arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.27822

What Confidence Routing Is Actually Doing: Auditing Routing, Calibration, and Commitment in Multi-Agent Deliberation

Jingyan Jiang·Huihuo Zheng·Rajeev Thakur·Chih-Hsuan Yang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A common multi-agent design asks agents to report confidence and lets the highest-scoring agent speak next, implicitly using one scalar both to route the conversation and to estimate uncertainty. We audit this confidence-routed broadcast protocol by separating three trace-level questions: whether it selects the right candidate (routing), whether reported confidence behaves like a probability (calibration), and whether the selected agent publicly states the answer that won the turn (commitment). Our primary study covers 4,181 gpt-oss-120b olympiad-math traces; we repeat the audit on a 2-by-2 actor-by-benchmark grid that adds gemma-4-31B-it and a biology multiple-choice benchmark. In the primary cell, confidence discriminates correct from wrong candidates (AUROC 0.72) but is strongly overconfident (79% mean stated confidence versus 52% accuracy). A cross-fitted, tier-stratified isotonic procedure reduces Expected Calibration Error from 0.278 to 0.008 on held-out candidates, but it does not recover missing discrimination: raw AUROC is only 0.537 and 0.440 in the two Gemma cells. Routing is likewise setting-dependent. Fixed routers differ by at most 1.1 percentage points on gpt-oss/math, whereas raw-confidence argmax performs 5.6 and 11.2 points below random-valid selection in the Gemma cells. Commitment is distinct again: in the primary cell, poll and spoken answers diverge in 20.4% of valid pairs, 62.4% of those revisions are fresh generations, and the unconditional correctness shift is -1.7 points; the other three cells instead range from +0.9 to +12.2 points. The transferable lesson is procedural: routing discrimination, probability calibration, and public commitment must be measured separately before raw confidence is used for deployment decisions.

Explore related subjects

cs.MAcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jingyan Jiang, Huihuo Zheng, Rajeev Thakur, Chih-Hsuan Yang. 2026-08-18. What Confidence Routing Is Actually Doing: Auditing Routing, Calibration, and Commitment in Multi-Agent Deliberation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27822

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Optimization without Future Compromises? Decentralized Coordination via Collective and Reinforcement Learning

Efficient resource allocation in multi-agent systems requires autonomous agents to coordinate their decisions while balancing system-wide objectives with individual costs. This becomes increasingly challenging over long time horizons, where decisions that improve the current allocation may compromise future resource allocation, while decentralized agents have limited observations of the overall system. Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) can learn such long-term dependencies via local observations, but directly applying it to large-scale coordination leads to rapidly growing decision spaces and inefficient training. To this end, we propose Hierarchical Reinforcement and Collective Learning (HRCL), a hierarchical framework that uses MARL to guide, rather than replace, decentralized multi-agent coordination. At the high level, MARL learns strategies that restrict the alternatives considered during coordination and guide agents in balancing system-wide and individual objectives. At the low level, agents perform efficient decentralized coordination under this strategic guidance. This separation reduces the learning space and allows short-term coordination trade-offs to be evaluated according to their long-term effects. Experiments on a synthetic benchmark show that HRCL converges substantially faster than standalone MARL and reduces system-wide and individual costs by 35.53% and 27.05%, respectively. Evaluations on energy self-management and drone swarm sensing further show improved resource allocation, power-peak regulation, and sensing efficiency. These results show that learning strategic guidance for an existing coordination process can retain scalable decentralized coordination without letting short-term decisions compromise future resource allocation.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

RideSkill: A Hierarchical Algorithm for Generalized Ride Sharing with LLM-Driven Automatic Evolution

Ride-sharing, which allows multiple passengers with different origin-destination (OD) pairs to share a single vehicle, is a challenging operational problem, as it requires orders with different OD pairs to be efficiently bundled and assigned to vehicles under uncertain and varying scenarios. Although multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) solutions have achieved promising performance, they suffer from limited generalization (adapting to different environmental scenarios), low transferability (adapting to different platform objectives), and training difficulties in large-scale systems, such as the curse of dimensionality. Recently, motivated by the scaling of large language models (LLMs), several works have incorporated LLMs into ride-hailing systems, either by employing LLMs directly as decision-making agents or using them for automatic algorithm design. However, none of these approaches support vehicle sharing, which complicates the problem by expanding both the state and action spaces exponentially. Moreover, most of them require frequent LLM calls at inference time, making them infeasible for real-time deployment. To address these issues, we propose RideSkill, a hierarchical method for ride-sharing that leverages LLM-assisted automatic algorithmic design. RideSkill consists of a combiner that assigns appropriate skills to each vehicle from a learned skill repository, enabling adaptive dispatch under varying scenarios and objectives, and a repositioner that sequentially relocates idle vehicles to emerging regions, avoiding conflicts among vehicles. Crucially, the skill repository, combiner, and repositioner are all trained by an LLM-based automatic evolutionary method, eliminating the need for LLM calls during deployment and thus ensuring high real-time performance.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Anchor and Perturb: Lazy Agent Remediation by Exploration Injection

Anchor and Perturb (AnP) is a lightweight framework that resolves multi-agent coordination failures by decoupling exploratory variance injection from recurrent manifold stability. Existing remediation strategies predominantly alter mixing network architectures or enforce simultaneous exploration across the collective, which inevitably precipitates severe temporal-difference penalties in non-monotonic reward spaces. Specifically, AnP isolates underperforming lazy agents and injects an asymmetric exploratory pulse into targeted coordinates whilst anchoring converged teammates to nominal greedy exploitation. Empirical telemetry benchmarks demonstrate that AnP successfully rescues collapsed joint policies (recovering from a 5% evaluation win rate nadir back to 85%) and facilitates escape from suboptimal coordination plateaus, sustaining peak win rates of 90% without requiring structural network modifications.

cs.MA↗