Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15416v1
• Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 21:01:05 GMT
• Title: Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement
• Abstract summary: Jung et al. (2025) introduce a hypothesis testing framework for guaranteeing agreement between large language models and human judgments.<n>We learn a dedicated confidence estimator instead of relying on confidence signals.<n>When integrated into fixed-sequence testing, the learned confidence estimator yields improved ranking accuracy and empirically strengthens the monotonic relationship between confidence and disagreement risk.
• Score: 19.892445164810987
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Jung et al. (2025) introduce a hypothesis testing framework for guaranteeing agreement between large language models (LLMs) and human judgments, relying on the assumption that the model's estimated confidence is monotonic with respect to human-disagreement risk. In practice, however, this assumption may be violated, and the generalization behavior of the confidence estimator is not explicitly analyzed. We mitigate these issues by learning a dedicated confidence estimator instead of relying on heuristic confidence signals. Our approach leverages simulated annotator diversity and a margin-based ranking formulation to explicitly model how confidently an LLM distinguishes between human-agreement and human-disagreement cases. We further derive generalization guarantees for this estimator, revealing a margin-dependent trade-off that informs the design of an adaptive estimator training procedure. When integrated into fixed-sequence testing, the learned confidence estimator yields improved ranking accuracy and empirically strengthens the monotonic relationship between confidence and disagreement risk, leading to higher success rates in satisfying target agreement levels across multiple datasets and judge models.

Related papers

• Aligning LLM Uncertainty with Human Disagreement in Subjectivity Analysis [57.78407973423517]
  We advocate uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis, where models are expected to make predictions while expressing uncertainty that reflects human disagreement.<n>To operationalize this perspective, we propose a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment framework.<n> Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks show that DPUA preserves task performance while better aligning model uncertainty with human disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T11:52:58Z)
• Confidence Estimation in Automatic Short Answer Grading with LLMs [0.0]
  Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) with generative large language models (LLMs) has recently demonstrated strong performance without task-specific fine-tuning.<n>LLMs-based grading remains imperfect, making reliable confidence estimates essential for safe and effective human-AI collaboration.<n>We propose a hybrid confidence framework that integrates model-based confidence signals with an explicit estimate of dataset-derived aleatoric uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T20:26:10Z)
• Process Supervision of Confidence Margin for Calibrated LLM Reasoning [52.373121066425455]
  Scaling test-time computation with reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a reliable path to improve large language models (LLM) reasoning ability.<n>Yet, outcome-based reward often incentivizes models to be overconfident, leading to hallucinations, unreliable confidence-based control, and unnecessary compute allocation.<n>We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Confidence Margin (textbfRLCM), a calibration-aware RL framework that jointly optimize correctness and confidence reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T14:40:13Z)
• Less Approximates More: Harmonizing Performance and Confidence Faithfulness via Hybrid Post-Training for High-Stakes Tasks [52.81286869496811]
  Large language models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes tasks, where confident yet incorrect inferences may cause real-world harm.<n>We propose to jointly optimize unsupervised Reinforcement Learning from Internal Feedback with reasoning-trace-guided Reasoning Distillation.<n>We introduce HyTuning, a hybrid post-training framework that adaptively reweights RD and RLIF via a PRG-style metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T16:50:11Z)
• BAS: A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Evaluating Large Language Model Confidence [22.382291859991472]
  We introduce the Behavioral Alignment Score (BAS), a decision-theoretic metric for evaluating how well large language models support abstention-aware decision making.<n>BAS is derived from an explicit answer-or-abstain utility model and aggregates realized utility across a continuum of risk thresholds.<n>We show theoretically that truthful confidence estimates uniquely maximize expected BAS utility, linking calibration to decision-optimal behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T17:44:32Z)
• BrowseConf: Confidence-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Web Agents [58.05949210993854]
  We investigate whether search agents have the ability to communicate their own confidence through verbalized confidence scores after long sequences of actions.<n>We propose Test-Time Scaling (TTS) methods that use confidence scores to determine answer quality, encourage the model to try again until reaching a satisfactory confidence level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:58:51Z)
• Calibrating Verbalized Confidence with Self-Generated Distractors [24.56911906044891]
  We introduce Distractor-Normalized Coherence (DINCO)<n>DINCO estimates and accounts for an LLM's suggestibility bias by having the model its confidence independently across several self-generated distractors.<n>We frame the popular approach of self-consistency as leveraging coherence across sampled generations, and normalized verbalized confidence as leveraging coherence across validations on incompatible claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T21:41:22Z)
• Mind the Generation Process: Fine-Grained Confidence Estimation During LLM Generation [63.49409574310576]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit overconfidence, assigning high confidence scores to incorrect predictions.<n>We introduce FineCE, a novel confidence estimation method that delivers accurate, fine-grained confidence scores during text generation.<n>Our code and all baselines used in the paper are available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-16T13:29:35Z)
• Rewarding Doubt: A Reinforcement Learning Approach to Calibrated Confidence Expression of Large Language Models [34.59785123314865]
  A safe and trustworthy use of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires an accurate expression of confidence in their answers.<n>We propose a novel Reinforcement Learning approach that allows to directly fine-tune LLMs to express calibrated confidence estimates alongside their answers to factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T13:48:50Z)
• Language Models Prefer What They Know: Relative Confidence Estimation via Confidence Preferences [62.52739672949452]
  Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary.<n>We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence.<n>Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T07:43:27Z)
• Confidence Under the Hood: An Investigation into the Confidence-Probability Alignment in Large Language Models [14.5291643644017]
  We introduce the concept of Confidence-Probability Alignment. We probe the alignment between models' internal and expressed confidence. Among the models analyzed, OpenAI's GPT-4 showed the strongest confidence-probability alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T15:42:04Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)

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.