Epistemic Sybil Resistance: Multiplying AI Agents Without Multiplying Evidence

Multi-agent AI systems improve inference by spawning agents and synthesizing reports. But another agent is not another observation: apparently independent reports may descend from the same evidence, and genuinely independent evidence can produce nearly identical reports. We formalize this as an epistemic Sybil problem. A report Z is an epistemic Sybil extension relative to reports R when I(Theta; Z | R) = 0. No report-only aggregator can generally distinguish replication from independent corroboration: identical reports can warrant different posteriors under unobserved ancestry. A Gaussian shared-root model shows common ancestry does not imply complete redundancy. Repeated extraction adds information toward a source-level ceiling, and correlated extraction errors, which a shared base model can induce among independent agents, lower that ceiling further. We test these predictions with more than 20,000 controlled LLM-agent report and extraction calls on synthetic evidentiary documents. Holding one evidence root fixed while report multiplicity rises from 1 to 32 collapses naive posterior coverage from 0.940 to 0.263. Holding report count fixed while evidence-root multiplicity rises from 1 to 16 closes the gap, and the aggregators are statistically indistinguishable at k = 16. The agent's replicate extraction errors are correlated (gamma_cal = 0.719, estimated out of sample), and a correlated-extraction aggregator restores calibration accordingly. A controlled manipulation isolates representation similarity from evidential ancestry. It changes a report-space deduplication mechanism's mean inferred cluster count by 1.425 (95% CI [1.363, 1.485]), whereas a fourfold change in true ancestry changes it by only 0.040 ([-0.045, 0.120]). Collective inference should therefore track evidential ancestry and dependence, not agent or report multiplicity or similarity.

Calibration is the Bottleneck: An Action-Class Diagnostic of Multi-Turn Tool-Calling

Multi-turn tool calling is a core evaluation scenario for large language model (LLM) agents. On public tool-calling benchmarks, open-weight models now approach or even surpass closed-source frontier models in aggregate accuracy. However, this metric averages over many different multi-turn situations and obscures whether progress is balanced across them. We propose an action-class-oriented diagnostic framework that decomposes multi-turn failures into two orthogonal modes: action-class miscalibration and action-execution failure. The framework operates over a four-class action space (TOOL_CALL/ASK/REFUSE/CONFIRM) and introduces a self-revealing upper bound Acc <= GAR (Gold Action Recall); the two modes show up as bound violation (Acc > GAR, exposing state-grader masking of miscalibration) and large bound slack (GAR >> Acc, localizing execution failure within TOOL_CALL). We validate it on a panel of tool-calling models across multiple multi-turn benchmarks. Across our panel, the diagnostic reveals action-class miscalibration as a substantial failure mode the state grader cannot see. This gap inflates standing for heavily tool-trained families, which our diagnostic separates from families with context-appropriate action choice. Calibration is reshapable through context-only perturbations, but the reshape is heterogeneous: a single perturbation moves accuracy in opposite directions across families (up to +11.5 vs -21.0 pp on the same scenario), and its effect further depends on the perturbation mechanism. We argue that multi-turn tool-calling evaluations should supplement aggregate accuracy with action-class diagnostics that expose what the model actually does in each scenario.

Admission Without Answers: Label-Free Certification and Experience Learning for LLM-Based Optimization Modeling

Experience-learning agents for optimization modeling improve by storing verified skills, but existing learners admit knowledge by checking against known answers, which real ticket streams do not provide. The natural label-free alternatives are unreliable: on a 300-problem label-blind stream, admitting every executable model poisons roughly one admission in four, while single-instance agreement accepts models that match at one value but differ elsewhere. We propose AdmitOR, an admission gate built on calibrated external behavioral evidence. Candidates from three model families, prompting strategies, and solver stacks are run on instances resampled from an extracted parameter domain; agreement across the resulting value-function traces is summarized by a cross-family clique, and a calibrated threshold returns accept, abstain, or escalate. The preregistered false-discovery criterion holds on calibration data but not on the wild stream. We report this negative result in full and trace most failures to benchmark texts that do not faithfully encode their labeled instances. Comparing four admission judges on one collection of logs inside a state-of-the-art skill learner, AdmitOR raises admission precision to 0.927, against 0.871 for majority vote and 0.726 for execution success, yielding 3.1x and 8.0x fewer poisoned admissions. Its library is the smallest and attains the highest macro accuracy across five public benchmarks, 58.4 against 54.8 for majority vote and 53.9 for the ground-truth-labeled library. The 3.5-point gain over majority vote is supported by a paired bootstrap and survives correction for a host-side anomaly. To our knowledge, AdmitOR is the first label-free admission mechanism designed around an explicitly calibrated false-discovery target. The transfer failure identifies a necessary condition for extending it to wild streams.

