, a law that says when to trust it, and a floor that marks where it cannot.
It is found that a literal-similarity baseline with no pragmatics outperforms most tested language models, that adding a pragmatic layer over two baseline similarity sources moves choosers toward random rather than toward the Bayesian reference, and that a standard labelled multiple-choice format carries no measurable...
Cris Huynh· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.