Cross-Model Disagreement as a Label-Free Correctness Signal

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25450v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:46:22 GMT
• Title: Cross-Model Disagreement as a Label-Free Correctness Signal
• Abstract summary: Cross-model disagreement is a correctness indicator that can be dropped into existing production systems.<n>No generation from the verifying model is required, and no correctness labels are needed.<n>Results establish cross-model disagreement as a practical, training-free approach to label-free correctness estimation.
• Score: 10.66607150500579
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Detecting when a language model is wrong without ground truth labels is a fundamental challenge for safe deployment. Existing approaches rely on a model's own uncertainty -- such as token entropy or confidence scores -- but these signals fail critically on the most dangerous failure mode: confident errors, where a model is wrong but certain. In this work we introduce cross-model disagreement as a correctness indicator -- a simple, training-free signal that can be dropped into existing production systems, routing pipelines, and deployment monitoring infrastructure without modification. Given a model's generated answer, cross-model disagreement computes how surprised or uncertain a second verifier model is when reading that answer via a single forward pass. No generation from the verifying model is required, and no correctness labels are needed. We instantiate this principle as Cross-Model Perplexity (CMP), which measures the verifying model's surprise at the generating model's answer tokens, and Cross-Model Entropy (CME), which measures the verifying model's uncertainty at those positions. Both CMP and CME outperform within-model uncertainty baselines across benchmarks spanning reasoning, retrieval, and mathematical problem solving (MMLU, TriviaQA, and GSM8K). On MMLU, CMP achieves a mean AUROC of 0.75 against a within-model entropy baseline of 0.59. These results establish cross-model disagreement as a practical, training-free approach to label-free correctness estimation, with direct applications in deployment monitoring, model routing, selective prediction, data filtering, and scalable oversight of production language model systems.

Related papers

• The Knowing-Saying Gap: When Probes See Errors that Confidence Misses [20.46211358172975]
  Linear probes detect corrupted context in language models with near-perfect accuracy, yet this does not translate into reliable failure prediction.<n>Across multi-hop arithmetic chains, probes that detect corruption turn out to be uninformative about final answer correctness.<n>As a real-time monitor, probe-based interventions are sharply model and error-type dependent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T12:13:10Z)
• CIAware-Bench: Benchmarking Control Intervention Awareness Across Frontier LLMs [100.38986535324284]
  We introduce textbfCIAware-Bench, a benchmark for measuring textbfcontrol textbfintervention (CI) awareness across frontier models.<n>CIAware-Bench tests whether models can distinguish their own trajectories from those modified by a control intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T16:24:16Z)
• Evidential Transformation Network: Turning Pretrained Models into Evidential Models for Post-hoc Uncertainty Estimation [21.687249397347017]
  We propose the Evidential Transformation Network (ETN), a lightweight post-hoc module that converts a pretrained predictor into an evidential model.<n>ETN consistently improves uncertainty estimation over post-hoc baselines while preserving accuracy and adding only minimal computational overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T16:09:47Z)
• Certainty-Validity: A Diagnostic Framework for Discrete Commitment Systems [0.0]
  "Machine learning evaluation metrics" assume that all errors are equivalent discrete commitment systems.<n>"ConfidentIncorrect" behavior is where models hallucinate structure in ambiguous data.<n>"Good training" for reasoning systems must be defined not by accuracy but by maximizing the Certainty-Validity Score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:53:02Z)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• Trust the Model Where It Trusts Itself -- Model-Based Actor-Critic with Uncertainty-Aware Rollout Adaption [4.664767161598515]
  Dyna-style model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) combines model-free agents with predictive transition models through model-based rollouts. We propose an easy-to-tune rollout mechanism and substantial improvements in data efficiency and performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T11:53:07Z)
• The Implicit Delta Method [61.36121543728134]
  In this paper, we propose an alternative, the implicit delta method, which works by infinitesimally regularizing the training loss of uncertainty. We show that the change in the evaluation due to regularization is consistent for the variance of the evaluation estimator, even when the infinitesimal change is approximated by a finite difference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T19:34:17Z)
• Mismatched No More: Joint Model-Policy Optimization for Model-Based RL [172.37829823752364]
  We propose a single objective for jointly training the model and the policy, such that updates to either component increases a lower bound on expected return. Our objective is a global lower bound on expected return, and this bound becomes tight under certain assumptions. The resulting algorithm (MnM) is conceptually similar to a GAN.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-06T13:43:27Z)
• 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)
• Momentum Pseudo-Labeling for Semi-Supervised Speech Recognition [55.362258027878966]
  We present momentum pseudo-labeling (MPL) as a simple yet effective strategy for semi-supervised speech recognition. MPL consists of a pair of online and offline models that interact and learn from each other, inspired by the mean teacher method. The experimental results demonstrate that MPL effectively improves over the base model and is scalable to different semi-supervised scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-16T16:24:55Z)
• Probing Model Signal-Awareness via Prediction-Preserving Input Minimization [67.62847721118142]
  We evaluate models' ability to capture the correct vulnerability signals to produce their predictions. We measure the signal awareness of models using a new metric we propose- Signal-aware Recall (SAR) The results show a sharp drop in the model's Recall from the high 90s to sub-60s with the new metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-25T20:05:23Z)
• Model Assertions for Monitoring and Improving ML Models [26.90089824436192]
  We propose a new abstraction, model assertions, that adapts the classical use of program assertions as a way to monitor and improve ML models. Model assertions are arbitrary functions over a model's input and output that indicate when errors may be occurring. We propose methods of using model assertions at all stages of ML system deployment, including runtime monitoring, validating labels, and continuously improving ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-03T17:49:49Z)

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.