Papers › Chopthin-Consensus Power Sampling: A Diversity-Preserving Approach to LLM Decoding
Chopthin-Consensus Power Sampling: A Diversity-Preserving Approach to LLM Decoding
Minoo Ahmadi, Seyedarmin Azizi, Erfan Baghaei Potraghloo, Mehdi Kamal, Massoud Pedram
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Inference-time power sampling via Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) can substantially improve large language model (LLM) reasoning without requiring post-training. However, many existing SMC approaches rely on equal-weight resampling, which can aggressively prune low-weight trajectories, discarding potentially correct reasoning paths and degrading the genealogical diversity of the search space. To address this, we introduce Chopthin-Consensus Power Sampling (CCPS). Our method applies the Chopthin resampler to LLM decoding: rather than equalizing weights and forcing unnecessary particle duplication, it enforces an upper bound on the ratio between the largest and smallest weights and carries the unequal weights forward. This targeted intervention preserves a richer set of distinct reasoning paths, keeps the weighted SMC approximation unchanged in conditional expectation, and guarantees a lower bound on the post-resampling effective sample size (ESS). To fully exploit this enriched population, we employ a semantic-majority selection mechanism that merges token-identical final trajectories, clusters semantically equivalent answers, and returns the answer supported by the largest number of distinct trajectories. Evaluating across three open-weight models and five reasoning benchmarks, we show that Chopthin increases oracle coverage in 13 of 15 settings. Combined with semantic-majority selection, CCPS matches or exceeds the final-answer accuracy of the Power-SMC baseline in 14 of 15 settings, delivering absolute gains of up to 10.6 percentage points. These findings demonstrate that diversity-preserving resampling and diversity-aware selection are complementary mechanisms for training-free LLM reasoning. Code is available at github.com/MinooAhmadii/chopthin-consensus-power-sampling.
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="2609.12243")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 15 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 11 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · violated contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 15 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.
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
15 samples harvested; 4 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 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: 15 of the 15 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 MinooAhmadii/chopthin-consensus-power-sampling. “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.
368d3db6347269c3 · report
91135083780b8eb9 · report
95f02454eddf082a · report
bbe0dd4540175572 · report
cc98ca35884df102 · report
fe90a22233c11824 · report
f227e1402086ab04 · report
d157d1327988c984 · report
c9d5a01f5894434c · report
75dedeb28b076d8b · report
ada83ed3eac14cb3 · report
31f2eef78b769944 · report
d51cc295307937e6 · report
6b6d307330e42271 · report
1999be873e740eb7 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2609.12243, was issued in September 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
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