When Does LLM Orchestration Pay Off? A Controlled Evaluation of Accuracy, Cost, and Task Difficulty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00685v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 14:14:12 GMT
• Title: When Does LLM Orchestration Pay Off? A Controlled Evaluation of Accuracy, Cost, and Task Difficulty
• Abstract summary: Orchestration is often assumed to improve reasoning by allocating additional inference-time computation, yet its gains may not justify its cost.<n>We conduct a controlled evaluation of Self-Refine, Best-of-$N$, and Debate against task-only and chain-of-thought (CoT) single-call baselines.<n>Our results suggest that orchestration decisions should be model-specific and account for whether moderate accuracy gains justify the additional inference cost.
• Score: 17.41874642505417
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM orchestration is often assumed to improve reasoning by allocating additional inference-time computation, yet its gains may not justify its cost. Existing comparisons also frequently overlook differences in optimization effort, making it difficult to isolate the value of orchestration itself. We conduct a controlled evaluation of Self-Refine, Best-of-$N$, and Debate against task-only and chain-of-thought (CoT) single-call baselines across five LLM backbones and three domains: competitive programming, chess puzzles, and mathematics. For comparability, we optimize each method with GEPA under the same optimization budget and evaluate all methods on the same difficulty-stratified benchmark items. Orchestration yields moderate but benchmark-dependent gains: averaged across backbones within each benchmark, the largest improvement is 4.6 percentage points over optimized CoT inference and 4.5 points over task-only inference, while requiring approximately 2 to 4 times the mean total tokens of task-only inference. Human-derived difficulty is associated with lower absolute accuracy in all three benchmarks, but within-benchmark analyses do not indicate that orchestration effects increase with task difficulty. By contrast, exploratory mixed-effects analyses reveal strong interactions between orchestration method and backbone model across all three benchmarks, showing that orchestration effectiveness depends substantially on the underlying model. Our results suggest that orchestration decisions should be model-specific and account for whether moderate accuracy gains justify the additional inference cost. More broadly, evaluations of LLM orchestrations should control optimization effort and report model-specific accuracy--cost trade-offs rather than treating additional inference-time structure as uniformly beneficial.

Related papers

• Learn What's Left, Not What's Mastered: Saturation Aware Advantage Reweighting for Multi-Reward Policy Optimization [60.89431018071735]
  Reinforcement learning with group-relative advantages has become the de facto standard for post-training language model reasoners.<n>We show that rollouts with distinct reward profiles can receive identical advantages, and all objectives are optimized with fixed relative weights regardless of their current level of saturation.<n>We introduce saturation-aware reweighting, which standardizes each reward objective independently and adaptively discounts its contribution according to a batch-level estimate of objective saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T04:07:50Z)
• LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
  We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z)
• How Inference Compute Shapes Frontier LLM Evaluation [2.7633794124150426]
  We evaluate up to 12 frontier language models on seven challenging benchmarks spanning software engineering, mathematics, medicine, and cybersecurity.<n>We find that newer models reach higher performance at large budgets, where they unlock harder tasks and solve them more reliably.<n>We argue that evaluations should report capability as a function of inference-time compute, specify protocol choices explicitly, and compare model generations over a large shared compute range.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T13:40:53Z)
• Granularity-Regulated Adaptive Computational Efficiency for Optimal Verification in Test-Time Scaling [0.0]
  Test-time scaling (TTS) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving the reasoning performance of large language models.<n>A central component of TTS is the emphverifier, which selects or scores candidate solutions to guide the search process.<n>We prove that there exists a phase transition: fine-grained verification dominates when either the compute budget is large or the problem is hard, whereas coarse-grained verification is preferred in the low-budget, easy-problem regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T18:19:16Z)
• EffiReason-Bench: A Unified Benchmark for Evaluating and Advancing Efficient Reasoning in Large Language Models [32.041688648831794]
  We introduce EffiReason-Bench, a unified benchmark for rigorous cross-paradigm evaluation of efficient reasoning methods.<n>To enable step-by-step evaluation, we construct verified CoT annotations for CommonsenseQA and LogiQA.<n>We propose the E3-Score, a principled metric inspired by economic trade-off modeling that provides smooth, stable evaluation without discontinuities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T11:14:46Z)
• AI Annotation Orchestration: Evaluating LLM verifiers to Improve the Quality of LLM Annotations in Learning Analytics [0.17240671897505613]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to annotate learning interactions, yet concerns about reliability limit their utility.<n>We test whether verification-oriented orchestration-prompting models to check their own labels (self-verification) or audit one another (cross-verification)-improves qualitative coding of tutoring discourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T22:35:36Z)
• Peering Inside the Black Box: Uncovering LLM Errors in Optimization Modelling through Component-Level Evaluation [0.0]
  We present a component-level evaluation framework for large language models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate GPT-5, LLaMA 3.1 Instruct, and DeepSeek Math across optimization problems of varying complexity.<n>Results show GPT-5 consistently outperforms other models, with chain-of-thought, self-consistency, and modular prompting proving most effective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T17:47:59Z)
• Can LLMs Correct Themselves? A Benchmark of Self-Correction in LLMs [57.10533368622962]
  Self-correction of large language models (LLMs) emerges as a critical component for enhancing their reasoning performance.<n>This study introduces CorrectBench, a benchmark developed to evaluate the effectiveness of self-correction strategies.<n>Our findings reveal that: 1) Self-correction methods can improve accuracy, especially for complex reasoning tasks; 2) Mixing different self-correction strategies yields further improvements, though it reduces efficiency; and 3) Reasoning LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) have limited optimization under additional self-correction methods and have high time costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T02:40:19Z)
• Intra-request branch orchestration for efficient LLM reasoning [52.68946975865865]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on inference-time reasoning algorithms to improve accuracy on complex tasks.<n>Prior work has largely focused on reducing token usage, often at the expense of accuracy, while overlooking other latency factors.<n>We present DUCHESS, an LLM serving system that reduces cost and latency without sacrificing accuracy through intra-request branch orchestration guided by predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T15:52:08Z)
• Fractured Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.647243580650446]
  We introduce Fractured Sampling, a unified inference-time strategy that interpolates between full CoT and solution-only sampling.<n>We show that Fractured Sampling consistently achieves superior accuracy-cost trade-offs, yielding steep log-linear scaling gains in Pass@k versus token budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T11:30:41Z)
• Reward-Guided Speculative Decoding for Efficient LLM Reasoning [80.55186052123196]
  We introduce Reward-Guided Speculative Decoding (RSD), a novel framework aimed at improving the efficiency of inference in large language models (LLMs)<n>RSD incorporates a controlled bias to prioritize high-reward outputs, in contrast to existing speculative decoding methods that enforce strict unbiasedness.<n>RSD delivers significant efficiency gains against decoding with the target model only, while achieving significant better accuracy than parallel decoding method on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T17:19:57Z)
• Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning [61.523627290397556]
  We introduce a stepwise self-evaluation mechanism to guide and calibrate the reasoning process of Large Language Model (LLM) We propose a decoding algorithm integrating the self-evaluation guidance via beam search. Our approach surpasses the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines in few-shot accuracy by $6.34%$, $9.56%$, and $5.46%$ on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T02:37:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.