Reliable Fusion of Conflicting Experts

Leveraging multiple specialized LLMs can combine complementary strengths, but existing approaches trade adaptability for stability: routing commits prematurely, heuristic ensembling depends on fragile proxies, and parameter merging introduces interference. We propose DLLG (Dynamic Logit-Level Gating), a dynamic logit-level ensembling framework that learns token-level expert fusion from sparse response-level supervision. A lightweight gating module predicts step-wise fusion weights, linking trajectory-level correctness to generation without token-level labels or expert retraining. Across diverse reasoning and code benchmarks, DLLG consistently outperforms strong routing, heuristic ensembling, and parameter-merging baselines across model scales, highlighting learned logit-level fusion as a robust and scalable paradigm for integrating specialized experts.

An ensemble of language models is a jury, not an electorate. The answers are testimony from witnesses of unknown reliability, and the question is not what the majority said but who is credible. Most ensemble methods assign each expert a fixed reputation, often learned from labels. We ask whether it can instead be inferred from the pattern of agreement and disagreement among the experts. We model the experts as a jury: each question has a latent true answer, each expert reports it with unknown reliability, and those reliabilities are estimated by Expectation Maximisation (EM) from unlabelled answer configurations alone. We show that its decision rule reduces to a log-odds weighted linear score over the experts' answer distributions. What changes is not how the jury votes, but how it learns whom to trust. On a 1560-question benchmark, the jury, with nine experts of up to 3B parameters, performs comparably to the same fusion rule with label-fitted weights, showing no statistically significant advantage from supervision. Instead, it outperforms the best single model with matched self-consistency and the strongest label-free alternative on the full benchmark.

Multimodal fusion requires integrating information from multiple sources that may conflict depending on context. Existing fusion approaches typically rely on static assumptions about source reliability, limiting their ability to resolve conflicts when a modality becomes unreliable due to situational factors such as sensor degradation or class-specific corruption. We introduce C$^2$MF, a context-specfic credibility-aware multimodal fusion framework that models per-instance source reliability using a Conditional Probabilistic Circuit (CPC). We formalize instance-level reliability through Context-Specific Information Credibility (CSIC), a KL-divergence-based measure computed exactly from the CPC. CSIC generalizes conventional static credibility estimates as a special case, enabling principled and adaptive reliability assessment. To evaluate robustness under cross-modal conflicts, we propose the Conflict benchmark, in which class-specific corruptions deliberately induce discrepancies between different modalities. Experimental results show that C$^2$MF improves predictive accuracy by up to 29% over static-reliability baselines in high-noise settings, while preserving the interpretability advantages of probabilistic circuit-based fusion.