Robust Conformal Consensus: Multi-Agent LLM-as-a-Judge Interval Evaluation with Conformal Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06367v1
• Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2026 03:55:09 GMT
• Title: Robust Conformal Consensus: Multi-Agent LLM-as-a-Judge Interval Evaluation with Conformal Prediction
• Abstract summary: We propose a robust uncertainty estimation framework for multi-agent LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation.<n>By considering intervals from different LLM judges, we obtain more stable and reliable uncertainty estimates.<n>Our method produces valid prediction intervals with coverage guarantees, and that interval-based aggregation across multiple judges leads to more stable evaluation outcomes.
• Score: 7.792321858331646
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising paradigm for evaluating natural language generation. However, the uncertainty associated with such evaluations remains largely unexplored, which limits their reliability in real-world applications. Although conformal prediction offers a principled framework for uncertainty quantification, existing approaches typically apply it to a single LLM judge, overlooking the variability introduced by using different LLM evaluators. In this work, we propose a robust uncertainty estimation framework for multi-agent LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation. Our approach constructs conformal prediction intervals for LLM-based scores from multiple LLMs. By considering intervals from different LLM judges, we obtain more stable and reliable uncertainty estimates. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method produces valid prediction intervals with coverage guarantees, and that interval-based aggregation across multiple judges leads to more stable evaluation outcomes.

Related papers

• 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)
• Analyzing Uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge: Interval Evaluations with Conformal Prediction [13.958280616597385]
  This work presents the first framework to analyze the uncertainty by offering a prediction interval of LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction.<n>We perform extensive experiments and analysis, which show that conformal prediction can provide valid prediction interval with coverage guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T05:26:28Z)
• An Empirical Analysis of Uncertainty in Large Language Model Evaluations [28.297464655099034]
  We conduct experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings.<n>We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes.<n>We find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T07:45:20Z)
• Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge [0.3759936323189418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly powerful and ubiquitous, but their nature poses challenges to the reliability of their outputs.<n>We introduce a novel framework for rigorously evaluating the reliability of LLM judgments, leveraging McDonald's omega.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T03:37:31Z)
• Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge [13.45579129351493]
  We introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T13:29:22Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [11.948519516797745]
  We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.<n>Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• 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)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)
• 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)

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.