arXiv:2606. 08275v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When an LLM agent fails -- issues a refund it should not have, calls the wrong tool, leaks data -- existing tooling answers what happened (observability) or whether it passed (evaluation), but not which step caused the failure.
arXiv:2608. 19760v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Audited against causal ground truth from executed replay in a single-agent tool environment (ALFWorld), none of the step-level credit signals used to train LLM agents -- LLM-judge scores, outcome-conditioned logprob ratios, or the policy's own confidence -- identifies which steps causally matter better than chance.
arXiv:2609.07944v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing causal-inference benchmarks for LLMs mostly score method descriptions or whether generated code runs, not whether the executed workflow recove...
The paper "trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories" examines the limitations of outcome-only evaluation for large language model agents. Using a deterministic tool‑using support‑desk environment with a scripted oracle policy and a fault injector, the authors compare five different judging approaches—programmatic rules, outcome‑only, step‑rubric at two model sizes, and a self‑consistency ensemble—on metrics such as detection, step localisation, fault typing, calibration, and cost across 400 trajectories. The study finds that outcome‑only judges miss many silent faults and generate false positives, while step‑rubric judges achieve higher recall with no false alarms but at greater cost, and that none of the judges read the final reply, allowing fabricated promises to evade detection. "whyItMatters":"The findings highlight that current production‑default outcome‑only evaluations can overlook critical failures in agent behavior, underscoring the need for more nuanced, step‑level judging methods to ensure reliable LLM agent performance."
The paper introduces FedCausalCompose, a causal world‑model framework designed for modular large‑language‑model agents that interact with distinct services such as order, payment, inventory, and shipment. It demonstrates that standard observational world models suffer from irreducible interventional errors when unblocked back‑door paths exist, whereas incorporating intervention‑response evidence improves interface recovery and can outperform non‑causal baselines when coverage and local mechanism errors are controlled. Experiments show that causal interfaces are most beneficial in structured tool environments with clear API signatures, while they provide little advantage in dialogue or narrative settings unless the causal information becomes directly relevant to the agent’s decision making.
The paper proposes a claim‑specific verification audit for modular agents that replaces aggregate task scores with evidence‑based evaluations. Each agent conclusion is recorded with supporting evidence and classified as supported, unsupported, unresolved, or not evaluated, along with the boundary of validity. The audit employs three tools—oracle policies, perfect component replacements, and verifier‑score tests—to trace value changes, locate lost value, and assess verifier effectiveness, demonstrated on a portfolio‑allocation agent in a synthetic market.
arXiv:2606. 27154v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Root cause analysis (RCA) poses a holistic test of LLM agentic capabilities, such as long-context understanding, multi-step reasoning, and tool use.
arXiv:2605. 09692v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous language agents increasingly expose traces, memories, plans and constraints, but existing evaluations rarely test whether these state variables are bound to final actions.
arXiv:2606. 00765v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks through long trajectories involving reasoning steps, tool calls, and inter-agent communication.
The paper introduces ontological trust, a task‑conditioned property of trajectory prefixes, and presents RGE, an online monitor that decomposes trust into Role, Goal, and Evidence. RGE uses LLMs only for structured task and step representations, while trust updates and interventions are deterministic, producing a replayable and auditable trust trajectory. Evaluated on a cross‑domain corpus, RGE outperforms rule‑, judge‑, and shield‑style baselines, achieving over 93% Drift F1 and maintaining high benign coverage.
The paper presents a framework for causal attribution in agentic AI systems, outlining estimators and conditions where they fail. It distinguishes between marginal total effects and common‑random‑number total effects, introduces a natural direct effect under pinned downstreams, and derives a coupling method to keep direct effects estimable. The authors also propose a traceability specification to meet upcoming regulatory requirements for high‑risk AI systems.
Root cause analysis (RCA) poses a holistic test of LLM agentic capabilities, such as long-context understanding, multi-step reasoning, and tool use. However, existing datasets suffer from a fundamental gap: they label only the root cause, not the propagation path connecting it to the observed symptom, which largely simplifies the task to naive pattern matching.
arXiv:2607. 16999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The Credit Assignment Problem (CAP) is fundamental to developing efficient and explainable Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents.