LLM Agent Verification

Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales. Such rationales are neither authorization nor reliable introspection. We present Explanation-Bound Tool Execution (EBTE), a claim-carrying mediation layer that converts decision-relevant rationale content into typed action claims and checks them against server-held intent, policy, payload, tool, risk, provenance, and freshness facts. EBTE cannot widen baseline authority: conflicts deny, incomplete or uncertain claims review, and only matching claims remain eligible for governed execution. We formalize this composition under explicit mediation and trusted-fact assumptions and implement a versioned reference profile with minimized audit packets. Across 136 authored conformance scenarios, the full profile matches all specified dispositions, admits none of 96 designated hard contradictions, and passes 232 metamorphic checks. A draft-only reference integration forwards none of 48 authored hard cases under EBTE while preserving all 16 soft-review and 4 aligned draft paths. In a frozen 2026-07-12 exploratory 224-attempt hosted-model record, the historical generation/runner agreement counts are 71/96, 66/96, and 19/32; a zero-call revalidation of the preserved minimized claims under the current pipeline yields 70/96, 65/96, and 17/32. In an AgentDojo-derived semantic check, existing high-risk controls make all 12 attack proposals non-allow, while EBTE resolves the task--proposal contradictions as deny. Together, these studies establish profile conformance and demonstrate the feasibility of server-checked action claims within the evaluated settings.

Self-improving agents accumulate capability by repeatedly rewriting procedural policies, controllers, or heuristic rules. They typically rely on self-authored tests or metrics to decide whether to accept subsequent edits. The agent controls both the optimized object and its verifier. As a result, self-assigned scores can remain near perfect while real deployment performance degrades or stays low. We study this problem through the verifier--deployment gap. This gap refers to the discrepancy between an agent's self-authored verification signal and a sealed deployment evaluation that the agent cannot observe or access. We ask how self-authored verification fails under iterative policy-and-test rewriting, how the failure changes with capability, and how little exogenous trust is sufficient to prevent real regressions from being deployed. To address this problem, we introduce a Sealed Exogenous Acceptance Loop (SEAL). SEAL retains self-authored tests but compares each candidate with the incumbent through a fixed harness-side audit. The agent cannot author or inspect the audit, receives only accept/reject, and the whole incumbent state is retained after a clear regression. Our experiments show that this problem often appears in heuristic learning settings. These settings require trial-and-error discovery of the target objective. We further find that failures of self-written verification are stratified by capability. Weaker agents tend to damage previously acquired strategies behind easy self-tests. Stronger agents are more stable, but they still mismeasure the deployment distribution. Standard self-written constraints do not reliably close this gap. In contrast, SEAL outperforms unprotected baselines across six models and three random seeds. Reliable self-improvement need not abandon self-verification, but it requires at least one deployment-acceptance signal outside the agent's control.

Verify-repair loops are a standard means for large language model (LLM) agents to correct faulty plans in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and tool use. When both the verifier and the repairer are noisy, repair can damage already-correct plans, and reported acceptance keeps rising while true validity falls, so existing methods lack a principled basis for deciding when repair should stop. We propose VRR-Stop, a robust stopping framework for noisy verify-repair-repeat (VRR) loops. A four-parameter noise model separates verifier false acceptance and false rejection from the repair and damage behavior of the repairer. Belief filtering turns repeated verification votes into an estimate of committed validity, and the loop commits or repairs according to the sign of the true marginal gain, which requires only sign identifiability rather than accurate recovery of all parameters. When verifier discrimination approaches zero, calibration itself fails and estimation error can flip the stopping sign, so we pair VRR-Stop with VRR-Guard, an estimation-free fallback that replaces the incumbent candidate only under a sufficient verification margin. On a GSM8K stress setting, VRR-Stop improves final true validity by 60.6 percentage points over fixed five-round repair at an average cost of 0.72 repair rounds. Across settings, stopping reliability is governed jointly by verifier discrimination and the decision margin rather than by the absolute size of estimation error.

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.

