arXiv AI By Mengdi Chu, Jintao Huang

Can LLMs Trust Appropriately? Evaluating Calibrated Reliance on Imperfect Partners

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper "Can LLMs Trust Appropriately? Evaluating Calibrated Reliance on Imperfect Partners" introduces a benchmark of 324 scenarios across 23 collaboration categories to test how well large language models translate partner evidence into calibrated trust decisions. Each scenario requires three sequential decisions with defined transition dynamics, feedback, and cost schedules, allowing precise analytical evaluation of choices against expected outcomes. The study evaluates seven models and 36 controlled-history probes, finding that while the best frontier model approaches near‑optimal decisions, other models display pathologies such as excessive safeguards, zero‑value verification purchases, prioritizing immediate savings over cooperative learning, and misallocating assistance.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 13

ECMR: Evidence-Aware Deliberation Control for Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning

ECMR: Evidence-Aware Deliberation Control for Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning proposes a controller that dynamically manages deliberation steps in multi-agent LLM systems. The controller evaluates answer concentration, support diversity, contradictions, role behavior, verification history, and remaining budget to decide actions such as propose, challenge, verify, arbitrate, diversify, correct, or stop. In a held‑out evaluation on MedQA, CaseHOLD, and FinQA, ECMR‑Full improves pooled accuracy from 62.1% to 84.9%, lowers false‑consensus from 40.7% to 17.0%, and raises evidence‑support from 58.0% to 88.7%.

arXiv AI
5d ago

Knowing Whom to Trust is not Enough: The Trust--Agreement Gap in Repeated Multi-Party LLM Negotiation

The paper examines how large language model (LLM) agents can use trust estimates in repeated multi‑party, multi‑issue negotiations where one participant covertly tries to block agreement. By introducing a framework where agents maintain pairwise trust scores across successive games, the study compares trust‑aware and trust‑agnostic agents. Results show a trust–agreement gap: while trust‑aware agents quickly spot the adversary and trust can raise agreement rates by up to 23 percentage points, this benefit only materializes when agents are explicitly guided to incorporate trust into their decision‑making.

By Amit Sarker, Moumita Choudhury, Saaduddin Mahmud, Shlomo Zilberstein
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 5

TrustMI: Causally controlling how assistants trust their users

The paper introduces TrustMI, a method to causally control how large language model assistants decide to trust their users. By creating 2,000 contrastive conversations that vary in ability, benevolence, and integrity, the authors learn steering matrices that adjust trust decisions along linear directions in model activations while keeping the model parameters frozen. Experiments across six instruction‑tuned models show that these steering changes reliably alter trust decisions and affect safety‑related behaviors such as compliance with harmful requests, prompt injections, and insider threats.