Reliable Fusion of Conflicting Experts
cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-08-21
Updated: 2026-08-21
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: We study the problem of aggregating opinions from multiple black-box experts in noisy, conflict-prone settings where expert reliability varies across inputs.
Terminology
Abstract
We study the problem of aggregating opinions from multiple black-box experts in noisy, conflict-prone settings where expert reliability varies across inputs. Static aggregation methods, such as majority voting, fail to capture this variability and often yield unreliable outcomes under disagreement. We propose a tractable, probabilistic-circuit-based fusion framework that dynamically combines expert responses using context-specific credibility estimates, enabling principled and reliable reasoning. The framework is agnostic to the underlying experts and does not require access to their internal representations or any retraining. We empirically validate our approach on multiple-choice question answering tasks using multiple LLMs as experts, comparing against individual models and static ensemble baselines. Our method consistently improves predictive performance and produces more reliable decisions under conflict, highlighting the effectiveness of context-aware credibility modeling for robust multi-expert fusion.
Sources
Related papers
- Polynomial-Augmented Neural Networks (PANNs) with Weak Orthogonality Constraints for Enhanced Function and PDE Approximation
- AIRL-S: Unifying Reinforcement Learning and Search-Based Test-Time Scaling via Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning
- Transformers as Bayesian In-Context Experimenters: Smoothness-Adaptive Efficient ATE Estimation
- Convergence issues in Relational Concept Analysis based on AOC-posets
- Beliefs Beyond Posteriors: The Predictive Cost of ELBO Binding
- Understanding Diffusion Models via Ratio-Based Function Approximation with SignReLU Networks