LLM agents often retry after external validation rejects a candidate, but the interface between validation and the next model call remains underspecified. We introduce VeriHarness, a code-controlled agent loop in which models generate candidates while external validators control acceptance, budgets, and traces. We use it to compare raw diagnostics with feedback that identifies the failure location, observed value, and admissible alternatives. Across 50 paired TextWorld games under a four-call cap, feedback containing all three fields raises terminal success from 14/50 to 36/50 for Qwen2.5-Coder-14B (+44 percentage points) and from 8/50 to 29/50 for Llama-3.1-8B (+42 points). Ablations locate most of the gain in the admissible alternatives: feedback containing only the location and observed value remains near the raw diagnostic baseline. Presenting the complete repair information in prose instead of a keyed JSON record yields nearly the same success, providing no evidence that JSON syntax itself improves repair. The ordering persists across the tested call budgets and one sampled-decoding setting.

Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work. When a tool times out, returns a week-stale value, or has its description poisoned in deployment, the developer needs a controlled way to reproduce the failure, test a fix, and confirm the fix worked before deployment. We present AgentCheck, an open-source web workbench that turns an MCP server into an intervention surface. AgentCheck runs an agent against its real tools and records every tool response, then re-runs the agent with the response perturbed by a fault (12 types) injector. Matching tool calls are replayed from cache, and later tool calls go live after the agent diverges. This yields a reproduce-intervene-confirm loop: the developer toggles a mitigation, re-runs against the identical fault, and sees if the failure goes away. Scoring has two parts: deterministic pass/fail rules, plus an LLM judge for interpretive labels, validated against human annotations. Across five agents, the best passes 105/120 scenarios and the weakest only 77. The failures are usually silent, confident use of incorrect tool outputs rather than crashes. On the weakest agent, a retry mitigation raises success on timeout error faults from as few as 30% of cases to 100%, whereas stale-data faults remain near 3-4 of 10 regardless of the mitigation. AgentCheck makes these failure modes reproducible, comparable, and verifiable before deployment.

Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs. In this work, we identify verification, the ability to determine the correctness of a solution, as a new scaling axis. To unlock this and demonstrate its effectiveness, we introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework that provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training. Unlike standard LM judges that prompt LLMs to produce discrete scores for candidate solutions, LLM-as-a-Verifier computes the expectation over the distribution of scoring token logits to generate continuous scores. This probabilistic formulation enables verification to scale along multiple dimensions: (1) score granularity, (2) repeated evaluation, and (3) criteria decomposition. In particular, we show that scaling the scoring granularity leads to better separation between positive and negative solutions, resulting in more calibrated comparisons. Moreover, scaling repeated evaluation and criteria decomposition consistently lead to additional gains in verification accuracy through variance and complexity reduction. We further introduce a cost-efficient ranking algorithm for selecting the best solution among candidates using the verifier's continuous scores. LLM-as-a-Verifier achieves state-of-the-art performance on Terminal-Bench V2 (86.5%), SWE-Bench Verified (78.2%), RoboRewardBench (87.4%), and MedAgentBench (73.3%). Beyond verification, the fine-grained signals from LLM-as-a-Verifier can also serve as a proxy for estimating task progress. We build an extension for Claude Code, enabling developers to monitor and improve their own agentic systems. Finally, we show that LLM-as-a-Verifier can provide dense feedback for RL, improving the sample efficiency of SAC and GRPO on robotics and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.

Every LLM agent run re-derives its behavior token by token on a frontier model: brilliant, expensive, slow, and unbounded. We present Auto, a compiler that records live agent behavior, measures which parts are secretly deterministic, extracts them into verified programs or distilled specialists, and emits cognition binaries: WebAssembly artifacts whose manifests carry measured guarantees and whose declared capabilities are physically enforced by the sandbox. A tiered runtime executes compiled behavior behind conformally calibrated guards; guard trips deopt to the reference agent, and the captured trace recompiles back down, so nothing is figured out twice. We use "AGI compiler" in one narrow, testable sense: a system that autonomously converts novel experience into permanent, verified, near-free skill while measuring what it does not know. On AUTO-BENCH, a benchmark we introduce and pre-register, 87.1% of 560 recorded frontier-agent spans are witnessed-deterministic (three of the four censused task families measure 100.0%). On a 300-item stream with three scheduled distribution shifts, the closed loop compiles three artifact generations and drives marginal cost from 59 to 2 micro-dollars per item (6.4x end-to-end) at 96.9% parity on witnessed inputs with zero errors. The same stream also quantifies the failure modes: a loose guard silently mislabels 48.9% of compiled answers, and an unfaithful deopt reference causes the verification gate to refuse recompilation. Calibration and reference fidelity, not model capability, decide whether cheap stays correct. Code: https://github.com/RightNow-AI/auto

