This work introduces ReliableTableQA, a framework for training an LLM to annotate the statistical reliability of tabular QA results, and reframe reliability annotation as a data-efficiency problem and delineate precisely when reinforcement fine-tuning does and does not pay off.
Abstract
We introduce ReliableTableQA, a framework for training an LLM to annotate the statistical reliability of tabular QA results, not whether the query is answerable, but whether the computed answer is statistically meaningful. In real enterprise analytics, a syntactically correct SQL query can return a value that is based on too small a sample, has an excessively wide confidence interval, or is too confounded to support action. Existing systems answer confidently in all such cases, a failure we quantify as the Unreliable Confident Answer Rate (UCAR). We contribute (1) a ten-category reliability taxonomy (R1-R10) covering hazards such as small-sample aggregates, multiple-comparison inflation, and distribution-tail mismatch; (2) a program-first data pipeline that generates 50,000 reliability-labeled training examples from a context-free grammar over public retail schemas, with schema-stratified SFT/GRPO splits; and (3) a controlled study of how much supervision calibrated reliability annotation actually requires. We find that a small, schema-stratified SFT set is remarkably sufficient: 200 examples raise reliability-flag F1 from 0.61 to 0.98 and parse rate from 0.52 to 1.00, drive UCAR to zero, and yield a model that generalizes to an unseen retail domain (Rel-F1 0.997 on held-out H&M). Against this strong SFT baseline, GRPO, commonly assumed to be essential, helps only when SFT is under-trained (+0.06-0.16 exact-flag-set match at 100 examples, in- and out-of-distribution) and provides no measurable benefit once SFT is adequate, a null result we confirm across a hard compound-flag slice, a strict exact-match metric, and out-of-distribution evaluation. Our findings reframe reliability annotation as a data-efficiency problem and delineate precisely when reinforcement fine-tuning does and does not pay off.
Testing an LLM on two e-commerce data quality tasks, entity matching and brand mislabeling, against rule based baselines and human verified ground truth, under both zero-shot and few-shot prompting suggests that the value of using an LLM over traditional methods depends heavily on the task.
Reliable evaluation of open-ended question answering remains a bottleneck for measuring answer correctness of modern LLMs. Unlike multiple-choice tasks, free-form answers may be correct in many surface forms and may fail in qualitatively different ways, including incompleteness, contradiction, overgeneration, and endorsement of false premises. Existing judgment-based and similarity-based metrics often collapse these distinctions. We address this gap with three reusable contributions. First, we introduce a semantic correctness taxonomy that assigns open-ended answers to eight ordered classes, separating verbose-but-correct answers from those contaminated by hallucinated content. Second, we release CAP-Correctness, an 8.8k-example benchmark spanning widely used QA datasets, and CAP-Statements, an 11k-example dataset for converting question-answer pairs into declarative statements for natural language inference (NLI) training and statement-based evaluation. Third, we introduce CAP (Context-Aware Precision), a reference-based metric that scores question-conditioned statements using bidirectional NLI. Under a monotonicity protocol testing whether metrics respect the taxonomy's intended ordering, CAP outperforms established baselines.
Elitsa Yotkova, Violeta Kastreva, Petar Velkov et al.· 0 citations
A two-stage framework for medical hypothesis verification in multiple-choice settings that manages this tradeoff through targeted ontology grounding, applied only when the model abstains, and shows that abstention is not random but reflects genuine uncertainty, with abstained predictions associated with lower confidence.
Uma Ranjan, Kunal Tilaganji, Aditya Koul et al.· 0 citations
This study evaluates the reliability of four BERT-based models by assessing response stability under two conditions: internal model variations induced via Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD) and input perturbations through paraphrasing.
Pooja Yadav, Priyanka Harjule, Basant Agarwal et al.· Journal of Experimental &...· 0 citations
Agreement among repeated samples of a language model is routinely read as evidence about answer reliability, yet wrong answers can agree just as strongly as right ones. This paper asks what information wrong-consensus agreement actually contains, and answers with a quantitative decomposition. A pluralistic agreement index Gamma, normalized by the reference scale d=(1-p)/(C-1), is split into a mechanical component (agreement delivered by a per-case answer preference alone) and a preference-unexplained residual. The mechanical reference is leak-free: each case's preference and accuracy are estimated from its other runs only. On public GPT-4.1 per-run data, coverage phi (the mechanical/empirical ratio) shows a benchmark-associated direction: 0.81-0.93 on multiple-choice GPQA-Diamond against 0.59-0.78 on open-domain AIME, where a residual of 1.54-2.80 Gamma units survives, more than absorbed by a calibrated run-level preference-heterogeneity reference. A controlled replication under one fixed protocol (four runs per question, K=32 votes) on five open-weights checkpoints (Qwen3.5-9B/122B, Qwen3.8-27B, Gemma4-26B/31B) finds near-complete mechanical coverage in all ten cells (phi approximately 1, with a small overshoot consistent with a quantified finite-donor plug-in bias), robust to a two-run design; the largest cell (qwen3.5-122b, p=0.222) sits inside the GPT-4.1 AIME accuracy range and still saturates (phi=1.041). A cross-system contrast at comparable aggregate accuracy contrasts near-complete mechanical agreement in the open-weights models against a larger preference-unexplained residual in the frontier family. This contrast is confounded with sampling protocol by design. Agreement is graded evidence, not certification. No new voting method is proposed; code and evidence are committed.
Li-Zhuo Zhang, Meng-Meng Tang, Chen-Feng Long et al.· 1 citation
Large language models are increasingly used for automated fact checking, but end-to-end prompting often entangles evidence retrieval, reasoning, and uncertainty estimation, making failures difficult to diagnose and confidence difficult to trust. We present R2VC, a modular retrieve, reason, verify, calibrate architecture for evidence-grounded fact checking with citations and abstention. R2VC combines hybrid sparse+dense retrieval over Wikipedia, a supervised fine-tuned and DPO-aligned generator that produces diverse structured verdict candidates, an external NLI cross-encoder for evidence-based candidate selection, and a lightweight sequence-level calibrator for confidence estimation and selective abstention. On FEVER, an 8B backbone with R2VC achieves 13.74% higher accuracy than baseline. Ablation studies show that verifier-based candidate selection and confidence calibration are the largest contributors to performance. Removing candidate selection drops FEVER accuracy to 76.24%, while removing calibration nearly doubles the Brier score to 0.161. A manual analysis of 250 errors further shows that retrieval failures, especially wrong-entity evidence, remain the dominant bottleneck. Together, these results show that modular fact-checking pipelines can substantially improve both predictive accuracy and confidence reliability in open-domain verification.
Dhruv Dixit, Paritosh Pandey· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
