Uncertainty-Aware Clarification in LLM Agents with Information Gain

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03135v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 04:23:59 GMT
• Title: Uncertainty-Aware Clarification in LLM Agents with Information Gain
• Abstract summary: Large Language Model (LLM) agents often operate underspecified user instructions.<n>We propose a goal-oriented clarification framework that aligns clarification behavior with ambiguity resolution.<n>We train the clarifier (LLM) using this reward to optimize for high information gain.
• Score: 21.146374732674015
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents often operate under underspecified user instructions, where latent uncertainty over user intent leads to erroneous tool actions. To address this challenge, we propose a goal-oriented clarification framework that aligns clarification behavior with ambiguity resolution. Central to our approach is the Information Gain Reward, a metric that quantifies the utility of clarification questions by measuring the Bayesian belief update towards the ground-truth goal induced by the clarification exchange. We train the clarifier (LLM) using this reward to optimize for high information gain, ensuring that clarifications effectively reduce uncertainty and improve task completion within the agent-tool-user environment. We validate our framework within a clarification-enhanced $τ$-Bench environment, conducting cross-agent evaluations across five heterogeneous backbones. Empirical results demonstrate that our method consistently improves the success rate by 3.7\% over the no-clarification baseline, while adding only 0.3 total interaction steps on average.

Related papers

• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• Exploring Agentic Tool-Calling Decisions via Uncertainty-Aligned Reinforcement Learning [63.24624171679711]
  Large language model (LLM)-based agents often make suboptimal tool-use decisions.<n>We propose TRUST, which incorporates uncertainty quantification into reward design as a repulsive force for maintaining uncertainty separation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T07:08:34Z)
• Utilizing and Calibrating Hindsight Process Rewards via Reinforcement with Mutual Information Self-Evaluation [50.696688705287755]
  We propose Mutual Information Self-Evaluation to overcome the sparse reward challenge in reinforcement learning.<n>MISE enables an agent to learn autonomously from dense internal rewards supplementing sparse extrinsic signals.<n>We prove that utilizing hindsight self-evaluation rewards is equivalent to minimizing an objective that combines mutual information with a KL divergence term between the policy and a proxy reward policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T15:18:51Z)
• Beyond Task Completion: Revealing Corrupt Success in LLM Agents through Procedure-Aware Evaluation [2.102846336724103]
  Procedure-Aware Evaluation (PAE) is a framework that formalizes agent procedures as structured observations.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents on tau-bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T15:47:41Z)
• Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations [49.84786015324238]
  Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects.<n>These include robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T23:16:50Z)
• Structured Uncertainty guided Clarification for LLM Agents [126.26213027785813]
  LLM agents extend large language models with tool-calling capabilities, but ambiguous user instructions often lead to incorrect invocations and task failures.<n>We introduce a principled formulation of structured uncertainty over tool-call parameters, modeling joint tool-argument clarification as a POMDP with Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) objective for optimal question selection and aspect-based cost modeling to prevent redundancy.<n>Our SAGE-Agent leverages this structured uncertainty to achieve superior efficiency: increasing coverage on ambiguous tasks by 7-39% while reducing clarification questions by 1.5-2.7$times$ compared to strong prompting and uncertainty-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T21:50:44Z)
• The Alignment Auditor: A Bayesian Framework for Verifying and Refining LLM Objectives [8.030821324147515]
  Inverse Reinforcement Learning can infer reward functions from behaviour.<n>Existing approaches either produce a single, overconfident reward estimate or fail to address the fundamental ambiguity of the task.<n>This paper introduces a principled auditing framework that re-frames reward inference from a simple estimation task to a comprehensive process for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T16:25:14Z)
• Towards Harmonized Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Models [22.58034272573749]
  It is essential to quantify the reliability of their generations through uncertainty estimation.<n>We propose CUE (Corrector for Uncertainty Estimation): A straightforward yet effective method that employs a lightweight model trained on data aligned with the target LLM's performance to adjust uncertainty scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T10:17:57Z)
• Criticality and Safety Margins for Reinforcement Learning [53.10194953873209]
  We seek to define a criticality framework with both a quantifiable ground truth and a clear significance to users.<n>We introduce true criticality as the expected drop in reward when an agent deviates from its policy for n consecutive random actions.<n>We also introduce the concept of proxy criticality, a low-overhead metric that has a statistically monotonic relationship to true criticality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T21:00:45Z)
• Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMs [58.620269228776294]
  We propose a task-agnostic framework for resolving ambiguity by asking users clarifying questions. We evaluate systems across three NLP applications: question answering, machine translation and natural language inference. We find that intent-sim is robust, demonstrating improvements across a wide range of NLP tasks and LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T00:18:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.