arXiv AI

When May an Agent Stop? Evidence-Carrying Termination for Tool-Using LLMs

The paper introduces Evidence-Carrying Termination (ECT), a method that allows tool‑using large language model agents to declare a task complete only when a typed certificate links every required answer claim to valid, in‑scope trace evidence and a deterministic replay confirms the claimed value. In controlled experiments across 48 synthetic tasks and 576 trajectories, ECT eliminated unsafe completions and premature unsupported terminations, outperforming existing termination critics and controllers while maintaining comparable supported completion rates.

arXiv AI
Sep 3

ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

The paper introduces ClaimReceipt, a specification and verifier that checks whether a claim in an agent evaluation can be recomputed from retained evidence (sufficiency) and whether the evidence covers the entire experiment set (coverage). Using the CR‑2 verifier on 1,392 historical records, the authors demonstrate accurate reproduction of audit verdicts, non‑redundant field groups, and zero false positives on semantic faults. In a prospective CR‑3 run, the system correctly flags missing receipts and preserves coverage when private evidence is withheld, while adding minimal overhead to inference time and transaction size.

By Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Calibrating Criterion Revision in LLM Agents: Failure Modes and a Trace-Anchored Protocol

The paper introduces a framework for evaluating how large language model agents revise their success criteria after failures, defining five non‑compensatory conditions that must be met for a criterion revision to be considered valid. Using the CMB‑0.1 protocol, the authors test twelve cross‑domain scenarios across four system configurations, finding that no model trial satisfies all five conditions and highlighting specific failure modes such as zero‑state reconstruction and inadequate intervention sensitivity. They propose a more stringent trace‑anchored CMB‑0.4 protocol to better isolate and measure criterion revision in future studies.

By Guodong Xu
arXiv AI
Aug 19

An Omitted Mode Is a Rare Rule: The Sampling-Verification Danger Law in Continuous Code World Models

The paper investigates the safety of Code World Models, where a language model generates executable world models that a planner uses. It shows that accepting a model based on sampled transitions only guarantees sample consistency, not full safety, because the probability of missing critical events decays as (1‑r)^N. Experiments on hybrid instruments reveal that omitted mode‑boundaries can severely limit planner performance, and that even sophisticated LLMs (GPT‑5.x) struggle to repair such omissions in higher‑dimensional settings.

By Javier Aguilar Mart\'in
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models

The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.

By Justin Bronder
arXiv AI
Sep 11

AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents

AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.

By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar