Increasing LLM response trustworthiness using voting ensembles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04048v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2025 06:02:44 GMT
• Title: Increasing LLM response trustworthiness using voting ensembles
• Abstract summary: We introduce a theoretical framework for question answering and show that, by permitting ensembles to "abstain" from providing an answer when the dominant response falls short, it is possible to dramatically increase the trustworthiness of the remaining answers.<n>We observe that large gains in answer trustworthiness can be achieved using highly restrictive voting ensembles, while incurring relatively modest reductions in response yield and accuracy.
• Score: 0.20524609401792396
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite huge advances, LLMs still lack convenient and reliable methods to quantify the uncertainty in their responses, making them difficult to trust in high-stakes applications. One of the simplest approaches to eliciting more accurate answers is to select the mode of many responses, a technique known as ensembling. In this work, we expand on typical ensembling approaches by looking at ensembles with a variable voting threshold. We introduce a theoretical framework for question answering and show that, by permitting ensembles to "abstain" from providing an answer when the dominant response falls short of the threshold, it is possible to dramatically increase the trustworthiness of the remaining answers. From this framework, we derive theoretical results as well as report experimental results on two problem domains: arithmetic problem solving and clinical-note question-answering. In both domains, we observe that large gains in answer trustworthiness can be achieved using highly restrictive voting ensembles, while incurring relatively modest reductions in response yield and accuracy. Due to this quality, voting ensembles may be particularly useful in applications - such as healthcare and data annotation - that require a high degree of certainty but which may not require that every question receive an automated answer.

Related papers

• FramingQA: Does the Question Shape the Answer? Measuring the Compositional Framing Effect [69.8983512616053]
  Large language models often change their responses to subtle rephrasings that align with an implied stance by users.<n>This can leave users with advice tainted by how they happened to phrase a question rather than by the underlying facts.<n>We introduce FramingQA, a benchmark that measures the model sensitivity to question framing across law, medicine, finance, and robotic simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T12:56:44Z)
• Boosting Self-Consistency with Ranking [56.38798757709555]
  Self-consistency improves large language models by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer.<n>We address this limitation with Ranking-Improved Self-Consistency (RISC), which reformulates answer selection in self-consistency as a ranking problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T16:12:30Z)
• I-CALM: Incentivizing Confidence-Aware Abstention for LLM Hallucination Mitigation [2.688126466709795]
  Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce confident but incorrect answers.<n>We study whether prompt-only interventions can reduce hallucination risk without modifying the model.<n>Results show the framework can improve selective answering on factual questions without retraining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T00:15:41Z)
• Confidence Before Answering: A Paradigm Shift for Efficient LLM Uncertainty Estimation [47.91529693614168]
  Existing methods are predominantly answer-first, producing confidence only after generating an answer.<n>We study a confidence-first paradigm, where the model outputs its confidence before answering, interpreting this score as the model's probability of answering the question correctly.<n>We propose CoCA, a reinforcement learning framework that jointly optimize confidence calibration and answer accuracy via segmented credit assignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T04:03:13Z)
• Beyond Majority Voting: LLM Aggregation by Leveraging Higher-Order Information [57.397381631496906]
  We develop two new aggregation algorithms called Optimal Weight (OW) and Inverse Surprising Popularity (ISP)<n>Our theoretical analysis shows these methods provably mitigate inherent limitations of majority voting under mild assumptions.<n>We empirically validate our algorithms on synthetic datasets, popular LLM fine-tuning benchmarks such as UltraFeedback and MMLU, and a real-world healthcare setting ARMMAN.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T22:21:50Z)
• Mind the Gap: A Closer Look at Tokenization for Multiple-Choice Question Answering with LLMs [16.357595595062946]
  There is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice.<n>Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter.<n>Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T14:47:58Z)
• Contextual Candor: Enhancing LLM Trustworthiness Through Hierarchical Unanswerability Detection [0.0]
  This paper introduces Reinforced Unanswerability Learning (RUL), a novel hybrid training paradigm for large language models (LLMs)<n>RUL integrates a discriminative unanswerability prediction head with the LLM's generative core, guided by a multi-stage learning strategy.<n>Experiments demonstrate RUL's superior performance, achieving significantly higher accuracy in unanswerability detection across sentence, paragraph, and ranking levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T17:59:27Z)
• Collective Reasoning Among LLMs: A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T06:20:52Z)
• LLM Uncertainty Quantification through Directional Entailment Graph and Claim Level Response Augmentation [5.255129053741665]
  Large language models (LLMs) have showcased superior capabilities in sophisticated tasks across various domains, stemming from basic question-answer (QA) This paper presents a novel way to evaluate the uncertainty that captures the directional instability, by constructing a directional graph from entailment probabilities. We also provide a way to incorporate the existing work's semantics uncertainty with our proposed layer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T06:11:30Z)
• Mitigating LLM Hallucinations via Conformal Abstention [70.83870602967625]
  We develop a principled procedure for determining when a large language model should abstain from responding in a general domain. We leverage conformal prediction techniques to develop an abstention procedure that benefits from rigorous theoretical guarantees on the hallucination rate (error rate) Experimentally, our resulting conformal abstention method reliably bounds the hallucination rate on various closed-book, open-domain generative question answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T11:32:03Z)
• 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)
• Answering Ambiguous Questions via Iterative Prompting [84.3426020642704]
  In open-domain question answering, due to the ambiguity of questions, multiple plausible answers may exist. One approach is to directly predict all valid answers, but this can struggle with balancing relevance and diversity. We present AmbigPrompt to address the imperfections of existing approaches to answering ambiguous questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-08T04:32:17Z)
• Reranking Overgenerated Responses for End-to-End Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems [71.33737787564966]
  End-to-end (E2E) task-oriented dialogue (ToD) systems are prone to fall into the so-called 'likelihood trap' We propose a reranking method which aims to select high-quality items from the lists of responses initially overgenerated by the system. Our methods improve a state-of-the-art E2E ToD system by 2.4 BLEU, 3.2 ROUGE, and 2.8 METEOR scores, achieving new peak results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T15:59:49Z)
• Double Retrieval and Ranking for Accurate Question Answering [120.69820139008138]
  We show that an answer verification step introduced in Transformer-based answer selection models can significantly improve the state of the art in Question Answering. The results on three well-known datasets for AS2 show consistent and significant improvement of the state of the art.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-16T06:20:07Z)

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.