Benchmarking Recursive-Collapse Warning Claims Under Matched False-Positive Control

Recursive learning -- where models are trained on data generated by previous versions of themselves -- is increasingly common in large language models, autonomous agents, and self-supervised systems. However, standard performance metrics (loss, perplexity, accuracy) often fail to detect internal degradation before it becomes irreversible. Here we identify a phenomenon we call silent collapse: under broad recursive conditions, model internal distributions -- predictive entropy, representational diversity, and tail coverage -- progressively contract even as conventional metrics appear stable or improving. We discover that silent collapse is not abrupt. Its onset is reliably preceded by three trajectory-level precursors: (1) contraction of anchor entropy, (2) freezing of representation drift, and (3) erosion of tail coverage. These signals manifest multiple generations before any degradation in standard validation metrics, enabling early warning. Based on these precursors, we propose the MTR (Monitor--Trust--Regulator) framework, a lightweight metacognitive loop that monitors trajectory statistics, estimates a slow-timescale trust variable, and adaptively modulates the effective learning intensity. MTR provides early warning and actively prevents silent collapse without requiring access to pristine real data -- a critical advantage when original data is unavailable, contaminated, or private.

An AI evaluation can be perfectly reproducible and still support the wrong claim. This risk is acute in closed-loop systems: policy determines visited states, observable components, and which failures leave a measurable trace. We propose a claim-safe protocol with three actions. Refuse: abstain when a clean reference stream or matched runtime comparison lacks support. Decompose: report protocol execution, operational false admission, and structural hypotheses separately rather than as one PASS/FAIL label. Refresh: treat distribution-shift alarms as requests to invalidate and recompute a reference map, not as fault evidence. We instantiate the protocol in an aggregate-only simulator with 24 policy components, three demand regimes, two fault-mask families, and independent development and heldout seeds. The preregistered heldout contains 1,440 cases and 21,600 partition rows. Only 55/72 regime-component units were reference-admitted and 54/55 remained runtime-admitted, making abstention part of the result. Stable false admission was 0/20 represented components, with a one-sided exact 95% upper bound of 0.1391 under a frozen 0.20 rule. Within admitted units, affected clean traffic outpredicted nominal fault-cell fraction: across 540 unit-arm rows nested in 20 component clusters, the cell-minus-traffic negative-log-likelihood difference was 0.1264 nats per row, with a 95% component-cluster interval of [0.0593, 0.1918]. A drift log shows why "null" must be reference-relative: clean fault-null streams triggered 15/15, 0/15, and 14/15 alarms across three regimes, while only the middle regime matched the frozen detector reference. Rather than a universal threshold, we contribute an executable contract linking observable support, statistical calibration, and justified claims.

Algorithmic recourse methods provide counterfactual explanations that inform individuals of the actions required to overturn an unfavorable model decision. Despite rapid methodological progress, principled comparison remains elusive; existing frameworks are often difficult to extend and lack both interoperability and systematic verification that integrated methods faithfully reproduce their originally reported results. We introduce \emph{RecourseBench}, a unified evaluation framework built around three commitments namely, modularity, reproducibility, and interactivity. The framework decomposes the pipeline into five fully decoupled layers -- Data, Preprocessing, Model, Recourse Method, and Evaluation -- governed by abstract interfaces and a dynamic registry. To address the reproducibility gap in prior benchmarks, we introduce a four-tier classification system in which every integrated method is validated by an automated test suite against its originally reported results. We further provide an interactive web interface for flexible, configuration-driven comparison across methods, datasets, and model architectures. Our framework currently integrates 28 state-of-the-art recourse methods and, to our knowledge, constitutes the first recourse benchmark to explicitly enforce method-level reproducibility through automated, quantitative testing.