PCS: Perceived Confidence Scoring of Black Box LLMs with Metamorphic Relations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07186v2
• Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2025 14:30:33 GMT
• Title: PCS: Perceived Confidence Scoring of Black Box LLMs with Metamorphic Relations
• Abstract summary: We introduce a technique that evaluates an LLM's confidence for classifying a textual input by leveraging Metamorphic Relations (MRs)<n>MRs generate semantically equivalent yet textually divergent versions of the input.<n>We compute a perceived confidence score (PCS) based on the frequency of the predicted labels.
• Score: 13.99995125334968
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Zero-shot LLMs are now also used for textual classification tasks, e.g., sentiment and bias detection in a sentence or article. However, their performance can be suboptimal in such data annotation tasks. We introduce a novel technique that evaluates an LLM's confidence for classifying a textual input by leveraging Metamorphic Relations (MRs). The MRs generate semantically equivalent yet textually divergent versions of the input. Following the principles of Metamorphic Testing (MT), the mutated versions are expected to have annotation labels similar to the input. By analyzing the consistency of an LLM's responses across these variations, we compute a perceived confidence score (PCS) based on the frequency of the predicted labels. PCS can be used for both single and multiple LLM settings (e.g., when multiple LLMs are vetted in a majority-voting setup). Empirical evaluation shows that our PCS-based approach improves the performance of zero-shot LLMs by 9.3% in textual classification tasks. When multiple LLMs are used in a majority-voting setup, we obtain a performance boost of 5.8% with PCS.

Related papers

• Mitigating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge via Random Number Generation [7.525640980821714]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality.<n>LLMs tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text.<n>This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T08:09:42Z)
• LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
  We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z)
• Can We Hide Machines in the Crowd? Quantifying Equivalence in LLM-in-the-loop Annotation Tasks [8.246529401043128]
  We aim to explore how labeling decisions -- by both humans and LLMs -- can be statistically evaluated across individuals.<n>We develop a statistical evaluation method based on Krippendorff's $alpha$, paired bootstrapping, and the Two One-Sided t-Tests (TOST) equivalence test procedure.<n>We apply this approach to two datasets -- MovieLens 100K and PolitiFact -- and find that the LLM is statistically indistinguishable from a human annotator in the former.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T05:17:33Z)
• Just Put a Human in the Loop? Investigating LLM-Assisted Annotation for Subjective Tasks [18.695435335031355]
  In subjective annotation tasks with multiple plausible answers, reviewing LLM outputs can change the label distribution.<n>We conducted a pre-registered experiment with 410 unique annotators and over 7,000 annotations.<n>We find that presenting crowdworkers with LLM-generated annotation suggestions did not make them faster, but did improve their self-reported confidence in the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T17:29:21Z)
• Set-LLM: A Permutation-Invariant LLM [2.9665130256021]
  This paper is motivated by a specific vulnerability: the order sensitivity of large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce Set-LLM, a novel architectural adaptation for pretrained LLMs that enables the processing of mixed set-text inputs with permutation invariance guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T12:14:26Z)
• SPARC: Score Prompting and Adaptive Fusion for Zero-Shot Multi-Label Recognition in Vision-Language Models [74.40683913645731]
  Zero-shot multi-label recognition (MLR) with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) faces significant challenges without training data, model tuning, or architectural modifications. Our work proposes a novel solution treating VLMs as black boxes, leveraging scores without training data or ground truth. Analysis of these prompt scores reveals VLM biases and AND''/OR' signal ambiguities, notably that maximum scores are surprisingly suboptimal compared to second-highest scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T07:15:05Z)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs.<n>We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier.<n>LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• Toward Robust Hyper-Detailed Image Captioning: A Multiagent Approach and Dual Evaluation Metrics for Factuality and Coverage [50.84150600032693]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at generating highly detailed captions but often produce hallucinations.<n>We propose a multiagent approach that leverages LLM-MLLM collaboration to correct given captions.<n>Our proposed method significantly enhances the factual accuracy of captions, even improving those generated by GPT-4V.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T01:37:22Z)
• Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluators [20.588104799661014]
  We propose two methods to improve the accuracy of win rate estimation using large language models (LLMs) as evaluators. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T04:32:40Z)
• Evaluating Consistencies in LLM responses through a Semantic Clustering of Question Answering [1.9214041945441436]
  We present a new approach for evaluating semanticencies of Large Language Model (LLM) Our approach evaluates whether LLM re-sponses are semantically congruent for a given question, recognizing that as syntactically different sentences may convey the same meaning. Using the TruthfulQA dataset to assess LLM responses, the study induces N re-sponses per question and clusters semantically equivalent sentences to measure semantic consistency across 37 categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T16:21:25Z)
• Unveiling Scoring Processes: Dissecting the Differences between LLMs and Human Graders in Automatic Scoring [21.7782670140939]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. This paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students' written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T22:26:20Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Aligning Language Models with Demonstrated Feedback [58.834937450242975]
  Demonstration ITerated Task Optimization (DITTO) directly aligns language model outputs to a user's demonstrated behaviors.<n>We evaluate DITTO's ability to learn fine-grained style and task alignment across domains such as news articles, emails, and blog posts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T23:13:56Z)
• The Curious Case of Class Accuracy Imbalance in LLMs: Post-hoc Debiasing via Nonlinear Integer Programming [12.287692969438169]
  Large language models (LLMs) are good knowledge bases but struggle to perform equally well for all classes in text classification.<n>This paper investigates the case of class accuracy imbalance in LLMs, where deeply entangled pretraining biases and prompt-specific cues contribute to the imbalance.<n>To overcome the difficulty in bias identification and inaccessibility of retraining, we post-hoc balance class accuracy using only output probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T10:30:33Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [48.48819141999387]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically.<n>We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores.<n>We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning [61.68787689234622]
  A recent study, LIMA, shows that using merely 1K examples for alignment tuning can achieve significant alignment performance as well. This raises questions about how exactly the alignment tuning transforms a base LLM. We show that the gap between tuning-free and tuning-based alignment methods can be significantly reduced through strategic prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T00:46:11Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Interpreting Learned Feedback Patterns in Large Language Models [11.601799960959214]
  We train probes to estimate the feedback signal implicit in the activations of a fine-tuned language model. We compare these estimates to the true feedback, measuring how accurate the LFPs are to the fine-tuning feedback. We validate our probes by comparing the neural features they correlate with positive feedback inputs against the features GPT-4 describes and classifies as related to LFPs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T09:36:03Z)
• Quantifying Uncertainty in Answers from any Language Model and Enhancing their Trustworthiness [16.35655151252159]
  We introduce BSDetector, a method for detecting bad and speculative answers from a pretrained Large Language Model. Our uncertainty quantification technique works for any LLM accessible only via a black-box API.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T17:53:25Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• Compress, Then Prompt: Improving Accuracy-Efficiency Trade-off of LLM Inference with Transferable Prompt [96.24800696597707]
  We introduce a new perspective to optimize this trade-off by prompting compressed models. We propose a soft prompt learning method where we expose the compressed model to the prompt learning process. Our experimental analysis suggests our soft prompt strategy greatly improves the performance of the 8x compressed LLaMA-7B model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T20:45:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.