Beyond Single-Turn Confidence: Trajectory-Adapted Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11552v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 01:39:28 GMT
• Title: Beyond Single-Turn Confidence: Trajectory-Adapted Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents
• Abstract summary: We study whether three common families of single-turn UQ methods transfer to an interactive trajectory setting.<n>We find that transfer is often useful but uneven. Token-probability scores are highly sensitive to the choice of aggregator used across turns.<n>Black-box self-consistency is often the strongest UQ family, with trajectory-equivalence and action-set consistency typically ranking highest among its variants.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for language models are typically evaluated on single-turn outputs, where uncertainty is attached to one generated answer. For LLM agents, however, the unit of observation is an interactive trajectory, where the model can ask clarifying questions, call tools, update state, and make intermediate decisions whose errors propagate to the final outcome. We study whether three common families of single-turn UQ methods transfer to this setting. Across five LLMs and four multi-turn tool-use datasets from BFCL-v4 and $τ^2$-bench, we evaluate white-box scorers based on action-token probabilities, black-box consistency scorers based on resampled trajectories, and reflexive scorers based on model self-assessment of the trajectory. We find that transfer is often useful but uneven. Token-probability scores are highly sensitive to the choice of aggregator used across turns, reflexive scores provide the strongest low-cost baseline in most evaluated settings, and black-box self-consistency is often the strongest UQ family, with trajectory-equivalence and action-set consistency typically ranking highest among its variants. These results suggest that UQ methods developed for single generations should be revalidated at the trajectory level, with careful attention to the consistency measurement, aggregator choice, and computational budget.

Related papers

• Boosting Self-Consistency with Ranking [56.38798757709555]
  Self-consistency improves large language models by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer.<n>We address this limitation with Ranking-Improved Self-Consistency (RISC), which reformulates answer selection in self-consistency as a ranking problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T16:12:30Z)
• Benchmarking Uncertainty Calibration in Large Language Model Long-Form Question Answering [7.1559850008795385]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used in Question Answering (QA) settings.<n>Existing UQ approaches remain weakly validated in scientific QA.<n>We introduce the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating UQ metrics in reasoning-demanding QA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T20:02:34Z)
• Learning to Trust the Crowd: A Multi-Model Consensus Reasoning Engine for Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong aver- age performance yet remain unreliable at the instance level.<n>We introduce a Multi-Model Consensus Reasoning Engine that treats the set of LLM outputs as input to a supervised meta-learner.<n>The system maps natural language responses into structured features using semantic embeddings, pairwise similarity and clustering statistics, lexical and structural cues, reasoning-quality scores, confidence estimates, and model-specific priors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T06:27:06Z)
• 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)
• Enhancing the Outcome Reward-based RL Training of MLLMs with Self-Consistency Sampling [90.87033586963828]
  Outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) is a common and increasingly significant way to refine the step-by-step reasoning of multimodal large language models (MLLMs)<n>We propose Self-Consistency Sampling (SCS) to correct this issue.<n>Based on Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct, SCS improves accuracy by up to 7.7 percentage points on six multimodal benchmarks with negligible extra computation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T18:59:57Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)

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.