# When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Behavioral Consistency as an Uncertainty Signal for LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11619 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11619/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 25 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Robots That Ask For Help: Uncertainty Alignment for Large Language Model Planners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01928/) (2023)
- [Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02703/) (2021)
- [Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.09462/) (2020)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [Conformal Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.10193/) (2023)
- [Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01948/) (2022)
- [Conformal Prediction with Large Language Models for Multi-Choice Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18404/) (2023)
- [ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06112/) (2026)
- [Uncertainty Quantification in LLM Agents: Foundations, Emerging Challenges, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05073/) (2026)
- [Agentic Uncertainty Quantification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15703/) (2026)
- [A Novel Characterization of the Population Area Under the Risk Coverage Curve (AURC) and Rates of Finite Sample Estimators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15361/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [DAAF: From Failure Localization to Editable System Assets in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32498/) (2026)
- [What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39989/) (2026)
- [Confidence Reasoning Graphs: Structured Confidence Estimation for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07948/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Running the same LLM agent on identical inputs yields 2.3-4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs; this behavioral variance constitutes a training-free, black-box uncertainty signal that instantiates selective classification and distribution-free calibration for agentic systems. Across 8,000 runs of four models on 200 HotpotQA questions, consistent tasks (at most 2 unique paths) achieve 82-87% accuracy while inconsistent tasks (4 or more paths) achieve 41-65%, a gap that survives controls for task difficulty. Divergence concentrates at step 2 (50.5% of Llama tasks), and consistency metrics detect failures with AUROC 0.62-0.78. Exploiting this signal, selective prediction (answering only when k=3 runs agree) achieves 87-88% accuracy at 54-62% coverage, a 6-14pp gain over single-run baselines, and matches a split-conformal baseline without a held-out calibration set. A cross-benchmark validation on SWE-bench (50 tasks, 1,000 runs) preserves the consistency hierarchy while revealing an ~8x spread in mean trajectory length across models, and bootstrap analysis shows single-run evaluations misrank models 29.3% of the time.