From Self-Confidence to Statistical Accuracy: Scaling Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation with Direct and LLM-Assisted Auditing

Abstract

For large language models (LLMs) and multimodal large language models (MLLMs), model-reported self-confidence is often miscalibrated, yet it may still be useful for efficient evaluation. At the same time, LLM-as-a-judge offers a scalable alternative to direct human auditing, but its practical benefit depends on calibration quality and inference cost. This paper develops a unified statistical framework for both evaluation routes under alternative sampling strategies. For direct auditing, confidence-stratified sampling is used to recover population accuracy from partially verified outputs without requiring calibrated confidence. Finite-sample uncertainty is characterized, and the analysis shows how highly uneven confidence strata affect audit efficiency and label allocation. For judge-assisted evaluation, the judge is modeled through sensitivity and false-positive rate, yielding an error-corrected estimator with calibration uncertainty. The two routes are then compared through human-label and total-cost efficiency boundaries. Experiments on MMLU-Pro and MMMU-Pro show that miscalibrated self-confidence can still support statistically valid stratified auditing. Under highly imbalanced confidence distributions, proportional allocation substantially reduces estimation error relative to equal-per-stratum allocation. For judge-assisted evaluation, only a small subset of target--verifier pairs satisfies the idealized human-label efficiency condition, and automated inference costs can further limit potential savings. These findings clarify the statistical and economic conditions under which confidence-guided auditing and automated verification are useful.