Collective Reasoning Among LLMs A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20758v1
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 06:20:52 GMT
- Title: Collective Reasoning Among LLMs A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth
- Authors: Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi, Alireza Shafiee Fard, Alireza Amiri-Margavi,
- Abstract summary: This study explores how inter-model consensus enhances response reliability and serves as a proxy for assessing the quality of generated questions.<n>We present a collaborative framework where multiple large language models, namely GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash, work together to generate and respond to complex PhD-level probability questions.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
- Abstract: We present a collaborative framework where multiple large language models, namely GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash, work together to generate and respond to complex PhD-level probability questions in the absence of definitive ground truth. This study explores how inter-model consensus enhances response reliability and serves as a proxy for assessing the quality of generated questions. To quantify agreement and consistency, we employ statistical methods including chi-square tests, Fleiss' Kappa, and confidence interval analysis, measuring both response precision and question clarity. Our findings highlight that Claude and Gemini generate well-structured and less ambiguous questions, leading to higher inter-model agreement. This is reflected in their narrower confidence intervals and stronger alignment with answering models. Conversely, LLaMA demonstrates increased variability and lower reliability in question formulation, as indicated by broader confidence intervals and reduced consensus rates. These results suggest that multi-model collaboration not only enhances the reliability of responses but also provides a valuable framework for assessing and improving question quality in the absence of explicit ground truth. This research offers meaningful insights into optimizing AI-driven reasoning through collaborative large-language model interactions.
Related papers
- Firm or Fickle? Evaluating Large Language Models Consistency in Sequential Interactions [8.069858557211132]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities across various tasks, but their deployment in high-stake domains requires consistent performance across multiple interaction rounds.
This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for evaluating and improving LLM response consistency, making three key contributions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-28T11:49:56Z) - RECSIP: REpeated Clustering of Scores Improving the Precision [0.0]
We introduce the framework REpeated Clustering of Scores Improving the Precision (RECSIP)
RECSIP focuses on improving the precision of Large Language Models (LLMs) by asking multiple models in parallel, scoring and clustering their responses to ensure a higher reliability on the response.
The evaluation of our reference implementation recsip on the benchmark MMLU-Pro using the models GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini shows an overall increase of 5.8 per cent points compared to the best used model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-15T12:36:32Z) - Enhancing LLM Reliability via Explicit Knowledge Boundary Modeling [48.15636223774418]
Large language models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate due to misaligned self-awareness.
Existing approaches mitigate hallucinations via uncertainty estimation or query rejection.
We propose the Explicit Knowledge Boundary Modeling framework to integrate fast and slow reasoning systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-04T03:16:02Z) - Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct.<n>We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z) - On Adversarial Robustness and Out-of-Distribution Robustness of Large Language Models [0.16874375111244325]
We investigate the correlation between adversarial robustness and OOD robustness in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings highlight nuanced interactions between adversarial robustness and OOD robustness, with results indicating limited transferability.<n>Further research is needed to evaluate these interactions across larger models and varied architectures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-13T20:04:25Z) - Enhancing Answer Reliability Through Inter-Model Consensus of Large Language Models [1.6874375111244329]
We propose a collaborative framework in which multiple large language models generate and answer complex, PhD-level statistical questions.<n>Our study examines how inter-model consensus improves both response reliability and identifies the quality of the generated questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-25T10:18:17Z) - Fact-Level Confidence Calibration and Self-Correction [64.40105513819272]
We propose a Fact-Level framework that calibrates confidence to relevance-weighted correctness at the fact level.
We also develop Confidence-Guided Fact-level Self-Correction ($textbfConFix$), which uses high-confidence facts within a response as additional knowledge to improve low-confidence ones.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-20T14:15:18Z) - The BRAVO Semantic Segmentation Challenge Results in UNCV2024 [68.20197719071436]
We define two categories of reliability: (1) semantic reliability, which reflects the model's accuracy and calibration when exposed to various perturbations; and (2) OOD reliability, which measures the model's ability to detect object classes that are unknown during training.
The results reveal interesting insights into the importance of large-scale pre-training and minimal architectural design in developing robust and reliable semantic segmentation models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-23T15:17:30Z) - Confidence Under the Hood: An Investigation into the Confidence-Probability Alignment in Large Language Models [14.5291643644017]
We introduce the concept of Confidence-Probability Alignment.
We probe the alignment between models' internal and expressed confidence.
Among the models analyzed, OpenAI's GPT-4 showed the strongest confidence-probability alignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-25T15:42:04Z) - When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality [49.371218210305656]
We propose CONfidence-Quality-ORDer-preserving alignment approach (CONQORD)
It integrates quality reward and order-preserving alignment reward functions.
Experiments demonstrate that CONQORD significantly improves the alignment performance between confidence and response accuracy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-26T09:42:46Z) - Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers.
Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer.
This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z) - Exchange-of-Thought: Enhancing Large Language Model Capabilities through
Cross-Model Communication [76.04373033082948]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently made significant strides in complex reasoning tasks through the Chain-of-Thought technique.
We propose Exchange-of-Thought (EoT), a novel framework that enables cross-model communication during problem-solving.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-04T11:53:56Z) - Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging
Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination"
We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)
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.