Collective Reasoning Among LLMs: A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20758v2
• Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 03:53:26 GMT
• Title: Collective Reasoning Among LLMs: A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth
• Authors: Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi, Amin Gholami Davodi, Alireza Amiri-Margavi, Mahdi Jafari,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a new approach in which several advanced large language models produce and answer intricate, doctoral-level probability problems.<n>Our investigation focuses on how agreement among diverse models can signal the reliability of their outputs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce a new approach in which several advanced large language models-specifically GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLAMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash-collaborate to both produce and answer intricate, doctoral-level probability problems without relying on any single "correct" reference. Rather than depending on an established ground truth, our investigation focuses on how agreement among diverse models can signal the reliability of their outputs and, by extension, reflect the overall quality of the generated questions. To measure this inter-model alignment, we apply a suite of statistical evaluations, including chi-square tests, Fleiss' Kappa coefficients, and confidence interval calculations, thereby capturing both precision in answers and clarity in question phrasing. Our analysis reveals that Claude and Gemini tend to frame questions more coherently and unambiguously, which is evidenced by their tighter confidence intervals and greater concordance with responding agents. In contrast, LLAMA exhibits wider confidence bands and a lower level of agreement, indicating more variability and reduced consistency in its question formulations. These observations support the notion that a multi-model collaborative strategy not only improves answer dependability but also offers an effective, data-driven mechanism for evaluating and refining question quality when no definitive solution exists. Ultimately, this work delivers actionable insights into enhancing AI-guided reasoning processes through coordinated interactions among heterogeneous language models.

Related papers

• Coherent Multimodal Reasoning with Iterative Self-Evaluation for Vision-Language Models [4.064135211977999]
  Large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (LVLMs) struggle with complex, multi-step, cross-modal common sense reasoning tasks.<n>We propose the Coherent Multimodal Reasoning Framework (CMRF), a novel approach that enhances LVLMs' common sense reasoning capabilities.<n>CMRF mimics human problem-solving by decomposing complex queries, generating step-by-step inferences, and self-correcting errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T20:33:58Z)
• Federated In-Context Learning: Iterative Refinement for Improved Answer Quality [62.72381208029899]
  In-context learning (ICL) enables language models to generate responses without modifying their parameters by leveraging examples provided in the input.<n>We propose Federated In-Context Learning (Fed-ICL), a general framework that enhances ICL through an iterative, collaborative process.<n>Fed-ICL progressively refines responses by leveraging multi-round interactions between clients and a central server, improving answer quality without the need to transmit model parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T05:33:28Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence [57.66282463340297]
  Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly employing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to improve the factuality of their responses.<n>In practice, these systems often need to handle ambiguous user queries and potentially conflicting information from multiple sources.<n>We propose RAMDocs (Retrieval with Ambiguity and Misinformation in Documents), a new dataset that simulates complex and realistic scenarios for conflicting evidence for a user query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T16:46:11Z)
• 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)
• DiverseAgentEntropy: Quantifying Black-Box LLM Uncertainty through Diverse Perspectives and Multi-Agent Interaction [53.803276766404494]
  Existing methods, which gauge a model's uncertainty through evaluating self-consistency in responses to the original query, do not always capture true uncertainty.<n>We propose a novel method, DiverseAgentEntropy, for evaluating a model's uncertainty using multi-agent interaction.<n>Our method offers a more accurate prediction of the model's reliability and further detects hallucinations, outperforming other self-consistency-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:52:40Z)
• 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)
• Graph-based Confidence Calibration for Large Language Models [22.394717844099684]
  We propose using an auxiliary learning model to assess response correctness based on the self-consistency of multiple outputs generated by the large language models.<n>Our method builds a consistency graph to represent the agreement among multiple responses and uses a graph neural network (GNN) to estimate the likelihood that each response is correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T20:36:44Z)
• Insight Over Sight: Exploring the Vision-Knowledge Conflicts in Multimodal LLMs [55.74117540987519]
  This paper explores the problem of commonsense level vision-knowledge conflict in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>We introduce an automated framework, augmented with human-in-the-loop quality control, to generate inputs designed to simulate and evaluate these conflicts in MLLMs.<n>Using this framework, we have crafted a diagnostic benchmark consisting of 374 original images and 1,122 high-quality question-answer pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:31:17Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Efficacy of Foundational Models: Advancing Benchmarking Practices to Enhance Fine-Tuning Decision-Making [1.3812010983144802]
  This study evaluates large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, including cybersecurity, medicine, and finance. The results indicate that model size and types of prompts used for inference significantly influenced response length and quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T20:52:31Z)
• 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)
• PICK: Polished & Informed Candidate Scoring for Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Systems [59.1250765143521]
  Current knowledge-grounded dialogue systems often fail to align the generated responses with human-preferred qualities. We propose Polished & Informed Candidate Scoring (PICK), a generation re-scoring framework. We demonstrate the effectiveness of PICK in generating responses that are more faithful while keeping them relevant to the dialogue history.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-19T08:27:09Z)
• Trusted Multi-View Classification with Dynamic Evidential Fusion [73.35990456162745]
  We propose a novel multi-view classification algorithm, termed trusted multi-view classification (TMC) TMC provides a new paradigm for multi-view learning by dynamically integrating different views at an evidence level. Both theoretical and experimental results validate the effectiveness of the proposed model in accuracy, robustness and trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T03:48:49Z)

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.