Hallucination is the reliability bottleneck for LLM-based agents, and fact attribution verifiers are the last line of defense -- yet today's verifiers emit only opaque binary labels, leaving agents unable to self-correct and operators unable to audit. We present SEVA, a structured verification agent that emits evidence alignments, step-by-step reasoning chains, calibrated confidence, and a six-category error diagnosis with actionable fixes. Training such an agent with RL is non-trivial: standard binary reward on multi-component output triggers advantage collapse -- within-group reward variance vanishes and the GRPO gradient disappears. We resolve this with a process reward that decomposes verification quality into five independent components weighted 70/30 toward process signals, restoring the gradient and inducing an implicit curriculum -- the agent first masters verification behavior (alignment 0.917 -> 0.997, format 72% -> 100%), then outcomes (F1 64.9 -> 69.0). Structured output further enables a Verify -> Reflect -> Probe -> Refine self-evolution loop, which over four rounds on a 7B model surfaces an unexpected structural finding: each round produces a benchmark-specialist, not a generalist (+15 pp on HaluEval, -10 to -14 pp on TruthfulQA in the same model, persistent at 4x data). On ClearFacts, SEVA-3B matches GPT-4o-mini (69.0 vs. 69.8 F1) while producing substantially richer, auditable output -- confirming a principle that should generalize: for any RL task with multi-component generation, reward granularity must match output granularity.

LLM agents handle user requests on behalf of organizations through tool calls and must follow the company policies stated in their system prompts. Prior work approaches this as a safeguarding problem -- external checks that block non-compliant agent actions. We argue that policy adherence is a broader problem: real workflows unfold across many turns, require explicit user confirmation and prerequisite reads, and hinge on the content of the dialogue rather than on any single argument value. Meeting this bar requires (i) full conversation context, (ii) self-reasoning over the policy and the current dialogue, and (iii) conversation-specific remediation that guides the agent's next turn -- three capabilities that prior safeguard work has often underestimated. We introduce POLICYGUARD, a sub-agent verifier that shares the agent's view of the dialogue, reasons over the policy in context, and provides actionable feedback for the agent's next turn. On tau^2-BENCH airline across three vendors (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro) with four trials per setting, POLICYGUARD improves PASS4 by +12.0 / +6.0 / +12.0 pp. Per-call analyses show POLICYGUARD achieves higher policy-violation recall while blocking roughly half as often as argument-level guards.

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems often rely on verifier and critic agents to suppress hallucinations, but verification is delayed. During this delay, false claims can propagate through the agent network. We model this process as delayed consensus on a graph with grounded corrector nodes. Spectral decomposition by the grounded Laplacian yields a closed-form stability threshold for the verification dose: correction that is too strong or too delayed can turn consensus into oscillation. The most unstable regime occurs when the communication and verification delays coincide; for delay two, the threshold is the inverse golden ratio. The same framework gives a supermodular placement objective and a greedy (1-1/e)-approximation rule for assigning a limited corrector budget to influential nodes. Experiments across five open models confirm the predicted dose-delay oscillations. By contrast, grounded factual answering makes truth an absorbing boundary and eliminates the effect, suggesting that the instability is specific to signed-belief tasks while grounded verification remains stabilizing

