Prospective Interpretation Risk: Principled Communication Control Between LLMs
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM) agentic systems increasingly rely on models communicating with one another, yet existing uncertainty and multi-agent methods rarely estimate how a particular receiver will interpret a message before it is sent. This matters in heterogeneous systems, where capable receivers can reconstruct different tasks from the same message. We model this as a sender-receiver problem with a latent receiver type and define prospective interpretation risk (PIR): the probability that a receiver reconstructs a task other than intended. Rather than model an LLM's full input-output behaviour, we use black-box probes relating messages, intended tasks, and receiver-specific reconstructions, yielding scalable supervision while separating interpretation from downstream capability failure. Offline, heterogeneous frozen receivers provide supervision for receiver-conditioned risk and the effects of predefined mutable message features. At deployment, history induces a posterior over receiver types, guiding message revision and selection. We introduce value of interpretation information (VoII), querying for receiver information only when its expected communication benefit exceeds its cost. Our theory characterises when receiver information has decision value and bounds such queries. Empirically, interpretation-failure rates vary by 4-13x across receivers. Receiver information reduces PIR calibration error by 68% relative to a receiver-agnostic predictor, largely by correcting receiver-specific risk levels. PIR-guided revision reduces interpretation failure by 44% relative to the original message and 40% relative to a generic rewrite, mostly through a repair that helps every receiver. VoII outperforms information-gain and random querying at matched cost on the interpretation objective it optimises, lowering interpretation failure from 3.84% to 3.79% while querying 18.2% of episodes.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (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 45 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.
Builds on
45 of 72 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Value of Information: A Framework for Human-Agent Communication10 Jan
- 2025Nemotron 3 Nano: Open, Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Model for Agentic Reasoning23 Dec
- 2025Structured Uncertainty guided Clarification for LLM Agents11 Nov
- 2025AgentAsk: Multi-Agent Systems Need to Ask8 Oct
- 2025Agent-to-Agent Theory of Mind: Testing Interlocutor Awareness among Large Language Models28 Jun
- 2024Aligning Language Models to Explicitly Handle Ambiguity18 Apr
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework1 Aug
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society31 Mar
Other references · 37
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,386
- 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,261
- 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,045
25 more
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 1,040
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 1,006
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 919
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
- 2020AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questionscited by 390
- 2018Speaker-Follower Models for Vision-and-Language Navigationcited by 340
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 310
- 2022PromptSource: An Integrated Development Environment and Repository for Natural Language Promptscited by 289
- 2023How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?cited by 270
- 2026Gemma 4 Technical Reportcited by 259
- 2020Beyond I.I.D.: Three Levels of Generalization for Question Answering on Knowledge Basescited by 171
- 2015Large-scale Simple Question Answering with Memory Networkscited by 127
- 2018Learning to Ask Good Questions: Ranking Clarification Questions using Neural Expected Value of Perfect Informationcited by 115
- 2023Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMscited by 98
- 2022Mintaka: A Complex, Natural, and Multilingual Dataset for End-to-End Question Answeringcited by 72
- 2023Selectively Answering Ambiguous Questionscited by 66
- 2024LLMmap: Fingerprinting For Large Language Modelscited by 58
- 2025Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Modelscited by 33
- 2021Few-shot Language Coordination by Modeling Theory of Mindcited by 32
- 2025What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Promptscited by 32
- 2025Disambiguate First, Parse Later: Generating Interpretations for Ambiguity Resolution in Semantic Parsingcited by 13
- 2021Calibrate your listeners! Robust communication-based training for pragmatic speakerscited by 9
- 2026Before Agents Speak: Pre-hoc Failure Risk Inference in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond tokens: a unified framework for latent communication in LLM-based multi-agent systems
- 2026Bayes-Sufficient Compression Is Not Enough: How Does Communication Help Multi-Agent Systems?
- 2025Position: Uncertainty Quantification Needs Reassessment for Large-language Model Agents
- 2026What Do Agents Communicate? Characterizing Information Exchange in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026Narrowing the Collaboration Gap, Probably
- 2026Uncertainty Decomposition for Clarification Seeking in LLM Agents
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study
- 2026When Messages Go Wrong: Understanding Communication Faults in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems