From Stochastic Answers to Verifiable Reasoning: Interpretable Decision-Making with LLM-Generated Code
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13287v1
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 00:27:29 GMT
- Title: From Stochastic Answers to Verifiable Reasoning: Interpretable Decision-Making with LLM-Generated Code
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for high-stakes decisionmaking.<n>Black-box models obscure their reasoning, while recent LLM-based rule systems rely on per-sample evaluation.<n>We propose reframing LLMs as code generators rather than per-instance evaluators.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for high-stakes decision-making, yet existing approaches struggle to reconcile scalability, interpretability, and reproducibility. Black-box models obscure their reasoning, while recent LLM-based rule systems rely on per-sample evaluation, causing costs to scale with dataset size and introducing stochastic, hallucination-prone outputs. We propose reframing LLMs as code generators rather than per-instance evaluators. A single LLM call generates executable, human-readable decision logic that runs deterministically over structured data, eliminating per-sample LLM queries while enabling reproducible and auditable predictions. We combine code generation with automated statistical validation using precision lift, binomial significance testing, and coverage filtering, and apply cluster-based gap analysis to iteratively refine decision logic without human annotation. We instantiate this framework in venture capital founder screening, a rare-event prediction task with strong interpretability requirements. On VCBench, a benchmark of 4,500 founders with a 9% base success rate, our approach achieves 37.5% precision and an F0.5 score of 25.0%, outperforming GPT-4o (at 30.0% precision and an F0.5 score of 25.7%) while maintaining full interpretability. Each prediction traces to executable rules over human-readable attributes, demonstrating verifiable and interpretable LLM-based decision-making in practice.
Related papers
- LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z) - CauTion: Knowing When to Trust LLMs for Ensemble Causal Discovery [51.07538881798502]
Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising source of domain knowledge to complement statistical inference.<n>We propose CauTion, a framework that reliably integrates LLM domain knowledge into an ensemble of statistical causal discovery algorithms.<n>CauTion consistently outperforms both data-centric and LLM-augmented baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-02T13:07:43Z) - Confident Rankings with Fewer Items: Adaptive LLM Evaluation with Continuous Scores [25.638175689769934]
We present a principled extension of IRT-based adaptive testing to continuous bounded scores (ROUGE, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge)<n>We introduce an uncertainty aware ranker with adaptive stopping criteria that achieves reliable model ranking while testing as few items as possible.<n>Our method uses 2% of the items while improving ranking correlation by 0.12 over random sampling, with 95% accuracy on confident predictions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-20T11:59:13Z) - Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z) - LLM-AR: LLM-powered Automated Reasoning Framework [0.0]
Large language models (LLMs) can already identify patterns and reason effectively, yet their variable accuracy hampers adoption in high-stakes decision-making applications.<n>We introduce LLM-AR, a pipeline inspired by neural-symbolic systems that distils LLM-generateds into probabilistic rules executed by the ProbLog automated-reasoning engine.<n>On unseen folds, LLM-AR achieves 59.5% precision and 8.7% recall, 5.9x the random baseline precision, while exposing every decision path for human inspection.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-24T21:36:18Z) - Clotho: Measuring Task-Specific Pre-Generation Test Adequacy for LLM Inputs [6.862079218077768]
Testing Large Language Models on specific tasks is difficult and costly.<n>A key challenge is to assess input adequacy in a way that reflects the demands of the task.<n>We introduce CLOTHO, a task-specific, pre-generation adequacy measure.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-22T02:34:09Z) - A Judge-free LLM Open-ended Generation Benchmark Based on the Distributional Hypothesis [1.5802986215292303]
We propose a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) using n-gram statistics and rules.<n>Using 50 question and reference answer sets, we introduce three new metrics based on n-grams and rules: Fluency, Truthfulness, and Helpfulness.<n>Our benchmark strongly correlates with GPT-4o-based evaluations while requiring significantly fewer computational resources.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-13T13:30:54Z) - 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) - Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks.
We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers.
We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z) - CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark.
In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship.
We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z) - 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) - LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits.
Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance.
The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
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.