A classical intuition holds that verifying a solution is easier than producing one. For today's coding agents, this intuition is being inverted: as foundation models develop stronger reasoning capabilities and engineering harnesses grow more sophisticated, generating complex candidate solutions is no longer difficult -- reliably verifying them has become the harder problem. Every verifier we can build is only a proxy for human intent, never the intent itself. This makes verification subject to a twofold difficulty: first, intent is underspecified by nature, making it inherently hard to faithfully check whether it has been fulfilled; second, during model training, optimization widens the gap between proxy and intent -- manifesting as reward hacking or signal saturation. To address this, we characterize the quality of verification signals along three dimensions -- scalability, faithfulness, and robustness -- and argue that achieving all three simultaneously is the central challenge. We further study four reward constructions: a test verifier for general coding tasks, a rubric verifier for frontend tasks, the user as verifier for real-world agent tasks, and an automated agent verifier for long-horizon tasks. Across different task types and policy capability levels, we conduct in-depth analysis and experiments on the core challenges of reward design and how to more effectively leverage reward signals. Experiments show that targeted verification design can effectively suppress reward hacking, improve task completion quality, and achieve significant gains across multiple internal and public benchmarks. These experiences collectively point to a core observation: no fixed reward function can remain effective as policy capability continues to grow; and verification must co-evolve with the generator.

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.

LLM agents in knowledge intensive question answering take retrieval and reasoning actions with incomplete knowledge about whether their current answer is uncertain, unsupported, or already complete. This produces two failure modes: committing to confident but unsupported answers, which hurts accuracy, and over-retrieving when the evidence in hand already suffices, resulting in wasted compute. To give agents a more complete picture of the state space they are operating in, we introduce calibrated verifier telemetry (CalVerT), which augments the agent's state with additional telemetry: a calibrated self-confidence score and a grounding verifier score. We show that CalVerT can improve agents in both training-free and training-based settings. On four QA benchmarks, we find that CalVerT raises F1 by triggering retrieval in cases where agents over-rely on parametric knowledge, while cutting redundant retrieval in cases where agents have sufficient context to answer. We show that CalVerT can augment existing QA frameworks without training. Moreover, CalVerT also improves trained systems: by simply augmenting an agent's state with telemetry, we observe improvements after reinforcement learning, as compared to an agent with identical training but no CalVerT telemetry.

Open-source LLM agent ecosystems are growing rapidly, yet the security of community-contributed skills - modular tool definitions that extend agent capabilities - remains largely unvetted. The gap we fill: existing scanners operate at the code layer and are structurally blind to instruction-layer and multi-agent risk - natural-language directives that hijack an agent, exfiltrate data through encoded side channels, or chain harm across pipelines - so what is needed is a semantic, multi-dimensional vetting system rather than another signature matcher. We present SKILLVETBENCH, a live public leaderboard on Hugging Face that uses an LLM-as-Judge to vet agent skills. What is new: SARS (Skill Agentic Risk Score), a five-dimensional agentic-risk metric with a principled weighted formula for instruction-following systems. What is integrated: full CVSS v4.0 vector decomposition and a ClawHub dual-view that places our LLM-generated review beside the official marketplace verdict. What is demonstrated: drawing on our companion benchmark paper [ 1], the LLM-as-Judge stage achieves zero false negatives across 78 confirmed-malicious skills and zero false positives across 22 benign controls, while the best static baseline (SKILLSIEVE) still misses 15%; for instruction-layer categories such as Prompt Injection and Memory Poisoning, conventional tools miss between 89% and 100% of threats (e.g., CODEBERT detects none of nine memory-poisoning skills). Detection rates vary from 35% to 95% across four LLM evaluators, motivating ensemble scoring in production deployments.

Long-horizon LLM agents are not trusted to run unattended: with no human watching, they confidently report success they never verified. We treat honesty -- bounding what an agent may claim at termination -- as a first-class metric for unattended autonomy, distinct from capability. We present Autopilot, an execution model that makes silent fabricated success structurally impossible rather than merely rarer. Autopilot externalizes all working state into a durable, gated finite-state machine that a scheduler advances one stateless tick at a time; a hard floor forbids any terminal "done" claim whose falsifiable gate did not actually execute and pass. We prove a No-False-Success theorem -- under gate soundness, floor enforcement, and plan coverage, termination implies the goal holds -- whose only trust points are empirically measurable, and show the worst case degrades to an honest stall, never a fabricated success. Because each tick rehydrates only the state machine, per-step context cost is constant in the horizon. Across a 3,150-cell paired corpus (70 tasks $\times$ 3 systems $\times$ 3 models $\times$ 5 seeds, including 50 SWE-bench Lite tasks across 11 OSS repos), Autopilot fabricates on 0.95% of cells [95% CI 0.38--1.62] while Reflexion and StateFlow baselines fabricate on 8.10% [6.48--9.81] and 25.05% [22.48--27.62] respectively. The headline contrast lives in the hard regime: on SWE-bench Lite, the firewall reduces fabrication from 33.7% (StateFlow) to 0.67%, a paired difference of $-33.07$ pp [95% CI $-36.53, -29.73$]. The mechanism is the gate, not the model: all ten Autopilot fabrications come from the strongest model, while two weaker mid-tier models never fabricate across 700 paired cells. The firewall trades coverage for honesty by design -- an honest stall is recoverable; a confident wrong output shipped downstream is not.

