# Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Function-Calling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22985 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22985/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 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 23 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 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, 23 of 23)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [Mixtral of Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04088/) (2024)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [Augmented Language Models: a Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07842/) (2023)
- [Tool Learning with Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08354/) (2023)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04696/) (2024)
- [Shifting Attention to Relevance: Towards the Predictive Uncertainty Quantification of Free-Form Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01379/) (2023)
- [LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07383/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12794/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15627/) (2024)
- [Smooth ECE: Principled Reliability Diagrams via Kernel Smoothing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12236/) (2023)
- [MARS: Meaning-Aware Response Scoring for Uncertainty Estimation in Generative LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11756/) (2024)
- [What Can We Learn From The Selective Prediction And Uncertainty Estimation Performance Of 523 Imagenet Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.11874/) (2023)
- [Pretrained Visual Uncertainties](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16569/) (2024)
- [Robust Decision Making with Partially Calibrated Forecasts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.23471/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07395/) (2026)
- [Stochastic Semantic Evidence Graphs: Uncertainty Propagation and Governance for Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29703/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to autonomously solve real-world tasks. A key ingredient for this is the LLM Function-Calling paradigm, a widely used approach for equipping LLMs with tool-use capabilities. However, an LLM calling functions incorrectly can have severe implications, especially when their effects are irreversible, e.g., transferring money or deleting data. Hence, it is of paramount importance to consider the LLM's confidence that a function call solves the task correctly prior to executing it. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods can be used to quantify this confidence and prevent potentially incorrect function calls. In this work, we present what is, to our knowledge, the first evaluation of UQ methods for LLM Function-Calling (FC). While multi-sample UQ methods, such as Semantic Entropy, show strong performance for natural language Q&A tasks, we find that in the FC setting, it offers no clear advantage over simple single-sample UQ methods. Additionally, we find that the particularities of FC outputs can be leveraged to improve the performance of existing UQ methods in this setting. Specifically, multi-sample UQ methods benefit from clustering FC outputs based on their abstract syntax tree parsing, while single-sample UQ methods can be improved by selecting only semantically meaningful tokens when calculating logit-based uncertainty scores.