mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Testing-Driven Reliability Audit of Trajectory-Based Early Outcome Prediction for LLM Agents: Target-Specific Calibration Transfer Persists Within a Single Benchmark

arXiv 2609.25647 ↗First posted 22 Sep 2026cs.AIcited by 1

New in LLM agents and tool use; no direction yet. LLM agents and tool use

Abstract (arXiv)

Predicting early outcomes based on trajectory can decrease the expenses associated with agent evaluation by terminating a run once the outcome becomes sufficiently predictable, assuming that the predictor's confidence is properly calibrated. Calibration is at risk when a predictor is applied to an agent on which it was never trained, but it is not known whether such transfer failures are broad across agent systems or concentrated in specific target agent/head combinations. Using public SWE-bench Verified trajectories and a frozen dual-head early-outcome prediction pipeline, we ran a leave-one-agent-out calibration audit, a shared-predictor leave-two-agents-out control, oracle prior correction, and a robustness battery over training cohorts, task resampling, task halves, jackknife, and thresholds. Fixed-scaffold TerminalBench analysis served as a pre-registered boundary test. Broad same-predictor pairwise heterogeneity was not supported; the median pairwise corrected-gap differences were 0.0180 (SUCCESS head, 45 pairs) and 0.0385 (FAILURE head, 35 pairs), and the pre-registered heterogeneity criterion was not met on either head. Two specific combinations, gpt-5-mini/SUCCESS and claude-opus-4.6/FAILURE, showed persistent calibration-transfer errors (median corrected gaps 0.1377 and 0.1107) without a sign reversal under any frozen control. TerminalBench did not establish cross-benchmark replication: the success target produced zero decisions (INDETERMINATE), and the failure target did not satisfy the pre-registered persistence criterion. Therefore, a strong target-specific calibration-transfer error can exist within one frozen environment, but the evidence does not establish that the error is intrinsic to the model or general across benchmarks.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 2 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.

Builds on

2 of 2 references.

References · 2

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  2. 2026Online Reasoning Calibration: Test-Time Training Enables Generalizable Conformal LLM Reasoningcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Calibration Is Not Control: Why LLM-Agent Oversight Needs Intervention
  2. 2026Accurate Failure Prediction in Agents Does Not Imply Effective Failure Prevention
  3. 2026From Uncertainty to Action: Learning to Steer LLM Agents
  4. 2026NeuroState-Bench: A Human-Calibrated Benchmark for Commitment Integrity in LLM Agent Profiles
  5. 2026AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents
  6. 2026Can an Agent Learn to Predict Its Own Failure? Outcome-Grounded Confidence Calibration in LLM Agents
  7. 2026Evaluating Agentic Capabilities Before Post-Training: An End-to-End Approach
  8. 2026Disentangling Task Difficulty from Run-Level Failure in Agent Failure Prediction