Correlation-Aware Bayesian Aggregation of Large Language Models with Identifiability and Calibrated, Distribution-Free Uncertainty
International Conference APPLIED STATISTICS 2026, Koper, Slovenya, 21 - 23 Eylül 2026, ss.62, (Özet Bildiri)
- Yayın Türü: Bildiri / Özet Bildiri
- Basıldığı Şehir: Koper
- Basıldığı Ülke: Slovenya
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.62
- Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Large language models (LLMs) are often asked to interpret the same text, such
as its meaning, tone, or intent. Five such models may agree unanimously on
only one case in five, so merging them reliably is the real problem. Sharing
training data and alignment methods, they tend to err together and to be
overconfident. Classical aggregators such as Dawid-Skene and MACE assume
independent errors, an assumption that fails for correlated LLMs. We develop
a hierarchical Bayesian framework that combines several correlated LLMs
into one calibrated decision with finite-sample, distribution-free error control.
The framework (i) learns how reliable each model is for each class from a
small labelled set, (ii) discounts agreement between models that share failure
modes, so five lookalike votes do not count as five independent ones, (iii) adds
a context-sensitive pragmatic layer whose strength is provably identifiable
from the data rather than hand-tuned, with a credible interval excluding zero,
(iv) calibrates its probabilities and uses conformal prediction to control the
error rate on automatically classified cases, and (v) treats model disagreement
as signal, not noise. We test it on speaker intent in television dialogue. About
10,000 utterances were annotated by five LLMs, 5,000 labelled independently
by two people (Cohen’s 𝜅 = 0.50 on intent). It automatically classifies 61%
of cases at a certified error below 10%, halving the human effort, whereas no
single model certifies any. It also outperforms the best single model (accuracy
0.728 to 0.787, 𝑝 < 0.001) and, while fully interpretable, matches or surpasses a
non-interpretable benchmark. Finally, the framework produces a calibrated
prediction of how often two independent people would disagree on the label
(calibration error 0.085), and extends these gains to figurative meaning. These
results support treating LLM ensembles as correlated multi-agent systems
rather than independent annotators.