Financial and tabular question answering requires more than fluent reasoning: answers must be grounded in the exact facts, formulas, units, signs, and scales that support them. A single misread cell or incorrect operation can silently produce a plausible but wrong result. We introduce MOCA-Agent, a market-of-claims code agent that replaces free-form multi-agent debate with claim-level verification. The system decomposes each question into typed atomic claims, asks specialist trader agents to buy or sell those claims, clears their orders into confidence-weighted accept/reject decisions, and synthesizes an executable Python program from market-supported evidence. A code-aware verifier then checks the program for execution, structural consistency, and common financial reasoning errors, with at most one market-aware repair round. Across ten public benchmarks spanning financial numerical reasoning, general tabular reasoning, ESG question answering, and multimodal chart reasoning, MOCA-Agent achieves strong performance using a fixed Qwen3.6-27B backbone, including $78.3\%$ on FinQA, $76.0\%$ on FinanceMath, $71.2\%$ on MultiHiertt, $86.9\%$ on ESGenius, and $85.6\%$ average on FinChart-Bench. These results show that aggregating evidence at the level of atomic claims, rather than whole answers, improves robustness in high-stakes numerical reasoning.\footnote{The code and data are available: https://github.com/UBC-NLP/MoCA-Agent.

Self-evolving agents requires adaptation after deployment, but existing approaches assume a usable learning loop, such as curated skills, successful trajectories, or verifier signals. Real open-world deployments may provide none of these, offering only a task prompt. In this work, we study open-world self-evolution, where an agent must build both its skills and its own verification signals from scratch, using open-world resources but no target-task supervision. We propose OpenSkill, a framework that bootstraps this loop: it acquires grounded knowledge and verification anchors from documentation, repositories, and the web, synthesizes them into transferable skills, and refines those skills against self-built virtual tasks grounded in the anchors rather than in target answers. The open world thus supplies both the knowledge to be learned and a supervision-independent practice environment, with target-task supervision reserved for final evaluation. Across three benchmarks and two target agents, OpenSkill attains the best automated pass rate while satisfying the no-supervision constraint. Analysis shows its skills transfer across models without model-specific adaptation, and its self-built verifier aligns with ground-truth outcomes despite never accessing them.

Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute reliable multi-step workflows has become a central challenge in artificial intelligence. Despite recent advances in LLMs' agentic capabilities, most agent systems still lack formal methods for specifying, verifying, and debugging their workflow and execution trajectories. This challenge mirrors a long-standing problem in mathematics, where the ambiguity of natural languages (NLs) motivates the development of formal languages (FLs). Inspired by this paradigm, we propose Lean4Agent, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework that uses Lean4, a dependent-type FL to model and verify agent behavior. Lean4Agent launches FormalAgentLib, an extensible Lean4 library for formally modeling and verifying agent workflows' semantic consistency under explicit assumptions, and enabling localization of execution-time failures revealed by trajectories. Building on FormalAgentLib, we further develop LeanEvolve, which applies results in FormalAgentLib to revise workflows to enhance its capability. Extensive experiments on a hard problem subset of SWE-Bench-Verified and a subset of ELAIP-Bench across 5 leading LLMs indicate that the verification-passing workflows outperform the failing ones by an average of 11.94%, and LeanEvolve further improves SWE performance by 7.47% on average. Furthermore, Lean4Agent establishes a foundation for a new field of using expressive dependent-type FL to formally model and verify agent behavior.

