Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement
A new paper presents a method for improving the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in judgment tasks. The authors propose a margin-adaptive confidence ranking system that enhances the relationship between model confidence and human agreement. This approach aims to address limitations in existing confidence estimators and improve accuracy across various datasets.
- ▪The paper introduces a margin-adaptive confidence ranking for LLMs.
- ▪It addresses issues with existing confidence estimators by learning a dedicated confidence estimator.
- ▪The proposed method improves ranking accuracy and strengthens the relationship between confidence and disagreement risk.
arXiv cs.AI files mainly under ai research. We currently carry 1,128 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | arXiv cs.AI |
| Canonical URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15416 |
| Publication time | Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-18T04:04:54.418Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-18T04:04:54.418Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | Nq7cW71Aw7s0 |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Machine Learning arXiv:2605.15416 (cs) [Submitted on 14 May 2026] Title:Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement Authors:Gaojie Jin, Yong Tao, Lijia Yu, Tianjin Huang View a PDF of the paper titled Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement, by Gaojie Jin and 3 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Jung et al. (2025) introduce a hypothesis testing framework for guaranteeing agreement between large language models (LLMs) and human judgments, relying on the assumption that the model's estimated confidence is monotonic with respect to human-disagreement risk. In practice, however, this assumption may be violated, and the generalization behavior of the confidence estimator is not explicitly analyzed.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv cs.AI
