cs.AIAug 13, 2026

Agent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence

Authors: Varun Pratap Bhardwaj, Garima Singh, Arun Pratap Bhardwaj

Organizations: Qualixar / Independent Researcher, India · Independent Researcher, India

Abstract

Compositional reliability bounds for multi-agent systems multiply component reliabilities, a step licensed by a conditional-independence assumption that is routinely stated and rarely tested. We test it. Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails (log OR 6.66, 95% CI [6.38, 7.00]; phi 0.916), in a preregistered evaluation of 18,000 missions scored by deterministic code with no LLM judge. Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts; substituting a different vendor, model already different, does not -- a registered hypothesis reported as a null. The error is signed and runs against the operator: positive dependence inflates joint failure above the independence product, so redundancy is over-credited exactly when components share a model. The assumption-free alternative is often vacuous, and fitting a dependence model is worse: we prove a bootstrap bound on a fitted model's functional loses coverage of the truth as n grows, the identification gap being O(1) while the bootstrap haircut is O(n^{-1/2}). More data makes such a certificate worse, with no visible symptom. We give a finite-sample certificate assuming no dependence structure: a linear program over the joint, over a Bonferroni-Clopper-Pearson box around measured co-execution moments. It is sound, sharp for the information supplied, and monotone in the moment family. Enriching ten moment functionals to fourteen narrows the identified interval by 85.7% and lifts the certified floor from 0.2455 to 0.4116. A companion anytime-valid certificate holds type-I error at 0.0471 under optional stopping. Common dependence statistics are marginal-bounded and can reverse an apparent ordering of conditions when the compared agents fail at different rates. Contracts, scoring code, analysis scripts, and the preregistration are released.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 9, 2026cs.CL

AgentCollabBench: Diagnosing When Good Agents Make Bad Collaborators

Multi-agent systems achieve state-of-the-art outcomes through peer collaboration. However, when an agent in the pipeline silently drops a constraint, the system's final output may look correct even though the reasoning chain was quietly corrupted, and existing outcome-based evaluations are blind to such multi-hop process failures. To make these vulnerabilities measurable before deployment, we introduce AgentCollabBench, a diagnostic benchmark of 900 human-validated tasks spanning software engineering, DevOps, and data engineering. Each task isolates one of four behavioral risks: instruction decay (does a constraint survive peer pressure?), false-belief contagion (does a falsehood spread through consensus?), context leakage (does information bleed between tasks?), and tracer durability (does marked data reach the final agent?). Evaluating four modern LLMs (GPT 4.1 mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B, and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct), we expose model-specific vulnerability profiles invisible to outcome-only evaluation; Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B, for example, leads on tracer durability and instruction stability, while GPT 4.1 mini leads on leakage containment and false-belief resistance. Beyond per-model differences, communication topology emerges as a primary risk factor that explains 7-40% of the variance in multi-hop information survival. The effect traces to a synthesis bottleneck specific to converging-DAG nodes: an agent weighing competing parent inputs discards constraints carried by a minority branch, a bottleneck structurally absent from linear chains. AgentCollabBench demonstrates that suboptimal topology can silently erase the safeguards of highly capable models, arguing that multi-agent reliability is fundamentally a structural problem and that scaling model intelligence alone is no substitute for architecture.
Aritra Mazumder, Shubhashis Roy Dipta, Nusrat Jahan Lia +10
Failure ModesData LeakageSynthesis
AskPDF
Jul 19, 2026cs.SE

Where Does Agent Reliability Come From? A Cross-Benchmark Decomposition of Verification Loops, Specialist Models, and Scaffolding in a Production Enterprise Agent

Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it. We study one production system (Leni) whose architecture installs such checkpoints: verification loops (execute, observe, compare, correct) staffed by lightweight task-specialized post-trained models. We evaluate the unmodified production configuration on three public benchmarks stressing distinct failure modes: SpreadsheetBench Verified (silent computation error), BullshitBench v2 (premise confabulation), and the GAIA validation split (cascade error over long tool chains). The full system improves over its frontier base model by +11.0 percentage points on SpreadsheetBench (91.25% vs 80.25%, n=400, p<0.001), +7 to +10 percentage points on BullshitBench (98% vs 91%, n=100), and roughly +15 points on GAIA validation (75.2% pass@1, n=165; 83.0% best-of-k). Our central contribution is a decomposition of that uplift: most of it comes from scaffolding, routing, and specialist models rather than from the verification step itself, whose isolated contribution is small (+1.5 points) but concentrated at the top of the score distribution, where it converts otherwise-failing tasks. We instrument the loop end-to-end, yielding an empirical verifier confusion matrix (catch rate about 0.20, fix rate 0.75, no false-alarm regressions) that grounds a compounding-reliability model. Specialist-swap ablations suggest that the loop's value depends on who observes it: replacing the small trained verifier with the generating frontier model eliminates most rescues. A valid-premise control shows zero over-rejections in 100 expert-level questions.
Arunabh Dastidar
ReliabilityVerificationFrontier ModelsSplit Learning
AskPDF
Aug 11, 2026cs.AI

Deployment Decision Reliability: A Generalizability-Theory Framework for Sizing Long-Horizon Agent Evaluations

Enterprise practitioners read agent leaderboards as if they ranked agent capability. We show, across three open agent-trace benchmarks (TheAgentCompany, τ2τ^2-bench, and AppWorld), that the agent main effect accounts for less than 3% of total variance in every dataset and check type, while the agent-by-task interaction accounts for 7-23%. Leaderboards rank specialization, not capability. We arrive at this through a four-facet Generalizability Theory variance decomposition, fit with three estimators (Henderson Method-I, REML via lme4, and a Bayesian binomial GLMM) that agree to three decimal places. Four further findings sharpen what the leaderboard is hiding. First, aggregate reliability collapses on the hardest task quartile: Eρ2Eρ^2 on τ2τ^2 action_checks falls from 0.752 to 0.000. Second, training-cell reliability negatively correlates with held-out reliability (r=−0.90r = -0.90 on τ2τ^2), meaning the designs that look most reliable replicate worst. Third, population-level diagnostics transfer across enterprise benchmarks (capability-gap ratio stable at 0.35-0.40) but per-family agent rankings invert. Fourth, on the MAST failure taxonomy, trace-level mode profiles are idiosyncratic (MAE = 0.261) while cell-level profiles generalise (MAE = 0.056, r=0.83r = 0.83). We package these into Deployment Decision Reliability (DDR), a one-page reporting discipline that turns the variance-component table into five decisions an enterprise buyer can defend. All code, data loaders, and fit artifacts are released under an open-source license.
Vasundra Srinivasan
ReliabilityLeaderboardAgent DecisionsVariance
AskPDF