Think Short, Defer Smart, Act, and Repeat: Calibrated Reasoning and Uncertainty-Aware Deferral for Edge LLM Agents

LLM agents following the ReAct paradigm are promising enablers of complex multi-step tasks, including multi-hop question answering, code generation, and control of physical AI systems. Yet, when deployed at the edge, they must tightly manage their reasoning budget while remaining reliable and deferring to a cloud-side model only when local uncertainty is too high to act safely. We propose Think Short, Defer Smart (TSDS), a framework that synergistically integrates a lightweight convergence probe, which halts on-device reasoning once the intended action has stabilized, with a perplexity-based deferral rule that escalates uncertain actions to a cloud-side model. Both mechanisms are jointly calibrated on end-to-end episode trajectories via a multi-objective Learn-Then-Test (LTT) procedure, providing simultaneous finite-sample guarantees on expected episode reward and cloud-call rate. We evaluate TSDS on four ReAct benchmarks spanning arithmetic reasoning (GSM8K), multi-hop question answering (HotpotQA), code generation (MBPP), and multi-step embodied planning (household robot), and compare against thought-calibration-only and calibrated-deferral-only standalone baselines. TSDS reduces per-episode thinking compute by 43%-65% over deferral-only baselines across HotpotQA, MBPP, and the household robot task, while maintaining certified reward and cloud-call rate guarantees.

FIFA World Cup 2026 as a Contamination-Free Benchmark for LLM Forecasting Agents: Four Models, a Bookmaker, and 104 Matches

We introduce WC2026-Agents, a benchmark and dataset for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as autonomous forecasting agents on real, future events. For every one of the 104 matches of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, four frontier models -- Claude Opus 4.8, ChatGPT (GPT-5.5, high reasoning), Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok (Expert Mode) -- ran an identical search-act-reflect loop: gather evidence with a web tool, commit to a 1X2 (team-A win / draw / team-B win) distribution and a virtual 100-USD bet, and, after the match, reflect given only the final score. Because every match kicked off after the models' training cutoffs, the benchmark is contamination-free by construction. Crucially, we pair the four agents with a fifth competitor drawn from the same information environment -- the pre-match betting market -- collected as per-match 1X2 odds, giving an economically grounded baseline and letting us score not just what an agent predicts but what it does with money. The release contains 416 forecasts and 414 reflections with verbatim reasoning, ground truth (including penalty shootouts), odds, and a reproducible evaluation suite. A reference evaluation surfaces findings that raw accuracy hides: the four agents issue an identical top pick in 92% of matches and none beats the market's Brier score; indeed, a naive flat stake on the market favorite out-earns all four agents. Yet the agents diverge sharply as decision-makers: betting return-on-investment ranges from -18% to +10%, fading the market is unprofitable for all four, the share of forecasts that cite the market ranges from 12% to 100%, and self-reported error rates on wrong picks range from 36% to 86%. The benchmark thus measures calibration, decision quality, and self-knowledge -- axes on which frontier models differ even when their predictions do not. Data and code: https://github.com/graphuofm/FIFA2026LLM

Critic Experience Bank: Self-Evolving Step-Level Confidence Estimation for LLM Agents

