This work proposes a Localize-Then-Decide framework, which restores the monotonic relationship between confidence and disagreement risk and enables high-probability agreement guarantees in large language models.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators to assess output quality and preference alignment, yet providing reliable guarantees of agreement with human judgments remains challenging. Recent work introduces confidence-thresholding methods that provide such guarantees for pairwise comparisons, relying on the assumption that higher estimated confidence implies lower disagreement risk with humans. However, this assumption can break down when the number of candidate responses increases, since distributing probability mass across many alternatives can distort confidence estimates. To address this issue, we propose a Localize-Then-Decide framework. First, conformal prediction localizes a small shortlist that contains the human-preferred response with high probability. Then, a calibrated confidence-based rule selectively chooses a single response from this shortlist or abstains. This design restores the monotonic relationship between confidence and disagreement risk and enables high-probability agreement guarantees. Experiments with multiple candidate sizes across several datasets and judge LLMs demonstrate that our framework consistently achieves higher guarantee success rates and substantially higher coverage than single-stage baselines.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in question answering (QA) systems, yet they may generate hallucinated or misaligned responses without reliable confidence estimates. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) offers a natural basis for selective answering, where a system answers only when its prediction is deemed reliable and abstains otherwise. However, existing uncertainty scores for LLMs are often heuristic: a threshold chosen on such scores does not, by itself, provide statistical guarantees on the error rate among accepted answers. We propose CIC, a confidence-interval-based calibration framework that converts arbitrary uncertainty scores into risk-controlled selective answering rules. Given a held-out calibration set, CIC evaluates each generated response using an application-specific alignment criterion and associates it with an uncertainty score and a binary error label. For each candidate uncertainty threshold, CIC estimates the acceptance-conditioned error rate and constructs a high-probability upper confidence bound using either Hoeffding-style or Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals. It then selects the largest threshold whose upper bound is below a user-specified risk level $\alpha$, thereby maximizing the answering rate subject to a finite-sample reliability constraint. Under exchangeability, CIC guarantees with probability at least $1-\delta$ that the selected threshold, if non-null, controls the error rate among accepted answers at level $\alpha$. We evaluate CIC on both closed-ended and open-ended QA benchmarks across seven LLMs and multiple uncertainty estimators. Experimental results show that CIC consistently achieves valid risk control while retaining strong answering efficiency, providing a practical and statistically grounded mechanism for deploying LLMs in reliability-sensitive QA workflows.
ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, complementary to standard accuracy-based evaluation.
M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
Using LLMs as judges has become standard practice for evaluating model outputs at scale. This is particularly common for subjective, open-ended tasks such as assessing helpfulness or alignment, where no single reference answer exists. However, objective tasks introduce a distinct reliability challenge for reference-free LLM judging. In the absence of a reference answer, the judge evaluates factual correctness either through its parametric knowledge or through tool augmentation. Although the former enables efficient evaluation, the judge may hallucinate or lack sufficient evidence for its verdict. Conversely, tool augmentation can provide additional evidence but introduces extra computational cost and requires an appropriate mechanism to determine when and how that evidence should be used reliably. More importantly, neither approach alone provides formal control over the risk of accepted verdicts or guarantees their reliability at a specified level. We propose a risk-controlled framework that calibrates uncertainty thresholds on a held-out set so that the false discovery rate among accepted verdicts remains below a user-specified level~$\alpha$ with high probability, using finite-sample Clopper--Pearson intervals. When the parametric mode is not sufficiently confident, the instance is routed to a retrieval-augmented mode, where the judge gathers web evidence and re-evaluates the instance under a second calibrated threshold. The finite-sample guarantee carries over to this two-threshold routing without additional assumptions. Across open-domain QA benchmarks and judges of varying scales, the framework maintains the target error rate while achieving substantially higher coverage than single-mode baselines.
Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad· 0 citations
Black-box large language models need confidence scores that can separate likely-correct from likely-incorrect outputs, enabling systems to prioritize human review, route uncertain cases to stronger models, or choose abstention thresholds on development data. Yet existing confidence estimators face a cost-quality trade-off: verbal confidence is cheap but is often overconfident, while sampling-based uncertainty is more informative but scales linearly with the number of samples per query. We propose \textsc{POOL} (\emph{Propagated Uncertainty Over Lookalikes}),a cost-efficient framework that addresses this trade-off taking inspiration from group-testing.\textsc{POOL} clusters query stems with overlaps, evaluates a base estimator on representative medoids, softly propagates confidence scores to nearby queries, and selectively evaluates high-disagreement cases. We instantiate this framework with \textsc{Hy@}$p$, a hybrid estimator that combines verbal confidence with spectral answer diversity computed from the negative von Neumann entropy of sampled answer embeddings.Across six domains from three datasets and five black-box LLMs, \textsc{Hy@}5 achieves higher average AUROC than verbal confidence and \textsc{Vn@}10 sampling while using half as many samples as \textsc{Vn@}10. \textsc{POOL}-\textsc{Hy@}5 retains 93.5--97.9\% of its AUROC while saving 19.3--39.3\% of generations. On paraphrase-dense workloads, generation savings rise to 73-76\%, showing that semantic redundancy can be leveraged to lower confidence-estimation costs.
Rounak Sharma, Ananya B. Sai, Soumyabrata Pal· 0 citations
LLMs have emerged as powerful evaluators in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, offering significant efficiency and flexibility compared to human judgments. However, previous methods primarily rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations. This approach leads to information loss and decreases the reliability of evaluations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with human evaluation distributions. Specifically, we propose a distributional alignment objective based on KL divergence, combined with an auxiliary cross-entropy regularization to stabilize the training process. Furthermore, due to limited human annotations, empirical human distributions are merely noisy estimates of the true underlying distribution. We therefore incorporate adversarial training to ensure a robust alignment with this true distribution, rather than overfitting to its imperfect approximation. Extensive experiments across various LLM backbones and evaluation tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods, with superior alignment quality, strong robustness, and competitive evaluation accuracy.
Luyu Chen, Zeyu Zhang, Haoran Tan et al.· Advances in Neural Informati...· 2 citations
It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al.· 0 citations
