Cross-Model Disagreement as a Label-Free Correctness Signal
Detecting when a language model is wrong without ground truth labels is a fundamental challenge for safe deployment. Existing approaches rely on a model's own uncertainty -- such as token entropy or confidence scores -- but these signals fail critically on the most dangerous failure mode: confident errors, where a model is wrong but certain. In this work we introduce cross-model disagreement as a correctness indicator -- a simple, training-free signal that can be dropped into existing production systems, routing pipelines, and deployment monitoring infrastructure without modification. Given a model's generated answer, cross-model disagreement computes how surprised or uncertain a second verifier model is when reading that answer via a single forward pass. No generation from the verifying model is required, and no correctness labels are needed. We instantiate this principle as Cross-Model Perplexity (CMP), which measures the verifying model's surprise at the generating model's answer tokens, and Cross-Model Entropy (CME), which measures the verifying model's uncertainty at those positions. Both CMP and CME outperform within-model uncertainty baselines across benchmarks spanning reasoning, retrieval, and mathematical problem solving (MMLU, TriviaQA, and GSM8K). On MMLU, CMP achieves a mean AUROC of 0.75 against a within-model entropy baseline of 0.59. These results establish cross-model disagreement as a practical, training-free approach to label-free correctness estimation, with direct applications in deployment monitoring, model routing, selective prediction, data filtering, and scalable oversight of production language model systems.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
A Nash Equilibrium Framework For Training-Free Multimodal Step Verification
Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers. Current verification approaches have notable limitations. Learned critics need extensive labeled d…
When to Vote, When to Rewrite: Disagreement-Guided Strategy Routing for Test-Time Scaling
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on mathematical reasoning tasks but remain unreliable on challenging instances. Existing test-time scaling methods, such as repeated sampling, self-correction, and…
Mathematical ReasoningUnified and Effective Ensemble Knowledge Distillation
Ensemble knowledge distillation can extract knowledge from multiple teacher models and encode it into a single student model. Many existing methods learn and distill the student model on labeled data only. However, the t…
Knowledge DistillationTransfer LearningSTABLEVAL: Disagreement-Aware and Stable Evaluation of AI Systems
Human evaluation remains the primary standard for assessing modern AI systems, yet annotator disagreement, bias, and variability make system rankings fragile under standard majority vote aggregation. Majority vote discar…
Beyond Entropy: Correctness-Aware Advantage Shaping via Contrastive Policy Optimization
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) commonly uses entropy for advantage shaping. However, entropy cannot distinguish useful uncertainty from detrimental confusion, limiting its effectiveness as a correc…
Reinforcement Learning