# Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04127 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04127/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 62 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01470/) (2024)
- [LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11998/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.17563/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16950/) (2024)
- [Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02187/) (2023)
- [Anchoring Bias in Large Language Models: An Experimental Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06593/) (2024)
- [Open (Clinical) LLMs are Sensitive to Instruction Phrasings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.09429/) (2024)
- [JobFair: A Framework for Benchmarking Gender Hiring Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15484/) (2024)
- [LLMs Don't Know Their Own Decision Boundaries: The Unreliability of Self-Generated Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09396/) (2025)
- [Contextualized Evaluations: Judging Language Model Responses to Underspecified Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07237/) (2024)
- [Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.15700/) (2023)
- [FAIRE: Assessing Racial and Gender Bias in AI-Driven Resume Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01420/) (2025)
- [Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14092/) (2025)
- [Irrelevant Alternatives Bias Large Language Model Hiring Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15299/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are increasingly used to support organizational decisions, yet users often lack a principled basis for assessing whether to rely on a specific recommendation. Existing approaches typically evaluate broad model properties, such as reliability, uncertainty, or robustness, or focus on user trust, rather than the underlying basis for relying on an individual recommendation. Adapting theoretical foundations from epistemology, we introduce epistemic warrant, a decision-level construct that characterizes the stability of a model's preference and the scope over which that preference holds. We operationalize this construct through a four-tier reliance certificate for pairwise recommendations, distinguishing among unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported recommendations. We validate the construct using contemporary methodologies: known-groups tests successfully recover expert-prespecified warrant orderings, and stronger warrants systematically align with independent consensus from crowd workers. Furthermore, we demonstrate that epistemic warrant provides information distinct from verbalized confidence and is not readily explained by decision difficulty. Ultimately, this framework offers a theoretically grounded, implementable approach for characterizing the warrant of individual LLM recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.