{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Daily Paper Cast","title":"TrajSelector: Harnessing Latent Representations for Efficient and Effective Best-of-N in Large Reasoning Model","html":"<iframe width=\"100%\" height=\"180\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" seamless src=\"https://share.transistor.fm/e/2ec36e15\"></iframe>","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":1411,"description":"\n            🤗 Upvotes: 32 | cs.CL\n\n            Authors:\n            Bin Yu, Xinming Wang, Shijie Lian, Haotian Li, Changti Wu, Ruina Hu, Bailing Wang, Yuliang Wei, Kai Chen\n\n            Title:\n            TrajSelector: Harnessing Latent Representations for Efficient and Effective Best-of-N in Large Reasoning Model\n\n            Arxiv:\n            http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16449v1\n\n            Abstract:\n            Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable progress in complex reasoning tasks, largely enabled by test-time scaling (TTS) paradigms that allocate additional compute during inference. Among these, external TTS (particularly the Best-of-N selection paradigm) yields scalable performance improvements by selecting from multiple independently generated reasoning trajectories. However, this approach faces key limitations: (i) the high computational overhead of deploying process reward models, (ii) the underutilization of the LLM's intrinsic latent representations. We introduce TrajSelector, an efficient and effective Best-of-N framework that exploit the hidden states in the sampler LLM for process-level scoring. A lightweight verifier (with only 0.6B parameters) evaluates the quality of step-wise trajectory, and then aggregates these scores to identify the optimal reasoning trajectory. Our framework employs a fully data-driven, end-to-end training recipe that eliminates reliance on massive step-level annotations. Experiential results across five benchmarks demonstrate that TrajSelector delivers consistent performance gains. In Best-of-32 settings, it surpasses majority voting by 4.61% accuracy and outperforms existing process reward models by 4.31% to 12.21%, all while maintaining lower inference costs.\n            ","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/8lOVNnuwhrA3rxrDMv7Osu4j_t1-jORooO6NfGcQhcw/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS81Zjg1/YzRhODczMDU4MmE4/OGMwN2FiNDlmYzI2/MDliMi5qcGVn.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}