mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Proxy Confidence: Auditing Black-Box LLM Agents with a Surrogate's Log-Probabilities

arXiv 2610.03894 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling also fits: Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

A deployed LLM agent emits tool calls, queries, and code that can be silently wrong -- by the time the error surfaces, the action has run. Frontier chat APIs hide the model's token probabilities; the agent's stated confidence barely beats chance on the mistakes that matter; and resampling does not help, since frontier models are highly repetitive, reproducing the same call across samples. We recover the missing signal from a low-cost open-weight surrogate run in parallel. It reads the same context, schema, and proposed action as the agent, then scores the call from its own log-probabilities through a family of complementary readouts: teacher forcing and request-PMI weigh the likelihood of each argument value, a discriminative verdict judges the call as a whole, and tool-choice competition tests the function against its siblings. One principle says which to trust: a generative likelihood localizes wrong argument values, while the verdict catches holistically wrong calls. When the error type is unknown, an ensemble is the low-regret default. The readout is training-free, needs no access to the agent's internals, and costs one prefill pass alongside the tool call. On difficult coding tasks it reaches AUROC 0.825 where the actor's stated confidence is near chance (0.598), and the generative readouts beat it by +0.07 to +0.28 across three further actors. Against self-consistency it gains +0.14 to +0.19 on near-deterministic actors, at 1/K the cost. The signal drives two deployment modes: a real-time gate escalating the least-trustworthy calls for review (+0.05 to +0.30 accepted-action accuracy at 50% coverage), and confidence feedback, returning the tool result with the score so the agent adapts its next step -- lifting task success on live-execution benchmarks (+0.119 and +0.137, p <= 1e-4) and beating a random-value control where step errors are silent (+0.078, p = 0.003).

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 36 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

36 of 39 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024NESTFUL: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Nested Sequences of API Calls4 Sep
  2. 2024APIGen: Automated Pipeline for Generating Verifiable and Diverse Function-Calling Datasets26 Jun
  3. 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs24 May

Other references · 33

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  4. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  5. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
  6. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  7. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
  8. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
  9. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
  10. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  11. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 1,017
  12. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 988
21 more
  1. 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
  2. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 902
  3. 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 853
  4. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  5. 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 819
  6. 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
  7. 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
  8. 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
  9. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  10. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  11. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
  12. 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 467
  13. 2024AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agentscited by 401
  14. 2022CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Testscited by 384
  15. 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 361
  16. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
  17. 2021Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Rightcited by 263
  18. 2023LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Executioncited by 239
  19. 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 238
  20. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
  21. 2023LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examinationcited by 156

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Fast Models, Slow Evidence: A Paired and Self-Audited Evaluation of System-1 Decision Models for LLM Agent Harnesses
  2. 2026Tunable Tool-Call Rates in LLM Agents via Representation Steering
  3. 2026The "I Don't Know" Filter: Enhancing Agentic Reliability in Function Calling
  4. 2026Chronicle: Cut-Point Replay for Regression Testing of LLM Agents
  5. 2026Phantom Merge: When Your Large Language Model Agents Pick One but Tell You About Another
  6. 2025Knowing What You Know Is Not Enough: Large Language Model Confidences Don't Align With Their Actions
  7. 2026Structured Feedback Improves Repair in an LLM Agent Loop
  8. 2026Early-Token Confidence Predicts Reasoning Quality in Multi-Agent LLM Debate