arXiv AI By Praphul Singh, Shanu Kumar, Akshat Agarwal, Ganesh Kumar

ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance

Read the original on arXiv AI →

ContractEval is a diagnostic framework that makes active obligations in procedural instructions explicit by representing them as query‑conditioned obligations. It matches these obligations against response or trace evidence, identifying omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output‑contract violations as distinct conformance failures. In tests on audited procedural contracts, ContractEval detects and localizes all injected structural failures that output‑only and trace‑aware LLM judges miss, though it is not a compliance guarantee and remains calibration‑sensitive.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Trace Integrity for LLM Data Agents: A Vision for Auditable Structured Reasoning in Real-World Systems

The paper argues that answer accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating large language model (LLM) data agents, especially in structured-data tasks where a correct answer can be produced by an invalid trace. It introduces Trace Integrity as a reliability criterion that ensures the computation behind an answer is explicit, executable, schema-valid, operator-faithful, replayable, answer-consistent, and auditable. The authors operationalize this concept with execution contracts and present the CAIT (Correct Answer / Invalid Trace) Rate to quantify how often answer-only evaluations mistakenly reward unsupported outputs, demonstrating that accuracy, trace validity, and silent-failure risk are distinct signals.

By Srimonti Dutta, Akshata Kishore Moharir
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