Runtime Uncertainty Monitoring for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems Using Bayesian Networks

This paper investigates how multi-agent systems (MAS)-based on large language models (LLMs) can support actuarial risk modelling, with a particular focus on uncertainty quantification. Actuarial workflows represent a high-stakes decision-support setting where unreliable outputs may lead to incorrect risk assessment, unfair pricing, and regulatory non-compliance. To address uncertainty introduced by the probabilistic nature of LLMs and dependencies between agents, a multi-agent framework is proposed in which specialised agents perform data preparation, modelling, review, and explanation tasks under a central hub. The main contribution is a novel approach to uncertainty propagation using token-level log-probabilities and a Bayesian Network. Importantly, log probabilities are not treated as direct probabilities of correctness or task success. Instead, length-normalised log-probability summaries are transformed into calibrated task-level confidence estimates before incorporation into the Bayesian Network. Results show that the framework reproduces baseline actuarial performance while providing additional insight into workflow stability and runtime uncertainty propagation.

The Confident Liar: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Debate with Log-Probabilities and LLM-as-Judge

Multi-agent debate systems are typically evaluated only on whether the final answer is correct, overlooking the quality of the intermediate reasoning that debate is designed to produce. This paper studies the relationship between three signals in multi-agent debate: token-level log-probability distributions over reasoning tokens, LLM-as-judge rubric scores assigned to those tokens, and final task accuracy. We examine whether internal confidence signals predict externally evaluated reasoning quality, and whether either signal aligns with task correctness, across three domains: rubric-based scoring, mathematical reasoning, and factual question answering. Our framework pairs a two-agent debate architecture -- a Constructor and an Auditor -- with an LLM-as-judge that scores each agent's reasoning along instruction following, justification quality, and evidence grounding, together with a critical-failure flag. Experiments in the rubric-scoring domain reveal a consistent four-phase confidence trajectory and a substantial role asymmetry: confidence aligns with judged reasoning quality roughly twice as strongly for the Constructor as for the Auditor, and confidence-based detection of critical reasoning failures is markedly more reliable for the Constructor (AUROC 0.804) than for the Auditor (0.634). These findings motivate the broader cross-domain investigation proposed in this paper.