Are More LLM Calls All You Need? Towards Scaling Laws of Compound Inference Systems
Open accessAbstract
Many recent state-of-the-art results in language tasks were achieved using compound systems that perform multiple Language Model (LM) calls and aggregate their responses. However, there is little understanding of how the number of LM calls - e.g., when asking the LM to answer each question multiple times and taking a majority vote - affects such a compound system's performance. In this paper, we initiate the study of scaling properties of compound inference systems. We analyze, theoretically and empirically, how the number of LM calls affects the performance of Vote and Filter-Vote, two of the simplest compound system designs, which aggregate LM responses via majority voting, optionally applying LM filters. We find, surprisingly, that across multiple language tasks, the performance of both Vote and Filter-Vote can first increase but then decrease as a function of the number of LM calls. Our theoretical results suggest that this non-monotonicity is due to the diversity of query difficulties within a task: more LM calls lead to higher performance on "easy" queries, but lower performance on "hard" queries, and non-monotone behavior can emerge when a task contains both types of queries. This insight then allows us to compute, from a small number of samples, the number of LM calls that maximizes system performance, and define an analytical scaling model for both systems. Experiments show that our scaling model can accurately predict the performance of Vote and Filter-Vote systems and thus find the optimal number of LM calls to make.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Simply calling the underlying model multiple times can increase accuracy.
“This means simply calling the underlying model multiple times can increase accuracy [27, 6, 26].”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Calling language models repeatedly and taking a majority vote can lead to non-trivial increases in accuracy across benchmarks like GSM-8K, MATH, Chess, and MMLU.
“Calling language models repeatedly and taking a majority vote can lead to non-trivial increases in accuracy across benchmarks like GSM-8K, MATH, Chess, and MMLU [26, 6, 48].”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A perspective for adapting generalist AI to specialized medical AI applications and their challenges
Wang, Z., Wang, H., Danek, B. P., Li, Y., Mack, C. D., Arbuckle, L., Biswal, D., Poon, H., Wang, Y., Rajpurkar, P., et al. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01789-7 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?
Cemri, M., Pan, M. Z., Yang, S., Agrawal, L. A., Chopra, B., Tiwari, R., Keutzer, K., Parameswaran, A., Klein, D., Ramchandran, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13657 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“These results show that both the choice of LLM and the specific design of the MAS architecture critically shape the landscape of potential failures, and improvements likely require a holistic approach considering both aspects.”
Self-citationLLM-EPSP: Large language model empowered early prediction of student performance
Zhou, H., Shen, S., Su, Y., Miao, Y., Liu, Q., Zhu, L., Lu, J., & Huang, Z. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104351 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Enhancing AI for citation screening in literature reviews: Improving accuracy with ensemble models
Zhang, Z., Nezhad, M. J. M., Gupta, P., Zolnour, A., Azadmaleki, H., Topaz, M., & Zolnoori, M. (2025) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.106035 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Kapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Siegel, Z. S., Nadgir, N., & Narayanan, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.01502 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Calling language models repeatedly and taking a majority vote can lead to non-trivial increases in accuracy across benchmarks like GSM-8K, MATH, Chess, and MMLU [26, 6, 48].”
Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration
Qian, C., Xie, Z., Wang, Y., Liu, W., Zhu, K., Xia, H., Dang, Y., Du, Z., Chen, W., Yang, C., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.07155 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“A straightforward collaboration strategy is majority voting (Chen et al., 2024a), where individuals remain independent; however, more effective multi-agent collaboration should form an integrated system that fosters interdependent interactions and thoughtful decision-making (Li et al., 2024; Chen…”
A Self-Evolving Framework for Multi-Agent Medical Consultation Based on Large Language Models
Chen, K., Qi, J., Huo, J., Tian, P., Meng, F., Yang, X., & Gao, Y. (2025) · ICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10889517 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
GAI Versus Teacher Scoring: Which is Better for Assessing Student Performance?
Li, X. R., Zappatore, M. S., Li, T., Zhang, W., Tao, S., Wei, X., Zhou, X., Guan, N., & Chan, A. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3572518 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Palmeira Ferraz, T., Mehta, K., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-S., Oraby, S., Liu, S., Subramanian, V., Chung, T., Bansal, M., & Peng, N. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.458 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“As discussed in Section 5.3, weak feedback can cause over-refinement of good responses while failing to fix bad ones, negatively affecting overall gains.”
InfluentialMAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning
Chen, J., Prasad, A., Saha, S., Stengel-Eskin, E., & Bansal, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1660 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
MDTeamGPT: Mitigating Context Collapse and Enabling Self-Evolution in Medical Multi-Agent Reasoning
Chen, K., Li, X., Yang, T., Wang, H., Yang, G., Huo, J., & Gao, Y. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1427 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“MedAgents (Tang et al., 2023) assigns distinct doctor roles to each LLM-Agent and uses consensus voting, but lacks a robust strategy, risking collective hallucinations (Chen et al., 2024a).”
Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems
Kim, Y., Gu, K., Park, C., Park, C., Schmidgall, S., Heydari, A. A., Yan, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhuang, Y., Liu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08296 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Understanding Agent Scaling in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems via Diversity
Yang, Y., Qu, C., Wen, M., Shi, L., Wen, Y., Zhang, W., Wierman, A., & Gu, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03794 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
SMOOTHIE: Label Free Language Model RoutingPreprint
Guha, N., Chen, M. F., Chow, T., Khare, I. S., & Ré, C. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/f319w4
Crash Root-Cause Identification via Trace-Rewarded Causation-Chain Reasoning Large Language ModelPreprint
Xie, N., & Yu, R. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5626468
- Authors
- Chen, L., Davis, J. Q., Hanin, B., Bailis, P., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2403.02419
- OpenAlex
- W4392539324
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 7
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- majority voting, scaling laws, non-monotonicity, query difficulty, scaling model, large language models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
