arXiv AI

Does a Governed Confidence Score Know When a Text-to-SQL Answer Is Right? An Exploratory Study on BIRD and a Pre-registered Confirmation on Spider

arXiv AI
Oct 26

Validating the Comparison, Not Just the Scorer: Why Overall Accuracy Can Mislead in Interactive LLM Evaluation

The paper argues that relying solely on overall accuracy or F1 scores to validate automatic scorers in LLM evaluation can conceal prompt‑specific errors that distort comparative results. By auditing six models on 180 invented‑entity questions across six prompts, the authors show that a scorer’s overall F1 of .916 masks substantial variation—up to 33.3%—in error rates depending on the prompt. In a second audit, differences in measured prompt effects dropped dramatically when multiple raters were used, highlighting the need to validate the exact comparison rather than the scorer alone.

By Ancil Crayton
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Commit-first LLM judging inherits the judge's own errors

The paper investigates whether widely used evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) implement a defense called commit‑first judging, which requires a judge to solve a task itself before accepting a candidate answer. Across 24 configurations in eight popular frameworks, none use the full commit‑first method; nine use a weaker variant that is ineffective. In controlled experiments, the weaker variant allowed systems to game the judge, while the full commit‑first approach eliminated this vulnerability but sometimes worsened evaluation when the judge’s own answer was incorrect.

By Idil Gozel
arXiv AI
Sep 2

The Answer Is Not the Argument

The paper investigates whether giving AI monitors access to the final answer improves their ability to verify reasoning. Using 237 step‑by‑step solutions to physics exam questions, the authors found that answer access mainly helps monitors detect inconsistencies with the final answer rather than independently checking the reasoning. Certification of the answer increased overall accuracy and error localization but reduced the ability to flag critical traces where the answer was correct but the reasoning was flawed.

By Will Yeadon, Sergio Ju\'arez, Paul Mackay, T. J. Dowling, Elise Agra, Oto-obong Inyang, Arin Mizouri, Craig P. Testrow
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency: A GPT-4.1 Case Study

The paper introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, to quantify how often wrong runs of large language models (LLMs) agree with the majority consensus. By decomposing Gamma into a mechanical component and a preference‑unexplained residual, the authors show that on GPT‑4.1 the mechanical part explains most of the agreement on multiple‑choice benchmarks but only about half on open‑domain tasks, revealing a residual bias that can cause self‑consistency to backfire on hard questions. The study provides a quantitative framework for understanding when majority voting over LLM samples improves or harms accuracy, without proposing new voting methods.

By Lizhuo Zhang, Mengmeng Tang, Chenfeng Long, Xiaoyong Tang, Xiang Luo
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 13

LODESTAR: Trustworthy Entropy Is Navigated, Not Merely Measured -- Reinforced Polarizer Keeps a Frozen LLM from Being Confidently Misled by the Wrong Evidence

arXiv:2608. 11922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy makes a strong selection rule in retrieval-augmented question answering: across five QA benchmarks, keeping the candidate answer that a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean answer $F_1$ from 0.

By Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Hung-Chun Hsu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang