NeFut Logo NeFut
Admin Login

[CS.AI] Are LLMs Right When They Agree? Auditing Consistency as Confidence Signal

Published at: 2026-07-10 22:00 Last updated: 2026-07-13 08:32
#algorithm #AI #Machine Learning

Abstract

LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al., 2023) is increasingly the default for evaluating AI systems in enterprise pipelines, often scaled to ensembles (Verga et al., 2024) or "mixture-of-experts" (Shazeer et al., 2017) panels of judges. These systems share a key assumption: that consistency -- agreement among judges, or among a model's own samples -- indicates correctness. We show this assumption is unreliable. Agreement is not accuracy: a model can agree with itself, and different models can agree with each other, out of shared bias, a memorized heuristic, or an option-position prior rather than truth.

We ask when agreement is nonetheless a usable proxy, in a large-scale cross-runner study: 53 runners drew K=50 samples for assigned overlapping cases across comparisons of model tier, prompting, and scale on GPQA Diamond and AIME -- 265,000 samples. Using majority-correctness as the deployment label and a hierarchical runner-clustered bootstrap, agreement is a positive but weak predictor (rho 0.20-0.59, all positive under item-clustered resampling) whose usefulness is regime-dependent: best for unsaturated mid-tier models and for allocating compute, and worst -- over-confident yet no more accurate -- for the most consistent frontier model (agreement =0.8 on 77% of GPQA case-result entries, 48% of those wrong).

An exploratory cross-family check on three Claude tiers shows the same frontier over-confidence, with confident errors recurring across providers above a marginal-preserving null. Self-consistency is thus a conditional proxy for correctness, not a standalone confidence score. We publicly release the de-identified per-run rows and answer distributions.

Blogger's Review: This article reveals that the consistency of large language models may not reliably indicate their correctness, emphasizing the need for a more rigorous examination of model outputs in practical applications. Particularly, when models exhibit excessive confidence, it can lead to significant misjudgments, reminding us to assess AI systems' performance from multiple dimensions.

Original Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08065

[h] Back to Home