Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

A 324-scenario benchmark tests whether LLMs adjust their reliance on imperfect partners as evidence accumulates, using exact analytical baselines rather than subjective judgments. The strongest frontier model comes close to optimal, while others show specific failures such as buying verification with zero expected value and overpaying for safeguards. The finding that explicit posterior distributions fix some errors but introduce new ones is useful for anyone designing multi-agent systems or evaluating agent autonomy.
Sources coveringarXiv, AWS, Import AI

Can LLMs Trust Appropriately? Evaluating Calibrated Reliance on Imperfect Partners

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.34107v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly collaborate with humans and peer AI agents whose contributions may be incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrect. Effective collaboration requires calibrated trust, whereby decisions to rely on, verify, or assist a partner adapt rationally as empirical evidence accumulates. We investigate whether models translate partner evidence into appropriate reliance policies. We introduce a benchmark of 324 scenarios across 23 collaboration categories. Each scenario involves three sequential decisions with explicit transition dynamics, feedback emissions, and cost schedules, permitting exact analytical evaluation of choices against their expected consequences over the remaining interaction. Evaluating seven models alongside 36 controlled-history probes, we dissociate evidence sensitivity from normatively appropriate action. While the strongest frontier model approaches near-optimal decisions, other models exhibit recurring pathologies: procuring excessive safeguards, purchasing verification tests with zero expected value of information, prioritizing immediate savings over cooperative learning, and misallocating assistance to suboptimal channels. Supplying explicit posterior distributions resolves certain errors while introducing new failure modes. Calibrated trust in autonomous agents critically demands coupling empirical evidence with forward-looking decision utility.

Title:Can LLMs Trust Appropriately? Evaluating Calibrated Reliance on Imperfect Partners

Abstract:Large language models increasingly collaborate with humans and peer AI agents whose contributions may be incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrect. Effective collaboration requires calibrated trust, whereby decisions to rely on, verify, or assist a partner adapt rationally as empirical evidence accumulates. We investigate whether models translate partner evidence into appropriate reliance policies. We introduce a benchmark of 324 scenarios across 23 collaboration categories. Each scenario involves three sequential decisions with explicit transition dynamics, feedback emissions, and cost schedules, permitting exact analytical evaluation of choices against their expected consequences over the remaining interaction. Evaluating seven models alongside 36 controlled-history probes, we dissociate evidence sensitivity from normatively appropriate action. While the strongest frontier model approaches near-optimal decisions, other models exhibit recurring pathologies: procuring excessive safeguards, purchasing verification tests with zero expected value of information, prioritizing immediate savings over cooperative learning, and misallocating assistance to suboptimal channels. Supplying explicit posterior distributions resolves certain errors while introducing new failure modes. Calibrated trust in autonomous agents critically demands coupling empirical evidence with forward-looking decision utility.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2610.34107 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.34107v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.34107 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 280 words

Related coverage