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.
Cite
@inproceedings{kozodoi2026testtime,
title={Test-Time Augmentation for LLMs: When Input Diversity Beats Output Diversity at Matched Compute},
author={Kozodoi, N. and Afolabi, Z. and Butler, J.},
booktitle={{COLM} 2026 Workshop on Efficient Reasoning},
year={2026}
}