LLM agents act in external environments where each action changes the state that later decisions condition on, and where a single wrong step can waste interaction budget or trigger irreversible side effects long before the final failure is observed. Reliable deployment therefore requires \emph{step-level confidence estimation}: a calibrated probability that each proposed action is productive, available \emph{before} the action is executed. Existing LLM confidence estimators are designed to score a response from the given prompt, but agent confidence also depends on execution consequences: whether similar actions in similar situations actually advanced the task after the environment responded. We introduce the \method (\methodshort), a self-evolving critic framework in which an LLM critic accumulates evidence from its own past judgments and their observed consequences. After each trajectory, a hindsight LLM that sees the full execution feedback votes on whether each step was productive. The resulting pseudo-labels populate a memory bank from which related productive and unproductive experiences are retrieved into the critic's prompt whenever a similar step recurs. \methodshort requires no training and uses no ground truth step labels. Across three agent benchmarks and three critic backbones, \methodshort attains the best calibration (ECE and Brier) and ranking (AUC) in every dataset--critic combination, reducing ECE by up to $54\%$ relative to the strongest training-free baseline.

Bayesian Uncertainty Propagation for Agentic RAG Pipelines: A Proof-of-Concept Study on Multi-Hop Question Answering

Trustworthy deployment of Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems requires mechanisms for estimating when multi-stage reasoning pipelines may fail. This paper presents an uncertainty-aware Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework in which planner, evaluator and generator stages produce uncertainty signals derived from semantic divergence and generator self-evaluation. These signals are propagated through a Bayesian Network (BN) to estimate system-level uncertainty and provide node-level indicators of potential failure points across the workflow. The approach is evaluated on StrategyQA and HotpotQA using GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4.1-Nano, with Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC), Area Under the Accuracy-Rejection Curve (AUARC), Expected Calibration Error (ECE), and Brier Score used to assess discrimination, selective prediction and calibration. Results show that Bayesian propagation is more effective on HotpotQA, where uncertainty accumulates across multi-hop reasoning stages, while StrategyQA exposes limitations caused by miscalibration and unreliable upstream signals. The study positions Bayesian uncertainty propagation as a promising but preliminary mechanism for monitoring Agentic RAG systems, with future validation required in industrial domains such as Offshore Wind (OSW) maintenance decision support.

A Stackelberg Framework for Resource-Aware LLM Agents: Learning, Repair, and Conditional Guarantees

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly operate as multi-turn systems that must allocate context, prompt verbosity, and tool access under finite computational budgets. Static thresholds are simple, but they are brittle under heterogeneous tasks and evolving session states. We formulate resource governance as a contextual Stackelberg game: a controller commits to a quality target and a cost incentive, while an executor responds with resource actions over context, prompting, and tool usage. We learn a conditional response model, optimize a leader policy against that model, and repair the resulting policy using real-API calibration and projection onto an empirically selected action set. For the restricted game, we establish conditional guarantees for equilibrium existence, follower-response stability, safe-set projection, and transfer from a surrogate environment to the real environment under bounded value error. The primary real-API experiment comprises 300 evaluated turns. Relative to a conservative baseline, the selected repaired controller reduces mean token cost by 17.4% (Welch $p=0.022$), while the measured quality difference is not statistically significant ($p=0.44$). The theoretical results are conditional and the experiments do not estimate their regret or transfer constants; consequently, the evidence establishes a promising repaired operating point, not a certified real-system equilibrium.

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

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.

MortarBench: Evaluating Mortgage Loan Origination Agents

Loan origination is the process by which a lender creates a new loan, from application and underwriting through approval and funding. This process serves a critical role in evaluating the eligibility and level of risk posed by an applicant. Recently, firms have begun using mortgage loan agents to augment human loan officers, despite a lack of any public benchmark. To fill this gap, we present MortarBench, a loan origination agent benchmark. MortarBench uses a financial data synthesis and mutation pipeline to generate examples with broad edge case coverage that match real-world distributions and questions. We find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) perform poorly, with closed-source models achieving at most 77.1\% exact match accuracy. We also discover systematic biases in LLM perception of foreignness related to non-English names. Noting these weaknesses, we introduce CRIT, a confidence calibration framework. Our method increases accuracy to 80.5\% while improving risk management steering and reducing bias.