Consensus is Not Verification: Why Crowd Wisdom Strategies Fail for LLM Truthfulness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06612v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 03:35:01 GMT
• Title: Consensus is Not Verification: Why Crowd Wisdom Strategies Fail for LLM Truthfulness
• Abstract summary: Pass@k and other methods of scaling inference compute can improve language model performance in domains with external verifiers.<n>We show that across five benchmarks and models, surprisingly, it cannot.<n>We find that under uncertainty, models are better at predicting what other models will say within model ensembles than at identifying what is true.
• Score: 30.401369966789915
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Pass@k and other methods of scaling inference compute can improve language model performance in domains with external verifiers, including mathematics and code, where incorrect candidates can be filtered reliably. This raises a natural question: can we similarly scale compute to elicit gains in truthfulness for domains without convenient verification? We show that across five benchmarks and models, surprisingly, it cannot. Even at 25x the inference cost of naive sampling, polling-style aggregation yields no consistent accuracy gains over single-sample baselines and often amplifies shared misconceptions. We find that under uncertainty, models are better at predicting what other models will say within model ensembles than at identifying what is true, revealing a separation between social prediction and truth verification. Across models and benchmarks, aggregation fails to provide a robust truth signal because language model errors are strongly correlated. The source of correlation goes beyond any individual benchmark: we show that even when conditioned on out of distribution random strings and asked to produce pseudo-random outputs, different models produce correlated outputs. Confidence-based weighting provides no benefit because self-reported confidence fails to reliably distinguish correct from incorrect answers. These results delineate a boundary for inference-time scaling: in verified domains, additional samples provide more candidates for a verifier to filter; in unverified domains, additional samples merely reinforce shared misconceptions.

Related papers

• DirEAG: Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation for Calibrating Verbalized Confidence in Mathematical Reasoning [2.867517731896504]
  Black-box verbalized confidence is difficult to calibrate in large language models.<n>We propose DirEAG, a Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation method that converts each elicited answer-confidence observation into calibrated soft evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T03:48:25Z)
• How Useful is Causal Invariance for Domain Adaptation in Finite-Sample Settings? [58.740078141879984]
  Machine learning models often degrade when they are deployed on a target distribution that differs from the source distributions they were trained on.<n>Recent work in causality-based domain generalization has shown how shared causal structure can induce invariant predictors.<n>In this paper, we study when full or partial causal knowledge can provably improve supervised domain adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T21:07:49Z)
• Trust, but Don't Verify: Epistemic Blind Spots in LLM Source Evaluation [0.0]
  We show that models possess the capability to detect fabricated statistics but do not recruit this capability during multi-source synthesis.<n>Specifically, source influence is governed by a methodology-register gate that responds to the distributional register of analytical text but not to numeric validity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T20:15:48Z)
• Clustered Self-Assessment: A Simple yet Effective Method for Uncertainty Quantification in Large Language Models [44.59799077650502]
  We propose a simple yet effective self-assessment method for uncertainty quantification in large language models.<n>Our approach groups sampled generations into semantically distinct clusters, converts them into answer options in a structured multiple-choice question, and uses the probability assigned by the model to each option as a confidence estimate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T16:25:54Z)
• Can LLMs Detect Their Confabulations? Estimating Reliability in Uncertainty-Aware Language Models [24.72990207218907]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to generating fluent but incorrect content, known as confabulation.<n>We investigate how in-context information influences model behavior and whether LLMs can identify their unreliable responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T16:12:36Z)
• Inference Scaling fLaws: The Limits of LLM Resampling with Imperfect Verifiers [13.823743787003787]
  Recent research has generated hope that inference scaling could allow weaker language models to match or exceed the accuracy of stronger models.<n>We show that no amount of inference scaling of weaker models can enable them to match the single-sample accuracy of a sufficiently strong model.<n>We also show that beyond accuracy, false positives may have other undesirable qualities, such as poor adherence to coding style conventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T15:13:06Z)
• 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)
• Birds of a Feather Trust Together: Knowing When to Trust a Classifier via Adaptive Neighborhood Aggregation [30.34223543030105]
  We show how NeighborAgg can leverage the two essential information via an adaptive neighborhood aggregation. We also extend our approach to the closely related task of mislabel detection and provide a theoretical coverage guarantee to bound the false negative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T18:43:15Z)
• Predicting Out-of-Domain Generalization with Neighborhood Invariance [59.05399533508682]
  We propose a measure of a classifier's output invariance in a local transformation neighborhood. Our measure is simple to calculate, does not depend on the test point's true label, and can be applied even in out-of-domain (OOD) settings. In experiments on benchmarks in image classification, sentiment analysis, and natural language inference, we demonstrate a strong and robust correlation between our measure and actual OOD generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T14:55:16Z)
• Training on Test Data with Bayesian Adaptation for Covariate Shift [96.3250517412545]
  Deep neural networks often make inaccurate predictions with unreliable uncertainty estimates. We derive a Bayesian model that provides for a well-defined relationship between unlabeled inputs under distributional shift and model parameters. We show that our method improves both accuracy and uncertainty estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T01:09:08Z)
• Predicting with Confidence on Unseen Distributions [90.68414180153897]
  We connect domain adaptation and predictive uncertainty literature to predict model accuracy on challenging unseen distributions. We find that the difference of confidences (DoC) of a classifier's predictions successfully estimates the classifier's performance change over a variety of shifts. We specifically investigate the distinction between synthetic and natural distribution shifts and observe that despite its simplicity DoC consistently outperforms other quantifications of distributional difference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T15:50:18Z)
• Unlabelled Data Improves Bayesian Uncertainty Calibration under Covariate Shift [100.52588638477862]
  We develop an approximate Bayesian inference scheme based on posterior regularisation. We demonstrate the utility of our method in the context of transferring prognostic models of prostate cancer across globally diverse populations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T13:50:19Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

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.