Pre-deployment verification of enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) agents remains a critical gap between large language model (LLM) capability benchmarking and production deployment. Post-deployment monitoring, human-in-the-loop controls, and prompt-level guardrails offer limited assurance once an agent is operating in production. We present an ontology-grounded verification framework -- to our knowledge the first to combine three components: an Agent Operational Envelope formalizing the certification space across permissions, domain constraints, safety properties, governance rules, and autonomy levels; an ontology-to-scenario generation pipeline that derives regulatory, operational, and adversarial test scenarios automatically; and a machine-verifiable Trust Certificate with graduated deployment verdicts. A controlled pilot across four regulated industries (Fintech, Banking, Insurance, Healthcare), instantiated as five industry-by-regulatory-regime cells across the United States and Vietnam (where Vietnam's 2025 AI Law makes such verification legally mandated for financial services), generated 1,800 scenarios evaluated against 125 primary-source regulatory requirements and 25 injected faults. Ontology-grounded generation significantly outperformed the dominant persona-based baseline on regulatory coverage (48.3% versus 33.1%; corrected p_c = .0006) and attained the highest domain specificity (4.77/5.0; p = 2e-6); transparently, its advantage over plain and retrieval-augmented prompting did not survive Bonferroni correction. Cross-validation across three LLM families (Claude Sonnet 4, Qwen 2.5 72B, Gemma 4 26B; 5,400 total scenarios) replicated the persona-versus-ontology pattern. The framework offers a reproducible, regulation-grounded route to pre-deployment assurance for enterprise AI agents, complementing runtime governance with an auditable deployment gate.

Agentic search requires language model agents to explore many sources and answer complex information-seeking questions. Scaling test-time compute is a promising way to improve these agents, but current approaches can fail, because correct answers are often sparse and score-based selection depends on model calibration. We propose FineVerify, a fine-grained self-verification framework that decomposes each question into checkable sub-questions, verifies sampled candidates against each sub-question, and selects the candidate with the highest aggregated score. This per-check structure turns selection into simpler local judgments and produces scores under the same explicit criteria. Across four agentic search benchmarks and two models, FineVerify consistently outperforms standard scaling baselines. With only four sampled trajectories, it improves GPT-5-mini by 8.2 accuracy points and Gemini-3-flash by 5.6% on average. With 12 samples, FineVerify enables GPT-5-mini to surpass frontier GPT-5 on BrowseComp-Plus. Beyond accuracy, FineVerify produces interpretable verification traces that help audit benchmark errors, suggesting broader applications for inspecting agentic search systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/fineverify

Are LLM-based search agents genuinely searching, or using the web to verify what they already know? We study this question on BrowseComp with three diagnostics. Our analysis reveals Intrinsic Knowledge Dependence (IKD): even with tool access, agents often rely on intrinsic knowledge -- information encoded in the model before retrieval -- rather than on external evidence. Agents answer up to 44.5% of BrowseComp questions without tools, generate more than half of their search queries from internally produced hypotheses rather than retrieved leads, and perform worse than closed-book baselines when answer-supporting evidence is removed. These results suggest that static search benchmarks can reward memory-backed verification rather than evidence-driven discovery, conflating what agents already know with what they can find. We then introduce LiveBrowseComp, a deep-search benchmark designed to evaluate agents beyond intrinsic coverage. It contains 335 human-authored questions whose answers depend on facts published within the 90 days preceding benchmark construction, drawn from six updated sources and filtered to exclude globally salient events. On LiveBrowseComp, all evaluated agents fall below 2% closed-book accuracy, search-augmented scores drop by 25-40 points relative to BrowseComp, and prior model rankings no longer reliably predict performance. LiveBrowseComp is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Forival/LiveBrowseComp.

