HESP: Separating What to Probe from When to Stop in Local LLM Alert-Triage Agents
TL;DR
HESP is presented, a controller that holds the investigation procedure outside the model, which keeps a ledger of competing explanations, selects read-only probes by expected information gain per cost, accepts only verdicts backed by current evidence, can end an investigation itself, and journals every prediction before its observation.
Abstract
Security operations centers receive far more alerts than analysts can investigate, and organizations that cannot send their telemetry to hosted models must automate triage with small open-weight LLMs on their own hardware. Current LLM agents leave the investigation procedure to the model, and small local models fail at it: they probe without converging, never commit to a verdict, or dismiss real attacks. In this paper, we present HESP, a controller that holds the investigation procedure outside the model. HESP keeps a ledger of competing explanations, selects read-only probes by expected information gain per cost, accepts only verdicts backed by current evidence, can end an investigation itself, and journals every prediction before its observation. We evaluated HESP in four pre-registered studies with five open-weight models from two families (7B to 72B), totalling 7,272 audited episodes in a controlled triage environment. With likelihood tables counted from LLM-free runs, HESP lifts Qwen2.5-7B from 0.125 to 1.000 verified completion, matching oracle tables. The information-gain ranking adds +0.26 to +0.35 on every model that concludes, and a controller-side stop lifts Llama-3.1-8B, which never concludes on its own, from 0 to 0.917. What to probe and when to stop are therefore separate failures, and different small models exhibit different ones. Because HESP and its planner run entirely on local hardware, it suits environments where telemetry cannot leave the premises. We release all code, protocols, and episode journals at https://github.com/lzwhehe/HESP.
