EdgeJury: Cross-Reviewed Small-Model Ensembles for Truthful Question Answering on Serverless Edge Inference
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00850v1
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:48:40 GMT
- Title: EdgeJury: Cross-Reviewed Small-Model Ensembles for Truthful Question Answering on Serverless Edge Inference
- Authors: Aayush Kumar,
- Abstract summary: We present EdgeJury, a lightweight ensemble framework that improves truthfulness and robustness.<n>On TruthfulQA (MC1), EdgeJury achieves 76.2% accuracy.<n>On a 200-question adversarial EdgeCases set, EdgeJury yields +48.2% relative gains.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Hallucinations hinder reliable question answering, especially in resource-constrained deployments where frontier-scale models or retrieval pipelines may be impractical. We present EdgeJury, a lightweight ensemble framework that improves truthfulness and robustness using only small instruction-tuned language models (3B-8B) suitable for serverless edge inference. EdgeJury orchestrates four stages: (1) parallel role-specialized generation, (2) anonymized cross-review with structured critiques and rankings, (3) chairman synthesis that integrates the strongest content while addressing flagged issues, and (4) claim-level consistency labeling based on inter-model agreement. On TruthfulQA (MC1), EdgeJury achieves 76.2% accuracy (95% CI: 72.8-79.6%), a +21.4% relative improvement over a single 8B baseline (62.8%), and outperforms standard baselines including self-consistency and majority voting under transparent compute accounting (total tokens and platform cost reported). On a 200-question adversarial EdgeCases set, EdgeJury yields +48.2% relative gains (95% CI: 44.0-52.4%). Manual analysis on 100 incorrect answers shows an approximately 55% reduction in factual hallucination errors versus the single-model baseline. Deployed on Cloudflare Workers AI, EdgeJury achieves 8.4 s median end-to-end latency, demonstrating that coordinated small-model ensembles can improve truthfulness on misconception-heavy QA benchmarks without external retrieval or proprietary large-model APIs.
Related papers
- When Shallow Wins: Silent Failures and the Depth-Accuracy Paradox in Latent Reasoning [16.505918019260964]
We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable predictions.<n>We show that 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-03T19:43:36Z) - Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters [169.7981969517903]
Step 3.5 Flash bridges frontier-level agentic intelligence and computational efficiency.<n>We focus on what matters most when building agents: sharp reasoning and fast, reliable execution.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-11T07:53:51Z) - ACAR: Adaptive Complexity Routing for Multi-Model Ensembles with Auditable Decision Traces [3.151184728006369]
We present ACAR, a measurement framework for studying multi-model orchestration under auditable conditions.<n>ACAR uses self-consistency variance (sigma) computed from N=3 probe samples to route tasks across single-model, two-model, and three-model execution modes.<n>We evaluate ACAR on 1,510 tasks spanning four benchmarks, producing more than 7,550 auditable runs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-06T23:27:17Z) - Assessing LLM Reliability on Temporally Recent Open-Domain Questions [15.456770184839726]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for open-domain question answering.<n>We investigate how four open-source LLMs respond to 15,000 recent Reddit questions.<n>All models achieve over 99% cosine similarity with references despite less than 8% BLEU-1 overlap.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-17T21:33:27Z) - Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z) - Fortytwo: Swarm Inference with Peer-Ranked Consensus [36.94429692322632]
We present Fortytwo, a novel protocol that leverages swarm intelligence principles and distributed pairwise ranking consensus to achieve superior performance in AI inference.<n>Using pairwise ranking with a custom Bradley-Terry-style aggregation model, we demonstrate that swarm inference substantially outperforms majority voting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-27T23:19:48Z) - A Multimodal Approach to Heritage Preservation in the Context of Climate Change [0.0]
We propose a lightweight multimodal architecture that fuses sensor data (temperature, humidity) with visual imagery to predict severity at heritage sites.<n>On data from Strasbourg Cathedral, our model achieves 76.9% accu- racy, a 43% improvement over standard multimodal architectures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-15T22:07:57Z) - CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z) - Think Right: Learning to Mitigate Under-Over Thinking via Adaptive, Attentive Compression [68.69801176669843]
We propose an online post-training RL method that prunes redundant steps and estimates difficulty.<n> TRAAC (Think Right with Adaptive, Attentive Compression) achieves an average absolute accuracy gain of 8.4%.<n>Although our models are trained on math datasets, they show accuracy and efficiency gains on out-of-distribution non-math datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-02T02:00:20Z) - Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z) - ObjexMT: Objective Extraction and Metacognitive Calibration for LLM-as-a-Judge under Multi-Turn Jailbreaks [12.396822247035578]
We present exMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition.<n>Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must output a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence.<n> Accuracy is scored by similarity to gold objectives, then thresholded once on 300 calibration items.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-23T03:32:04Z) - A Confidence-Diversity Framework for Calibrating AI Judgement in Accessible Qualitative Coding Tasks [0.0]
Confidence-diversity calibration is a quality assessment framework for accessible coding tasks.<n>Analysing 5,680 coding decisions from eight state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that mean self-confidence tracks inter-model agreement closely.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-04T03:47:10Z) - Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z) - Advancing LLM Reasoning Generalists with Preference Trees [119.57169648859707]
We introduce Eurus, a suite of large language models (LLMs) optimized for reasoning.
Eurus models achieve state-of-the-art results among open-source models on a diverse set of benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-02T16:25:30Z)
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.