Finance LLM agents must simultaneously block prompt-induced unauthorized actions and approve legitimate multi-step business workflows. However, boundary filters often miss irreversible mid-trajectory tool calls, while post-hoc LLM judges perform auditing only after termination -- too late for intervention and at a computational cost that scales linearly with trace length. We present FinHarness, an inline safety harness that wraps a finance agent end-to-end with three components: a Query Monitor that fuses single-turn intent with cross-turn drift, a Tool Monitor that evaluates each prospective tool call, and a Cascade module that integrates per-step risk and adaptively routes verification between a lightweight and an advanced-tier LLM judge. Fired risk factors are re-injected into the agent input as ex-ante evidence, enabling the agent to refuse, re-plan, or approve on its own. On FinVault, routed FinHarness cuts ASR from 38.3% to 15.0% while largely preserving benign approval ($41.1\% \to 39.3\%$), and uses $4.7\times$ fewer advanced-judge calls than an always-advanced ablation.

Social deduction games have become a popular testbed for probing reasoning, deception, coordination, and belief modeling in Large Language Model (LLM) agents. However, most environments are scored only by game outcomes such as win rates and largely remain to text-only interaction, making it difficult to tell whether an agent's language is actually grounded in what it perceived and did, or to identify the failure modes underlying its behavior. To address this gap, we introduce QUACK, an open-source environment and evaluation framework for auditing the grounding of agent language in multimodal social reasoning. QUACK evaluates agents at three levels: game outcomes, behavioral trajectories, and utterance-level consistency. Its core Statement Verification Pipeline reconstructs each agent's ground-truth trajectory from engine logs and checks every discussion claim against it, automatically flagging spatial hallucination, unsupported accusation, deception collapse, and language-action inconsistency. Evaluating three frontier VLMs in both homogeneous and cross-model adversarial settings, we find that even the strongest agent hallucinates 15.1% of its verifiable spatial claims and 11.5% of accusations are strictly unsupported. We release the full engine, evaluation framework, toolkit, and logs in https://github.com/AAAAA-Academia-Attractions/QUACK.

Autonomous agents deployed in regulated domains must produce a verification artifact per consequential output: a record an auditor can re-execute offline, capturing what was claimed, against what source, by whom, when, and how. Production verification today splits into two unstandardized halves. Probabilistic verdict patterns (self-consistency voting, reviewer LLM ensembles) produce judgments, not artifacts. Artifact-producing patterns (RAG, tool-augmented traces, generator-verifier loops) produce vendor-specific records no external auditor can reconstruct without bespoke integration. Pramana defines the missing wire format. Every consequential agent output is wrapped in a typed ClaimAttestation with one of four variants (measurement, inference, analogy, citation), each paired with a verify() operation against the recorded source. verify() is deterministic for MeasurementClaim and CitationClaim. For InferenceClaim and AnalogyClaim, determinism is conditional on the oracle (audit-replayable when LLM-backed). The four-way typology derives from classical Indian epistemology (pramana, valid means of knowledge). The lifecycle is specified in TLA+ and exhaustively verified under TLC across three symmetry-reduced models: 38,563 distinct reachable states, zero invariant violations. The Python reference implementation passes 84 tests. An A2A and MCP wire-extension manifest layers three deployment-grade invariants: reachability, SLA bound, and offline re-verifiability. An exploratory pilot (n=100, 2,275 reviewer calls) probes LLM-as-judge in code generation. The strongest observation is a 40-percentage-point raw FPR delta across corpora, consistent with reference-solution quality contributing significantly. The pilot does not validate Pramana on its own; the structural argument and formal verification do that.

We present OpenComputer, a verifier-grounded framework for constructing verifiable software worlds for computer-use agents. OpenComputer integrates four components: (1) app-specific state verifiers that expose structured inspection endpoints over real applications, (2) a self-evolving verification layer that improves verifier reliability using execution-grounded feedback, (3) a task-generation pipeline that synthesizes realistic and machine-checkable desktop tasks, and (4) an evaluation harness that records full trajectories and computes auditable partial-credit rewards. In its current form, OpenComputer covers 33 desktop applications and 1,000 finalized tasks spanning browsers, office tools, creative software, development environments, file managers, and communication applications. Experiments show that OpenComputer's hard-coded verifiers align more closely with human adjudication than LLM-as-judge evaluation, especially when success depends on fine-grained application state. Frontier agents struggle with end-to-end completion despite partial progress, and open-source models exhibit sharp drops from their OSWorld-Verified scores, exposing a persistent gap in robust computer automation.

