Beyond Hallucinations: A Composite Score for Measuring Reliability in Open-Source Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24058v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 08:07:28 GMT
• Title: Beyond Hallucinations: A Composite Score for Measuring Reliability in Open-Source Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-critical domains such as healthcare, law, and finance.<n>They often make overconfident errors, degrade under input shifts, and lack clear uncertainty estimates.<n>We introduce the Composite Reliability Score (CRS), a unified framework that integrates calibration, robustness, and uncertainty quantification into a single interpretable metric.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) like LLaMA, Mistral, and Gemma are increasingly used in decision-critical domains such as healthcare, law, and finance, yet their reliability remains uncertain. They often make overconfident errors, degrade under input shifts, and lack clear uncertainty estimates. Existing evaluations are fragmented, addressing only isolated aspects. We introduce the Composite Reliability Score (CRS), a unified framework that integrates calibration, robustness, and uncertainty quantification into a single interpretable metric. Through experiments on ten leading open-source LLMs across five QA datasets, we assess performance under baselines, perturbations, and calibration methods. CRS delivers stable model rankings, uncovers hidden failure modes missed by single metrics, and highlights that the most dependable systems balance accuracy, robustness, and calibrated uncertainty.

Related papers

• Conformal Changepoint Localization and Root Cause Analysis with Corrupted Observations [55.76952683833966]
  This paper proposes weighted CONCH (W-CONCH) and weighted CROC (W-CROC) to reduce confidence set size when data may be corrupted.<n>Experiments on image-based and real-world changepoint and root-cause benchmarks show that uncertainty-based weighting substantially reduces confidence set size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T05:16:59Z)
• Reliability Scaling Laws for Quantized Large Language Models [68.39028482878265]
  Quantization is a strategy to build capable and resource-efficient large language models (LLMs) by reducing the bitwidth of the parameters.<n>We first conduct a comprehensive reliability evaluation of quantized LLMs consisting of three key components.<n>A reliability peak occurs for 4-bit quantized models, indicating that quantizing moderately sized models offers the best reliability-efficiency trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-12T17:39:09Z)
• Discovery of Hidden Miscalibration Regimes [52.452902154360565]
  Models may be systematically overconfident on some kinds of inputs and underconfident on others.<n>We define the corresponding miscalibration field and propose a diagnostic framework for estimating it.<n>Our approach learns a calibration-aware representation of the input space and estimates signed local miscalibration by kernel smoothing in the learned geometry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T13:07:50Z)
• A Semantic-Sampling Framework for Evaluating Calibration in Open-Ended Question Answering [19.55210880950831]
  Expected measures whether a model's predicted confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy, and is central to the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce Sem-ECE, a calibration evaluation framework for open-ended question answering (QA)<n>We study two estimators within framework: Sem$$-ECE, the same-sample self-consistency score, and Sem$$-ECE, a held-out variant that separates answer selection from confidence evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T19:53:49Z)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Uncertainty and Fairness Awareness in LLM-Based Recommendation Systems [3.937681476010311]
  This paper studies how uncertainty and fairness evaluations affect the accuracy, consistency, and trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs)<n>We quantify predictive uncertainty (via entropy) and demonstrate that Google DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Flash exhibits systematic unfairness for certain sensitive attributes.<n>We propose a novel uncertainty-aware evaluation methodology for RecLLMs, present empirical insights from deep uncertainty case studies, and introduce a personality profile-informed fairness benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T17:18:13Z)
• Rubric-Conditioned LLM Grading: Alignment, Uncertainty, and Robustness [4.129847064263056]
  We systematically evaluate the performance of Large Language Models for rubric-based short-answer grading.<n>We find that alignment is strong for binary tasks but degrades with increased rubric granularity.<n>Experiments reveal that while the model is resilient to prompt injection, it is sensitive to synonym substitutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T05:22:04Z)
• ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM Reasoning [2.1461777157838724]
  We introduce ReasonBENCH, the first benchmark designed to quantify the underlying instability in large language models (LLMs) reasoning.<n>Across tasks from different domains, we find that the vast majority of reasoning strategies and models exhibit high instability.<n>We further analyze the impact of prompts, model families, and scale on the trade-off between solve rate and stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T18:26:58Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: An Empirical Study of Uncertainty Estimation in Imputation [0.5524804393257919]
  imputation methods differ in how they represent and quantify uncertainty.<n>Uncertainty is estimated through three complementary routes: multi-run variability, conditional sampling, and predictive-distribution modeling.<n>We analyze method-specific trade-offs among accuracy calibration, runtime, identify stable configurations, and offer guidelines for selecting uncertainty-aware imputers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T17:27:59Z)
• MaP: A Unified Framework for Reliable Evaluation of Pre-training Dynamics [72.00014675808228]
  Instability in Large Language Models evaluation process obscures true learning dynamics.<n>We introduce textbfMaP, a framework that integrates underlineMerging underlineand the underlinePass@k metric.<n>Experiments show that MaP yields significantly smoother performance curves, reduces inter-run variance, and ensures more consistent rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T11:40:27Z)
• MetaFaith: Faithful Natural Language Uncertainty Expression in LLMs [66.14178164421794]
  We introduce MetaFaith, a novel prompt-based calibration approach inspired by human metacognition.<n>We show that MetaFaith robustly improves faithful calibration across diverse models and task domains, enabling up to 61% improvement in faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:54:08Z)
• Data-Driven Calibration of Prediction Sets in Large Vision-Language Models Based on Inductive Conformal Prediction [0.0]
  We propose a model-agnostic uncertainty quantification method that integrates dynamic threshold calibration and cross-modal consistency verification.<n>We show that the framework achieves stable performance across varying calibration-to-test split ratios, underscoring its robustness for real-world deployment in healthcare, autonomous systems, and other safety-sensitive domains.<n>This work bridges the gap between theoretical reliability and practical applicability in multi-modal AI systems, offering a scalable solution for hallucination detection and uncertainty-aware decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T15:39:46Z)
• MCQA-Eval: Efficient Confidence Evaluation in NLG with Gold-Standard Correctness Labels [16.300463494913593]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) require robust confidence estimation.<n>McQCA-Eval is an evaluation framework for assessing confidence measures in Natural Language Generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:09:29Z)
• Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models [0.6091702876917281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable proficiency in natural language tasks.<n>Overconfidence-misalignment between predicted confidence and true correctness poses significant risks in critical decision-making applications.<n>We present a comprehensive analysis on calibration in LLMs across nine LLMs and three factual Question-Answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T07:46:09Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency [76.23956851098598]
  We explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. We offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T16:15:20Z)
• Decomposing Uncertainty for Large Language Models through Input Clarification Ensembling [69.83976050879318]
  In large language models (LLMs), identifying sources of uncertainty is an important step toward improving reliability, trustworthiness, and interpretability. In this paper, we introduce an uncertainty decomposition framework for LLMs, called input clarification ensembling. Our approach generates a set of clarifications for the input, feeds them into an LLM, and ensembles the corresponding predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T05:58:35Z)

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.