-
Collective Reasoning Among LLMs: A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth
Authors:
Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi,
Amin Gholami Davodi,
Alireza Amiri-Margavi,
Mahdi Jafari
Abstract:
We introduce a new approach in which several advanced large language models-specifically GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLAMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash-collaborate to both produce and answer intricate, doctoral-level probability problems without relying on any single "correct" reference. Rather than depending on an established ground truth, our investigation focuses on how agre…
▽ More
We introduce a new approach in which several advanced large language models-specifically GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLAMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash-collaborate to both produce and answer intricate, doctoral-level probability problems without relying on any single "correct" reference. Rather than depending on an established ground truth, our investigation focuses on how agreement among diverse models can signal the reliability of their outputs and, by extension, reflect the overall quality of the generated questions. To measure this inter-model alignment, we apply a suite of statistical evaluations, including chi-square tests, Fleiss' Kappa coefficients, and confidence interval calculations, thereby capturing both precision in answers and clarity in question phrasing. Our analysis reveals that Claude and Gemini tend to frame questions more coherently and unambiguously, which is evidenced by their tighter confidence intervals and greater concordance with responding agents. In contrast, LLAMA exhibits wider confidence bands and a lower level of agreement, indicating more variability and reduced consistency in its question formulations. These observations support the notion that a multi-model collaborative strategy not only improves answer dependability but also offers an effective, data-driven mechanism for evaluating and refining question quality when no definitive solution exists. Ultimately, this work delivers actionable insights into enhancing AI-guided reasoning processes through coordinated interactions among heterogeneous language models.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2025; v1 submitted 28 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
-
Enhancing Answer Reliability Through Inter-Model Consensus of Large Language Models
Authors:
Alireza Amiri-Margavi,
Iman Jebellat,
Ehsan Jebellat,
Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi
Abstract:
We propose a collaborative framework in which multiple large language models -- including GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash -- generate and answer complex, PhD-level statistical questions when definitive ground truth is unavailable. Our study examines how inter-model consensus improves both response reliability and identifies the quality of the gene…
▽ More
We propose a collaborative framework in which multiple large language models -- including GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash -- generate and answer complex, PhD-level statistical questions when definitive ground truth is unavailable. Our study examines how inter-model consensus improves both response reliability and identifies the quality of the generated questions. Employing chi-square tests, Fleiss' Kappa, and confidence interval analysis, we quantify consensus rates and inter-rater agreement to assess both response precision and question quality. Key results indicate that Claude and GPT-4 produce well-structured, less ambiguous questions with a higher inter-rater agreement, as shown by narrower confidence intervals and greater alignment with question-generating models. In contrast, Gemini and LLaMA exhibit greater variability and lower reliability in question formulation. These findings demonstrate that collaborative interactions among large language models enhance response reliability and provide valuable insights for optimizing AI-driven collaborative reasoning systems.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2025; v1 submitted 25 November, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
-
LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs
Authors:
Arash Gholami Davoodi,
Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi,
Pouya Pezeshkpour
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning. However, despite these achievements, current evaluations are mostly limited to specific mathematical topics, and it remains unclear whether LLMs are genuinely engaging in reasoning. To address these gaps, we present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that o…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning. However, despite these achievements, current evaluations are mostly limited to specific mathematical topics, and it remains unclear whether LLMs are genuinely engaging in reasoning. To address these gaps, we present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that offers 1,958 questions across a wide array of mathematical subjects, each paired with a detailed hierarchical chain of topics. Upon assessing different LLMs using the MaTT benchmark, we find that the most advanced model, GPT-4, achieved a mere 54\% accuracy in a multiple-choice scenario. Interestingly, even when employing Chain-of-Thought prompting, we observe mostly no notable improvement. Moreover, LLMs accuracy dramatically reduced by up to 24.2 percentage point when the questions were presented without providing choices. Further detailed analysis of the LLMs' performance across a range of topics showed significant discrepancy even for closely related subtopics within the same general mathematical area. In an effort to pinpoint the reasons behind LLMs performances, we conducted a manual evaluation of the completeness and correctness of the explanations generated by GPT-4 when choices were available. Surprisingly, we find that in only 53.3\% of the instances where the model provided a correct answer, the accompanying explanations were deemed complete and accurate, i.e., the model engaged in genuine reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 29 March, 2025; v1 submitted 7 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