As multi-agent systems move from short interactions to tool-using workflows with specialized roles and persistent state, completion becomes a runtime-control problem rather than a purely generative one. This preprint studies verify-gated completion as an admission-control pattern for governed multi-agent runtimes: agents may propose completion, but a read-only verifier decides whether the claim is admitted. Ambiguous or weakly evidenced cases resolve fail-closed, while packetized state and event traces preserve an audit path. We examine one bounded reference implementation and ask what the released evidence can support about auditable, verify-gated completion. In the released verify-completed slice, the known-outcome invoked-event verify success share was 1,791/1,800 = 99.5%. This is an accounting measure over invoked verification events, not a task-completion, production-reliability, or benchmark-success rate. Task-level verify coverage is not computable; 1,762/1,801 rows came from one high-volume reporting cluster; and only 17 events were production-classified. A shadow Policy/Governance Verifier evaluation showed 1,526/1,548 = 98.58% rule agreement, 0/1,526 false-success among safe-to-proceed predictions, and blocked precision of 2/518 = 0.39%, so it remains advisory. The evidence supports a narrow conclusion: under observed conditions, a read-only verify gate plus packetized admission records made completion decisions inspectable and fail-closed. Claims about deployed operation, safety guarantees, outcome gains, task-level coverage, recovery effectiveness, or external validity remain outside scope.

Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) are being deployed in enterprise workflows faster than they are being evaluated. Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, and miss the multi-document, decision-grade deliverables DRAs are asked to produce. We introduce a benchmark of 70 SME-authored management consulting prompts, each embedding cognitive traps that penalize surface-pattern reasoning. Three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus4.6, OpenAI o3-deep-research and Gemini3.1Pro deep-research, are scored on two complementary layers: deterministic binary verifiers (mean 14.9 per task) and a five-criterion 0--3 SME rubric (Data Integrity, Analytical Rigor, Relevance & Focus, Execution Precision, Format & Deliverability), combined into a Verifier-Rubric Score (VRS, 0--100). Acceptance under a joint threshold (rubric mean $\geq 2.5$ and verifier pass rate $\geq 80\%$) is uniformly low: o3 15.7%, Claude 12.9%, Gemini 12.9%. Pairwise differences are statistically indistinguishable. On the continuous VRS, o3 leads (61.4[CI: 55.2,,67.5]), followed by Gemini (52.6) and Claude (38.5); the o3--Claude gap ($Δ{=}22.9$, $p{<}0.001$) survives Bonferroni correction. No agent averages above the rubric's ``adequate'' threshold of 2.0; no agent's mean verifier pass rate reaches the 80% acceptance floor. Each agent fails distinctively: Claude leads on data fabrication and file-access failures; o3 propagates cascading computation errors; Gemini oscillates between the highest perfect-verifier rate and the most catastrophic collapses. The benchmark, evaluation code, and full prompt corpus are publicly released.

LLM-powered agents can silently delete documents, leak credentials, or transfer funds on a routine user request, not because the agent was attacked, but because the skill it invoked broke its own declared safety rules. We call these specification violations: benign inputs cause a skill to breach the natural-language guardrails in its own specification, typically because the guardrail's semantics are undefined for autonomous execution, or because the implementation silently ignores the documented constraint. These violations are invisible to static analyzers, traditional fuzzers, and prompt-injection defenses alike, yet they undermine the very contract a user trusts when installing a skill. We present Sefz, a goal-directed semantic fuzzing framework that automatically discovers specification violations in agent skills. Sefz translates each guardrail into a reachability goal over an annotated execution trace, reducing violation checking to a deterministic graph query. An LLM-based mutator generates benign inputs whose traces progressively approach the violation patterns, guided by a multi-armed bandit that uses goal-proximity as its reward signal. On 402 real-world skills from the largest public agent-skill marketplace, Sefz finds specification violations in 120 (29.9%), including 26 previously unknown exploitable guardrail violations in deployed skills. Six recurring specification pitfalls explain the bulk of the failures, suggesting concrete principles for safer skill design.