mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evidence-Grounded Ensemble Diagnosis of 802.11 Packet Captures: A Multi-Stage Pipeline with Deterministic Reliability Scoring

arXiv 2606.06871 ↗First posted 5 Jun 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable. LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures (especially truncated traces), produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test. We introduce PROBE (Protocol Reasoning Over evidence-Based Ensembles), a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures. It integrates (i) deterministic PCAP-to-text normalization with frame-level verifiability, (ii) multi-run, multi-candidate ensembles with optional cross-model second opinion and progressive obfuscation, (iii) a verdict-aware evidence framework treating absence of failure evidence as contributing evidence, and (iv) a fully deterministic composite reliability score from evidence validity, run-to-run stability, and cross-model agreement without LLM self-assessment. On 87 enterprise Wi-Fi captures (104 capture-reviewer pairs), single-pass LLM analysis raises weighted evidence F1 from 0.871 (expert baseline) to 0.912 but misses critical frames in 35% of cases. Naive ensemble voting drops below baseline (0.842) as majority voting amplifies conservative verdicts: 50% of confirmed failures are misclassified as 'no issue' or 'insufficient evidence.' Adding evidence-grounded reconciliation achieves 0.957 F1, a 96% auto-accept rate, and a worst-case floor above 0.70. LLM self-reported confidence clusters at 0.95 regardless of difficulty (71% report exactly 0.95), confirming it is uninformative. We also introduce a model-agnostic evaluation framework using per-field assertion matching, eliminating circular bias from model-co-produced golden references.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2026.

Builds on

18 of 27 references.

References · 18

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  3. 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
  4. 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 1,011
  5. 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 465
  6. 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 269
  7. 2024Escape Sky-high Cost: Early-stopping Self-Consistency for Multi-step Reasoningcited by 108
  8. 2024NetLLM: Adapting Large Language Models for Networkingcited by 78
  9. 2024Make Every Penny Count: Difficulty-Adaptive Self-Consistency for Cost-Efficient Reasoningcited by 63
  10. 2025No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Groundingcited by 54
  11. 2025The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Inputcited by 52
  12. 2021Wi-Fi Meets ML: A Survey on Improving IEEE 802.11 Performance with Machine Learningcited by 21
6 more
  1. 2025The FACTS Leaderboard: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Model Factualitycited by 17
  2. 2025A Network Arena for Benchmarking AI Agents on Network Troubleshootingcited by 9
  3. 2024LLMcap: Large Language Model for Unsupervised PCAP Failure Detectioncited by 7
  4. 2026Meta-Judging with Large Language Models: Concepts, Methods, and Challengescited by 3
  5. 2026PLUME: Building a Network-Native Foundation Model for Wireless Traces via Protocol-Aware Tokenizationcited by 2
  6. 2025WiFi Pathologies Detection using LLMscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.