The Dice Roll Method: A Standardized Protocol for Repeated-Query Auditing of Large Language Model Brand Recommendations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04047v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 16:22:06 GMT
• Title: The Dice Roll Method: A Standardized Protocol for Repeated-Query Auditing of Large Language Model Brand Recommendations
• Abstract summary: We formalize the Dice Roll Method as a reusable protocol for repeated-query auditing of brand recommendations.<n>Three tiers of iteration guidance emerge from the D-study: exploratory, confirmatory, and rigorous.<n>A pre-registered external validation on three independent corpora reproduces the D-study reliability prediction in 37 of 39 cells with no failures.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Background: Researchers increasingly use repeated identical prompts to audit stochastic variation in large language model (LLM) brand recommendations, yet no standardized protocol exists for setting iteration counts, selecting stability metrics, or establishing reliability thresholds. Objective: We formalize the Dice Roll Method as a reusable protocol for repeated-query auditing of LLM brand recommendations, grounded in a generative model of temperature-scaled nucleus sampling. Methods: Total response variance is decomposed into sampling, prompt-phrasing, run-to-run, and model-version components. The stack: a negative-binomial mixed model with iterations as repeated measures; Cliff's delta as the distribution-free effect size; dependence-preserving bootstrap; simulation-based power; a generalizability-theory decomposition; drift diagnostics on pinned snapshots. We reanalyse five brand-recommendation auditing studies: approximately 190,000 observations, 270+ brands, 6 languages, iteration counts 5 to 40. Results: Three tiers of iteration guidance emerge from the D-study: exploratory (n = 5, G = 0.58), confirmatory (n = 10, G = 0.74), and rigorous (n = 15, G = 0.81), tied to effect-size and generalizability targets. The four metric families (count, set, embedding, fairness-adjusted PASOR) are complementary, motivating a compact metric battery over single indicators. A pre-registered external validation on three independent corpora (Motoki et al., 100-round; Rozado, 24 models; llm-stability) reproduces the D-study reliability prediction in 37 of 39 cells with no failures and the n = 5 power value to two decimals; the fixed tiers do not transfer, supporting a pilot-then-solve reading. Conclusion: The protocol gives repeated-query auditing of LLM brand recommendations a statistically principled footing under the conditional, non-Gaussian structure of real autoregressive generation.

Related papers

• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• Modeling Normal Is All You Need: Joint Latent Clustering for Anomaly Detection in Multimodal Cyber-Physical Systems [47.027290803102666]
  Normal behaviour is the union of many imbalanced, curved, thin-fringed operating regimes.<n>We model the normal law with a jointly learned latent representation plus explicit Gaussian-mixture mode clustering.<n>We evaluate under a deliberately fair protocol: raw point-wise metrics with no point adjustment, a trivial-detector difficulty split, prevalence-matched F1, and train-normal-only calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T10:10:00Z)
• When Does Learning to Stop Help? A Cost-Aware Study of Early Exits in Reasoning Models [4.8190992438931035]
  LearnStop is a hidden-state-free logistic stopper over prefix-observable features.<n>A trajectory decomposition predicts the regime: learning pays where answers oscillate and correctness evidence is spread.<n>Cost accounting sharpens the picture further -- the same policy that saves 32% of tokens under KV-cache forking costs 121% extra under black-box repeated prefilling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T19:33:42Z)
• What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models [0.0]
  Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter.<n>We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks.<n>We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion.<n>Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T20:05:08Z)
• The Surprising Universality of LLM Outputs: A Real-Time Verification Primitive [0.0]
  CPU-only scoring primitive runs at 2.6 microseconds per token.<n> token rank-frequency distributions converge to the same two- parameter Mandelbrot ranking distribution.<n>We derive a single-pass scoring primitive that composes with model log probabilities when available and degrades to a rank-only mode usable on closed APIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T13:35:31Z)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• Beyond Final Answers: CRYSTAL Benchmark for Transparent Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation [3.23600523782706]
  We introduce CRYSTAL (Clear Reasoning via Yielded Steps, Traceability, and Logic), a diagnostic benchmark with 6,372 instances that evaluates multimodal reasoning.<n>We propose two complementary metrics: Match F1, which scores step-level precision and recall via semantic similarity matching, and Ordered Match F1, which penalizes disordered reasoning chains.<n>CPR-Curriculum achieves a 32% improvement in Match F1 via GRPO where additive reward strategies fail, improving reasoning without manual step annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T15:48:15Z)
• Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching [66.39914384073145]
  We propose a self-consistency framework that turns cheap diffusion-sampled reasoning into a reusable pool of step-level candidates.<n>We find that step-level recombination is most beneficial on harder problems.<n>Our training-free framework improves average accuracy by up to 2 across six math and coding tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T11:08:39Z)
• ACAR: Adaptive Complexity Routing for Multi-Model Ensembles with Auditable Decision Traces [3.151184728006369]
  We present ACAR, a measurement framework for studying multi-model orchestration under auditable conditions.<n>ACAR uses self-consistency variance (sigma) computed from N=3 probe samples to route tasks across single-model, two-model, and three-model execution modes.<n>We evaluate ACAR on 1,510 tasks spanning four benchmarks, producing more than 7,550 auditable runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T23:27:17Z)
• Large Language Models Are Bad Dice Players: LLMs Struggle to Generate Random Numbers from Statistical Distributions [50.1404916337174]
  We present the first large-scale, statistically powered audit of native probabilistic sampling in large language models (LLMs)<n>We show that batch generation achieves only modest statistical validity, with a 13% median pass rate, while independent requests collapse almost entirely.<n>We conclude that current LLMs lack a functional internal sampler, necessitating the use of external tools for applications requiring statistical guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T22:33:12Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling [81.34900892130929]
  We explore inference compute as another axis for scaling, using the simple technique of repeatedly sampling candidate solutions from a model.<n>Across multiple tasks and models, we observe that coverage scales with the number of samples over four orders of magnitude.<n>In domains like coding and formal proofs, where answers can be automatically verified, these increases in coverage directly translate into improved performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:57:25Z)
• AvgOut: A Simple Output-Probability Measure to Eliminate Dull Responses [97.50616524350123]
  We build dialogue models that are dynamically aware of what utterances or tokens are dull without any feature-engineering. The first model, MinAvgOut, directly maximizes the diversity score through the output distributions of each batch. The second model, Label Fine-Tuning (LFT), prepends to the source sequence a label continuously scaled by the diversity score to control the diversity level. The third model, RL, adopts Reinforcement Learning and treats the diversity score as a reward signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T18:32:06Z)

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.