# Prospective Interpretation Risk: Principled Communication Control Between LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.33885 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33885/

## 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.

## 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, 30 of 45)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [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)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.04118/) (2020)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [Speaker-Follower Models for Vision-and-Language Navigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.02724/) (2018)
- [State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00595/) (2023)
- [PromptSource: An Integrated Development Environment and Repository for Natural Language Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01279/) (2022)
- [How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09009/) (2023)
- [Gemma 4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02770/) (2026)
- [Beyond I.I.D.: Three Levels of Generalization for Question Answering on Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.07743/) (2020)
- [Large-scale Simple Question Answering with Memory Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02075/) (2015)
- [Learning to Ask Good Questions: Ranking Clarification Questions using Neural Expected Value of Perfect Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.04655/) (2018)
- [Nemotron 3 Nano: Open, Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Model for Agentic Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.20848/) (2025)

## 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.