A framework for auditing grounding claims

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.

Autonomous multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed to investigate operational incidents and produce structured diagnostic reports. Their trustworthiness hinges on whether each claim is grounded in observed evidence rather than model-internal inference. Existing groundedness evaluators (binary classifiers, LLM-as-judge scalars, self-correction loops) treat supporting evidence as interchangeable and emit a single signal that offers no principled control over downstream action. We present GSAR, a grounding-evaluation and replanning framework that (i) partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary), giving first-class standing to non-redundant alternative perspectives; (ii) assigns evidence-type-specific weights reflecting epistemic strength; (iii) computes an asymmetric contradiction-penalised weighted groundedness score; and (iv) couples that score to a three-tier decision function (proceed, regenerate, replan) driving a bounded-iteration outer loop under an explicit compute budget. We formalise the algorithm, prove six structural properties, and evaluate five design claims on FEVER with gold Wikipedia evidence under four independently-trained LLM judges (gpt-5.4, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, gemini-2.5-pro). Every ablation reproduces in the same direction on every judge: bootstrap 95% CIs on the rho=0 effect exclude 0 on all four; the no-complementary ablation under Opus 4.7 has CI [-96,-68] of 200; at n=1000 three independent judges converge to DeltaS(rho=0)=+0.058. A head-to-head against Vectara HHEM-2.1-Open is included. To our knowledge, GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.

Compositional generalization remains a foundational weakness of modern neural networks, limiting their robustness and applicability in domains requiring out-of-distribution reasoning. A central, yet unverified, assumption in neuro-symbolic AI is that compositional reasoning will emerge as a byproduct of successful symbol grounding. This work presents the first systematic empirical analysis to challenge this assumption by disentangling the contributions of grounding and reasoning. To operationalize this investigation, we introduce the Iterative Logic Tensor Network ($i$LTN), a fully differentiable architecture designed for multi-step deduction. Using a formal taxonomy of generalization -- probing for novel entities, unseen relations, and complex rule compositions -- we demonstrate that a model trained solely on a grounding objective fails to generalize. In contrast, our full $i$LTN, trained jointly on perceptual grounding and multi-step reasoning, achieves high zero-shot accuracy across all tasks. Our findings provide conclusive evidence that symbol grounding, while necessary, is insufficient for generalization, establishing that reasoning is not an emergent property but a distinct capability that requires an explicit learning objective.