Uncertainty-Aware Trust Estimation for Multi-LLM Systems via Structured Expert Judgement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20529v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:47:05 GMT
• Title: Uncertainty-Aware Trust Estimation for Multi-LLM Systems via Structured Expert Judgement
• Abstract summary: We formulate multi-LLM aggregation as a problem of uncertainty-aware trust estimation.<n>We employ Cooke-style log weighting, which penalises overconfident incorrect predictions.<n>We evaluate our approach on MMLU and MMLU-Pro across homogeneous, heterogeneous, and contaminated expert panels.
• Score: 4.972323953932128
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles are increasingly used to improve reliability by combining predictions from multiple LLMs. However, existing aggregation methods typically assume that all models are equally trustworthy, overlooking differences in uncertainty quality. This assumption is poorly suited to heterogeneous LLMs, whose reliability and capability vary significantly, making naive aggregation vulnerable to unreliable or adversarial experts. In this work, we formulate multi-LLM aggregation as a problem of uncertainty-aware trust estimation. We adapt structured expert judgment from decision theory, using context-aware calibration questions to estimate expert reliability based on the quality of its probabilistic predictions. Specifically, we employ Cooke-style log weighting, which penalises overconfident incorrect predictions and favours well-calibrated experts. We evaluate our approach on MMLU and MMLU-Pro across homogeneous, heterogeneous, and contaminated expert panels. Results show that while aggregation methods perform similarly in homogeneous settings, Cooke weighting becomes critical under heterogeneity and contamination. It achieves a superior accuracy-reliability balance and remains robust when unreliable experts are introduced. These findings suggest that Multi-LLM aggregation requires not just combining predictions, but calibrating trust under uncertainty.

Related papers

• Trustworthy Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction via Reliability-Aware Multi-Engine Fusion [17.232816400275727]
  We introduce RELIABLE-BA, a framework for multi-engine binding affinity prediction.<n>Experiments on the PDBBind and BDB 2020+ benchmarks demonstrate competitive point prediction with substantially improved uncertainty calibration.<n>These uncertainty estimates enable reliable filtering of protein-ligand pairs, reducing prediction error by up to 25% when retaining only high-confidence pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T06:42:49Z)
• Instinct vs. Reflection: Unifying Token and Verbalized Confidence in Multimodal Large Models [11.878003218072765]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in various perception and reasoning tasks.<n>We propose a monotone confidence fusion framework to merge dual-channel signals and cross-channel consistency to estimate correctness.<n>Experiments on diverse open-source and closed-source MLLMs show that our method consistently yields more reliable confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T06:07:39Z)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Beyond Hallucinations: A Composite Score for Measuring Reliability in Open-Source Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-critical domains such as healthcare, law, and finance.<n>They often make overconfident errors, degrade under input shifts, and lack clear uncertainty estimates.<n>We introduce the Composite Reliability Score (CRS), a unified framework that integrates calibration, robustness, and uncertainty quantification into a single interpretable metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-30T08:07:28Z)
• Towards Reliable LLM-based Robot Planning via Combined Uncertainty Estimation [68.106428321492]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate advanced reasoning abilities, enabling robots to understand natural language instructions and generate high-level plans with appropriate grounding.<n>LLMs hallucinations present a significant challenge, often leading to overconfident yet potentially misaligned or unsafe plans.<n>We present Combined Uncertainty estimation for Reliable Embodied planning (CURE), which decomposes the uncertainty into epistemic and intrinsic uncertainty, each estimated separately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T10:26:58Z)
• Extracting Uncertainty Estimates from Mixtures of Experts for Semantic Segmentation [9.817102014355617]
  We show that well-calibrated predictive uncertainty estimates can be extracted from a mixture of experts (MoE) without architectural modifications.<n>Our results show that MoEs yield more reliable uncertainty estimates than ensembles in terms of conditional correctness metrics.<n>Our experiments on the Cityscapes dataset suggest that increasing the number of experts can further enhance uncertainty calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T05:30:53Z)
• Simple Yet Effective: An Information-Theoretic Approach to Multi-LLM Uncertainty Quantification [9.397157329808254]
  MUSE is a simple information-theoretic method to identify and aggregate well-calibrated subsets of large language models.<n> Experiments on binary prediction tasks demonstrate improved calibration and predictive performance compared to single-model and na"ive ensemble baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T19:13:25Z)
• Probabilistic Modeling of Disparity Uncertainty for Robust and Efficient Stereo Matching [61.73532883992135]
  We propose a new uncertainty-aware stereo matching framework.<n>We adopt Bayes risk as the measurement of uncertainty and use it to separately estimate data and model uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T23:28:20Z)
• 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)
• Revisiting Confidence Estimation: Towards Reliable Failure Prediction [53.79160907725975]
  We find a general, widely existing but actually-neglected phenomenon that most confidence estimation methods are harmful for detecting misclassification errors. We propose to enlarge the confidence gap by finding flat minima, which yields state-of-the-art failure prediction performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T11:44:14Z)
• 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)
• ELFNet: Evidential Local-global Fusion for Stereo Matching [17.675146012208124]
  We introduce the textbfEvidential textbfLocal-global textbfFusion (ELF) framework for stereo matching. It endows both uncertainty estimation and confidence-aware fusion with trustworthy heads.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T15:51:04Z)

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.