arXiv subjects

Mengdie Flora Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Mengdie Flora Wang.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

UnitBoost: Managing Compound LLM Systems with a Merge Operator, Not a Model

Compound LLM systems often solve a coordination problem by adding a higher-level LLM. The resulting meta-agent reads workers' outputs, writes the final answer, allocates later calls, and decides when to stop. It is expressive, but it also concentrates three control decisions in an opaque, order-sensitive model call. We ask whether the manager needs to be generative at all. UnitBoost replaces that model with a defined meta-level operator: a task-given unit map turns worker outputs into slot-value proposals, a constrained argmax assembles the output, and the slots left unfilled or unsupported become an explicit residual for the next round. The operator is order-free, records unit provenance, and gives a simple guarantee: without coupling constraints, unit-wise maximization under the same admission score dominates selection of any complete candidate. On three held-out benchmarks, it exceeds the best single candidate chosen with gold labels by 0.060-0.195 absolute task-score points and input-matched generative managers by 0.048-0.076. Replacing only the management step improves six compound-system configurations by 0.013-0.182. Residual-directed rounds raise FanOutQA cell F1 from 0.4778 to 0.5524; matched controls show that the true residual outperforms random targets and ordinary rereading, while a label-free supply signal flags exhaustion after one unproductive round. The same analysis measures three conditions in which no such gain is available (one indivisible unit, unavailable unit identity, and an endpoint that charges for every emitted unit) and quantifies cross-unit coupling as a repair cost. The manager gives up semantic freedom and gains order invariance, unit provenance, and testable failure conditions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Budgeted Act-or-Defer Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation with Local Reliability Bounds

Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review. We formulate this as budgeted act-or-defer decision making. At each round, the system maps the debate prefix to a low-dimensional state, computes a $k$-nearest-neighbor lower confidence bound on state-conditional correctness using calibration data, and acts only when the bound exceeds a user-specified reliability threshold. The certificate controls wrong actions through the decomposition $β= δ+ α+ \varepsilon_{\mathrm{act}}$, separating calibration failure, residual action risk, and representation gap. The guarantee is conditional, not distribution-free: it relies on a valid local bias envelope and an action-region representation-gap bound, and each assumption is paired with falsification-style diagnostics. Because the same absolute wrong-action budget has different meanings across tasks of different difficulty, we set budgets relative to each task's final-round error using training data only, and evaluate safety by normalized budget usage $\mathrm{WA}/β$. On six benchmarks against nine baselines, the method uses 9--12% of the pre-declared budget on activated datasets, reaching up to 84% automation and 96% acted-on accuracy; on stress-test datasets, it defers rather than forcing unreliable automation. Rather than relying on per-task post-hoc threshold search, the method prospectively converts a user-declared wrong-action budget into an auditable act-or-defer operating point before deployment, under explicitly stated assumptions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Quantifying Consistency in LLM Logical Reasoning via Structural Uncertainty

Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning. Existing methods assess reliability primarily through output dispersion -- measuring how much sampled answers differ -- but this discards a complementary signal: whether the model can consistently rank competing reasoning candidates. We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings over sampled reasoning solutions. Given a query, we generate multiple candidate solutions and ask the model to judge pairwise preferences among its own outputs. We aggregate self-preferences into ranking distributions via Bradley-Terry modeling with PageRank, and decompose the signal into two entropy-based components: across-trial ranking instability and within-trial candidate ambiguity. Across five LLMs and eight benchmarks, structural signals provide information complementary to answer dispersion: on logical and mathematical reasoning tasks, the combination improves identification of unreliable instances, while on factual retrieval the structural signal collapses toward uniformity, diagnosing a regime boundary where reasoning-level consistency evaluation is uninformative. The two components relate differently to accuracy: within-trial ambiguity correlates positively with correctness -- consistent with settings where multiple plausible solution paths remain competitive -- while across-trial instability correlates negatively, signaling unreliable reasoning. Structural uncertainty is best understood not as a universal confidence estimator, but as a regime-sensitive evaluator of logical reasoning consistency.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Knowing When to Ask: Self-Gated Clarification for Hierarchical Language Agents

In hierarchical reasoning, failures often originate at intermediate decision points where the agent commits to a wrong branch without recognizing that it lacks critical information. Rather than treating clarification as an external uncertainty trigger, we propose ACTION-RATING, a formulation that places it inside the agent's action space on a shared ordinal scale with navigation, so that asking competes directly with acting at every decision point and help-seeking becomes observable at intermediate states. Two structurally distinct information-seeking modes emerge from the agent's own ratings: mandatory (no viable branch) and opportunistic (residual uncertainty despite a leading candidate). On Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification (30,000-node taxonomy, three benchmarks, 9~LLMs across 4 families), we observe a regime shift from mandatory to opportunistic clarification, with Information-Seeking Effectiveness (ISE), a local diagnostic defined as the fraction of help interactions followed by a correct next navigation step (not a final-task metric), rising from 50% to 74%. Three diagnostic contrasts fail to reproduce this structure. A separability test shows that the information-seeking pattern (mode split, ISE ranking) persists when answer quality is degraded (-18.8% accuracy), supporting an empirical separation between where an agent seeks help and the quality of the help it receives. Under the controlled answer channel, accuracy gains reach +16.2% at 10-digit; we read this as an upper bound on what better localization could unlock, not a deployment estimate.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

From Debate to Decision: Conformal Social Choice for Safe Multi-Agent Deliberation

Multi-agent debate improves LLM reasoning, yet agreement among agents is not evidence of correctness. When agents converge on a wrong answer through social reinforcement, consensus-based stopping commits that error to an automated action with no recourse. We introduce Conformal Social Choice, a post-hoc decision layer that converts debate outputs into calibrated act-versus-escalate decisions. Verbalized probability distributions from heterogeneous agents are aggregated via a linear opinion pool and calibrated with split conformal prediction, yielding prediction sets with a marginal coverage guarantee: the correct answer is included with probability ${\geq}\,1{-}α$, without assumptions on individual model calibration. A hierarchical action policy maps singleton sets to autonomous action and larger sets to human escalation. On eight MMLU-Pro domains with three agents (Claude Haiku, DeepSeek-R1, Qwen-3 32B), coverage stays within 1--2 points of the target. The key finding is not that debate becomes more accurate, but that the conformal layer makes its failures actionable: 81.9% of wrong-consensus cases are intercepted at $α{=}0.05$. Because the layer refuses to act on cases where debate is confidently wrong, the remaining conformal singletons reach 90.0--96.8% accuracy (up to 22.1pp above consensus stopping) -- a selection effect, not a reasoning improvement. This safety comes at the cost of automation, but the operating point is user-adjustable via $α$.

cs.AI↗