Calibration Is Not Control: Why LLM-Agent Oversight Needs Intervention

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21399v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 13:08:17 GMT
• Title: Calibration Is Not Control: Why LLM-Agent Oversight Needs Intervention
• Abstract summary: Two trajectory prefixes can have the same risk estimate while requiring different actions, because one remains recoverable and the other does not.<n>We formalize this mismatch as target error and identify intervention advantage, the expected utility gain from intervening rather than continuing.
• Score: 14.376426170653707
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Runtime oversight for LLM agents is commonly framed as scalar risk prediction: estimate failure likelihood, confidence, or uncertainty, then intervene once the score crosses a threshold. We argue that this framing targets the wrong object for control. The relevant question is not how likely the agent is to fail if it continues, but whether an available intervention would improve the outcome. Two trajectory prefixes can have the same risk estimate while requiring different actions, because one remains recoverable and the other does not. We formalize this mismatch as target error and identify intervention advantage, the expected utility gain from intervening rather than continuing, as the decision object for oversight. To measure this mismatch, we introduce prefix branching, a same-prefix counterfactual protocol that executes candidate actions from identical trajectory states. Across four benchmarks, action-conditioned control yields regime-dependent gains over scalar routing. In a calibration decomposition, recalibrating the same scalar score improves prediction metrics but leaves control regret unchanged, showing that calibration alone does not repair target error. A simple prefix-only action-conditioned controller substantially reduces regret in the strongest interactive regime, from 0.506 to 0.110 on ALFWorld. Gains shrink when interventions are weak or when scalar routing already preserves intervention-relevant information. These results suggest that LLM-agent oversight should move from calibrated risk scoring toward action-conditioned value estimation.

Related papers

• Calibration is the Bottleneck: An Action-Class Diagnostic of Multi-Turn Tool-Calling [65.03665015319457]
  We propose an action-class-oriented diagnostic framework that decomposes multi-turn failures into two modes: action-class miscalibration and action-execution failure.<n>We validate it on a panel of tool-calling models across multiple multi-turn benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T09:08:15Z)
• When Can You Trust Offline Evaluation of Equal-Cost Top-k Allocation? A Controlled, Reproducible Benchmark and Practitioner's Guide [0.0]
  We benchmark six estimators across five datasets and two known-effect sweeps, and validate the mechanisms against a non-simulated paired reference.<n>Sharpening a logger from the target's own score barely moves overlap over the tested range; action-level disagreement collapses it.<n>Cross-fitting the outcome nuisance alone leaves the reuse bias in place and makes it worse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T18:10:10Z)
• Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures [0.0]
  Causal Agent Replay (CAR) models an agent run as a structural causal model.<n>It applies a do-operation to a step, and re-executes a trajectory forward under the same policy.<n>CAR is open source and runs on hosted or free local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-06T17:44:23Z)
• Proper Scoring Rules for Agentic Uncertainty Quantification [0.038379177968040606]
  Trajectory Proper Score (TPS) is a predictor-agnostic family of strictly proper trajectory-level scoring rules.<n>Trajectory ECE is resolution-blind, while scalarized Trajectory Brier elicits only the collapsed scalar, not the full trace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T22:22:00Z)
• Confidence-Gated Robot Autonomy: When Does Uncertainty Actually Help? [0.0]
  In threshold-gated autonomy, uncertainty matters mainly through its ability to rank likely errors.<n>We evaluate uncertainty using Spearman rank correlation, paired bootstrap equivalence testing, and act/defer agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T08:35:27Z)
• Accurate Failure Prediction in Agents Does Not Imply Effective Failure Prevention [2.0838114053126366]
  Proactive interventions by LLM critic models are often assumed to improve reliability, yet their effects at deployment time are poorly understood.<n>We show that a binary LLM critic with strong offline accuracy (AUROC 0.94) can nevertheless cause severe performance degradation.<n>We propose a pre-deployment test that uses a small pilot of 50 tasks to estimate whether intervention is likely to help or harm, without requiring full deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T10:02:50Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• AgentMisalignment: Measuring the Propensity for Misaligned Behaviour in LLM-Based Agents [0.0]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase.<n>In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer.<n>We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, textscAgentMisalignment, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T14:46:47Z)
• Preemptive Detection and Correction of Misaligned Actions in LLM Agents [58.39520480675366]
  InferAct is a novel approach to detect misaligned actions before execution.<n>It alerts users for timely correction, preventing adverse outcomes.<n>InferAct achieves up to 20% improvements on Marco-F1 against baselines in misaligned action detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T15:24:44Z)
• Uncertainty is Fragile: Manipulating Uncertainty in Large Language Models [79.76293901420146]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed across various high-stakes domains, where the reliability of their outputs is crucial. Our research investigates the fragility of uncertainty estimation and explores potential attacks. We demonstrate that an attacker can embed a backdoor in LLMs, which, when activated by a specific trigger in the input, manipulates the model's uncertainty without affecting the final output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T23:41:11Z)
• Offline Contextual Bandits with Overparameterized Models [52.788628474552276]
  We ask whether the same phenomenon occurs for offline contextual bandits. We show that this discrepancy is due to the emphaction-stability of their objectives. In experiments with large neural networks, this gap between action-stable value-based objectives and unstable policy-based objectives leads to significant performance differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-27T13:52:07Z)

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.