Faithful uncertainty in LLM agents: calibration vs utility tradeoff in practice[D]

The Google paper on metacognition for hallucination reduction makes a distinction that is underappreciated in benchmarks. Calibration is not about being right more often. It is about matching confidence to correctness. A perfectly calibrated model can still be wrong twenty five percent of the time. It just does not pretend otherwise. In agent systems this distinction matters more than in chat. A conversational model giving a hedged answer is slightly annoying. An agent with tool access acting confidently on a wrong premise is dangerous. I have been trying this in a small verdent based coding setup by splitting the pipeline into a planning stage that produces a task graph, then running a verifier before any expensive tool gets invoked. The risk is the model trusts its own reasoning even when speculative. Grounding helps but it is not the same as calibration. One practical pattern: a planning stage produces a task graph, then a lightweight verifier checks whether the plan is consistent with available evidence. This catches about sixty percent of hallucinated tool calls in my setup before they execute. The downside is the utility tax. Extra verification adds latency. Dropping hallucination from twenty five to five percent costs about half the easy correct answers, mirroring the paper. My current compromise: let the planning layer flag low confidence tasks for human review, but auto execute high confidence ones. The reviewer only sees edge cases instead of drowning in every step. The awkward part is that most agent stacks still treat confidence as a log detail, not as a control surface.