Papers › Rethinking the Role of Prompting Strategies in LLM Test-Time Scaling: A Perspective of...
Rethinking the Role of Prompting Strategies in LLM Test-Time Scaling: A Perspective of Probability Theory
Yexiang Liu, Zekun Li, Zhi Fang, Nan Xu, Ran He, Tieniu Tan
Recently, scaling test-time compute on Large Language Models (LLM) has garnered wide attention. However, there has been limited investigation of how various reasoning prompting strategies perform as scaling. In this paper, we focus on a standard and realistic scaling setting: majority voting. We systematically conduct experiments on 6 LLMs × 8 prompting strategies × 6 benchmarks. Experiment results consistently show that as the sampling time and computational overhead increase, complicated prompting strategies with superior initial performance gradually fall behind simple Chain-of-Thought. We analyze this phenomenon and provide theoretical proofs. Additionally, we propose a method according to probability theory to quickly and accurately predict the scaling performance and select the best strategy under large sampling times without extra resource-intensive inference in practice. It can serve as the test-time scaling law for majority voting. Furthermore, we introduce two ways derived from our theoretical analysis to significantly improve the scaling performance. We hope that our research can promote to re-examine the role of complicated prompting, unleash the potential of simple prompting strategies, and provide new insights for enhancing test-time scaling performance.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2505.10981")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 3 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 6 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 4 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from MraDonkey/rethinking_prompting. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
271c0d63a2ec91c7 · report
0b14c648516c38a7 · report
8686c0a944293a75 · report
cf86a311f5076219 · report
4dd8a18f0e728e70 · report
22f36d100d431b72 · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections