CausalLoss-Fin: Attributing Financial-Agent Loss to Decisions and Infrastructure Faults

Abhishek Sharma

cs.AISep 22, 2026

CausalLoss-Fin: Attributing Financial-Agent Loss to Decisions and Infrastructure Faults

Authors: Abhishek Sharma

Abstract

When an agent handling a payment exception loses money, the agent-step attribution methods this paper compares against will name one of its actions. They will do so even when a settlement message was dropped and the agent never had a chance: they intervene on agent actions and do not expose infrastructure faults as intervenable variables, so every dollar they explain is charged to a decision. We take a benchmark whose fault process is explicit and replayable, decompose each episode's realised delivery schedule into named, individually repairable messages, and intervene on both the agent's choices and the infrastructure's. A telescoping identity splits any policy's loss exactly three ways: an infrastructure effect, a policy differential against the best implementable policy, and a reference-policy residual. Two of the three can be negative, so none is a share; Shapley then divides the first into signed allocations over individual messages. One result is structural and needs no corpus: an agent-only baseline identifies no infrastructure cause, because its model contains no variable that could name one. What 545 planted episodes across 3 policies measure is the size of that consequence. It misfiles 100% of infrastructure episodes and charges $114,383.40 to the agent. Repairing what it names recovers 0.0% of the available loss; repairing a minimal sufficient set recovers 100.0%. Scoring messages one at a time is not merely imprecise: 27.8% (95% CI: 23.3--32.3%) of episodes do not decompose additively. We evaluate deterministic programmatic policies rather than language-model agents, which is what makes replay exact and which limits external validity to stochastic agents. The prevalence figures are properties of this generator, not field rates.

Explore similar work

Jun 6, 2026cs.LG

Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures

When an LLM agent fails -- issues a refund it should not have, calls the wrong tool, leaks data -- existing tooling answers what happened (observability) or whether it passed (evaluation), but not which step caused the failure. The obvious heuristics are wrong: the step that executes the harmful action is usually not the step that decided on it, and LLM-judge attribution is correlational and unreliable (state-of-the-art step-level accuracy on the Who&When benchmark is about 14%). We present Causal Agent Replay (CAR), which answers the question by intervention: it models an agent run as a structural causal model, applies a do-operation to a step, and re-executes the trajectory forward under the same stochastic policy, measuring the shift in the outcome distribution. We define an intervention algebra over agent steps, a single-step contrastive estimator whose point-of-commitment rule resolves a confound specific to stochastic run-forward, and a budget-bounded Monte-Carlo Shapley estimator that splits credit across interacting steps. Every effect is reported with confidence intervals. We validate against synthetic structural causal models with planted ground truth: the contrastive estimator recovers the pivotal step, and Shapley recovers a two-step interaction (0.44, 0.45, ~0; efficiency sum 0.909 versus the analytic 0.91). CAR is open source and runs on hosted or free local models.

Jaineet Shah

Large Language Model Agents Counterfactual Reasoning Structural Causal Model Contrastive Learning

Ask PDF

May 25, 2026cs.LG

CausalFlow: Causal Attribution and Counterfactual Repair for LLM Agent Failures

Large language model (LLM) agents frequently fail on multi-step tasks involving reasoning, tool use, and environment interaction. While such failures are typically logged or retried heuristically, they contain structured signals about where execution broke down. We introduce CausalFlow, an interventional framework that converts failed agent traces into minimal counterfactual repairs and reusable supervision. CausalFlow models execution traces as sequential chains of dependent steps and computes Causal Responsibility Scores(CRS) via step-level counterfactual intervention to identify failure-inducing steps. For these steps, we generate minimally edited repairs that flip the final outcome to success, producing validated contrastive pairs of the form (wrong step, corrected step). CausalFlow supports two complementary uses: targeted test-time repair that recovers from failures with minimal behavioral drift, and training-time supervision suitable for offline preference optimization or reward modeling. Across four benchmarks spanning mathematical reasoning, code generation, question answering, and medical browsing, CausalFlow converts failed executions into validated minimal repairs with high minimality and causal-consensus scores, and demonstrates that causal attribution is necessary for reliable improvement across diverse agent tasks, outperforming heuristic refinement in complex retrieval settings while producing more localized repairs throughout. These results demonstrate that interventional analysis over structured execution traces provides a principled and scalable mechanism for transforming agent failures into reliability gains and learning-ready supervision.

Akash Bonagiri, Devang Borkar, Gerard Janno Anderias +2

Causal Intervention Causal Reasoning

Ask PDF

Jun 10, 2026cs.AI

DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making

A financial agent can repeat a decision while changing the work behind it. DFAH-Bench operationalizes the Determinism--Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), pairing decision agreement with tool-path agreement on the same qualified replays, then extends that qualification principle to evidence, authorization, execution and task outcomes. Retrospective and prospective replay analyses expose process variation behind stable decisions. Across 570 eligible prospective episodes, decision agreement is 94.2-95.1%, while agreement on ordered tools, arguments and results is 45.0-51.5%; one stratum falls one group below its prespecified coverage minimum. A separate capture diagnostic shows that systematic omissions can preserve perfect replay agreement. Using the

τ

-Knowledge banking environment, we retain 1,080 scheduled episodes and 1,033 known native outcomes across separate cohorts with open-weight and frontier generators. Missing outcomes prevented the planned tests, so comparisons are descriptive. On the primary schedule, structural checks alone yield more successes than either gate-and-recovery bundle. The typed-choice bundle has lower mean episode cost than the generative bundle on complete task pairs, but produces fewer successes under every assignment of unknown outcomes. Input limits and recovery behavior materially shape these results. Fixed-state probes reveal higher decision agreement alongside lower agreement with constructed policy labels, and separately expose sensitivity to retained generator rationale in a selected authorization case. Together, the findings connect replay observability to evidence, authorization, completion and cost: evidence sufficiency needs direct assessment alongside repeatability.

Raffi Khatchadourian

Agent Decisions

Ask PDF