arXiv AI By Alessandro Rozza, Davide Mambelli, Steven Motta, Juri Taresch

A Jury, Not an Electorate: Label-Free Reliability Estimation for Ensembles of Language Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper proposes treating an ensemble of language models as a jury rather than an electorate, where each model’s reliability is inferred from patterns of agreement and disagreement without using labels. Using Expectation Maximisation, the authors estimate each expert’s latent reliability and derive a log‑odds weighted linear scoring rule. On a 1560‑question benchmark, this label‑free approach matches the performance of label‑fitted weights and surpasses the best single model and other label‑free alternatives.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 24

Reliable Fusion of Conflicting Experts

The paper introduces a probabilistic‑circuit framework for fusing opinions from multiple black‑box experts in noisy, conflict‑prone environments. It dynamically assigns context‑specific credibility to each expert, allowing reliable aggregation without needing access to their internal models or retraining. Experiments on multiple‑choice question answering with large language models show that this method outperforms individual models and static ensemble baselines, consistently improving predictive accuracy and decision reliability under disagreement.

By Pranuthi Tenali, Sahil Sidheekh, Saurabh Mathur, Vijayalakshmi Saravanan, Erik Blasch, Kristian Kersting, Sriraam Natarajan
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.

By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal
arXiv AI
Aug 19

A decodability criterion predicts when hidden-state selection beats majority voting in large language models

The paper introduces CASE, a dynamic selection combiner that uses a linear gate trained on answer-token hidden states to choose the best candidate answer from a large language model’s samples. It proposes decodability, a leakage‑free metric that predicts when hidden‑state selection will outperform majority voting, achieving a strong correlation (r=0.75) with accuracy gains. CASE improves accuracy by up to 19 points on medium‑difficulty and 16.8 points on hard questions across general and medical LLMs, and its predictive power transfers to unseen scientific domains.

By Zhixiang wang, Ziliang Hong, Ulas Bagci