<tt>BetaConform</tt>: Efficient MAP Estimation of LLM Ensemble Judgment Performance with Prior Transfer
Huaizhi Qu, Inyoung Choi, Zhen Tan, Song Wang, Sukwon Yun, Qi Long, Faizan Siddiqui, Kwonjoon Lee, Tianlong Chen
Abstract
LLM ensembles are widely used for LLM judges. However, how to estimate their accuracy, especially in an efficient way, is unknown. In this paper, we present a principled maximum a posteriori (MAP) framework for an economical and precise estimation of the performance of LLM ensemble judgment. We first propose a mixture of Beta-Binomial distributions to model the judgment distribution, revising from the vanilla Binomial distribution. Next, we introduce a conformal predictiondriven approach that enables adaptive stopping during iterative sampling to balance accuracy with efficiency. Furthermore, we design a prior transfer mechanism that utilizes learned distributions on open-source datasets to improve estimation on a target dataset when only scarce annotations are available. Finally, we present BetaConform, a framework that integrates our distribution assumption, adaptive stopping, and the prior transfer mechanism to deliver a theoretically guaranteed distribution estimation of LLM ensemble judgment with minimum labeled samples. BetaConform is also validated empirically. For instance, with only 10 samples from the TruthfulQA dataset, for a Llama ensembled judge, BetaConform gauges its performance with an error margin as small as 3.37%.
How many judges are correct?
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 189a3c03-78eb-4c59-acfd-e96d52d758c4Builds on23
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
- RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI FeedbackHarrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Thomas Mesnard et al.ICML 2024 · 598 citations
Related papers
- How to Correctly Report LLM-as-a-Judge EvaluationsChungpa Lee, Thomas Zeng, Jongwon Jeong, Jy-yong Sohn et al.ICML 2026 · 24 citations
- Multi-Agent Debate for LLM Judges with Adaptive Stability DetectionTianyu Hu, Zhen Tan, Song Wang, Huaizhi Qu et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 25 citations
- Distributional LLM-as-a-JudgeLuyu Chen, Zeyu Zhang, Haoran Tan, Quanyu Dai et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 4 citations
- Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as judge won't beat twice the dataFlorian E. Dorner, Vivian Yvonne Nastl, Moritz HardtICLR 2025
- A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground TruthMingyuan Xu, Xinzi Tan, Jiawei Wu, Doudou ZhouICML 2026
