A Simple Ensemble Strategy for LLM Inference: Towards More Stable Text Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18884v1
• Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 10:10:26 GMT
• Title: A Simple Ensemble Strategy for LLM Inference: Towards More Stable Text Classification
• Authors: Junichiro Niimi,
• Abstract summary: This study introduces the straightforward ensemble strategy to a sentiment analysis using large language models (LLMs)<n>As the results, we demonstrate that the ensemble of multiple inference using medium-sized LLMs produces more robust and accurate results than using a large model with a single attempt with reducing RMSE by 18.6%.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With the advance of large language models (LLMs), LLMs have been utilized for the various tasks. However, the issues of variability and reproducibility of results from each trial of LLMs have been largely overlooked in existing literature while actual human annotation uses majority voting to resolve disagreements among annotators. Therefore, this study introduces the straightforward ensemble strategy to a sentiment analysis using LLMs. As the results, we demonstrate that the ensemble of multiple inference using medium-sized LLMs produces more robust and accurate results than using a large model with a single attempt with reducing RMSE by 18.6%.

Related papers

• Do We Truly Need So Many Samples? Multi-LLM Repeated Sampling Efficiently Scales Test-Time Compute [55.330813919992465]
  This paper presents a simple, effective, and cost-efficient strategy to improve LLM performance by scaling test-time compute. Our strategy builds upon the repeated-sampling-then-voting framework, with a novel twist: incorporating multiple models, even weaker ones, to leverage their complementary strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:13:43Z)
• What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis [81.15503859645149]
  In this paper, we aim to theoretically analyze the impact of in-context demonstrations on large language models' reasoning performance.<n>We propose a straightforward, generalizable, and low-complexity demonstration selection method named LMS3.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T11:38:11Z)
• Dynamic Sentiment Analysis with Local Large Language Models using Majority Voting: A Study on Factors Affecting Restaurant Evaluation [0.0]
  This study introduces a majority voting mechanism to a sentiment analysis model using local language models. By a series of three analyses of online reviews on restaurant evaluations, we demonstrate that majority voting with multiple attempts produces more robust results than using a large model with a single attempt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T00:28:04Z)
• The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism [39.392450788666814]
  Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism. greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. Smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T06:12:17Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• Fine-Grained Self-Endorsement Improves Factuality and Reasoning [72.83651220132495]
  This work studies improving large language model (LLM) generations at inference time by mitigating fact-conflicting hallucinations. We propose a self-endorsement framework that leverages the fine-grained fact-level comparisons across multiple sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T22:24:40Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.