Proof-or-Stop: Don't Trust the Agent, Trust the Evidence -- Loop Engineering for Verifiable Evidence-Gated Lifecycle Control

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14890v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:06:21 GMT
• Title: Proof-or-Stop: Don't Trust the Agent, Trust the Evidence -- Loop Engineering for Verifiable Evidence-Gated Lifecycle Control
• Abstract summary: We present Proof-or-Stop Lifecycle Control.<n>It permits lifecycle transitions only when fresh, tracked-source-state-bound, mechanically verifiable evidence satisfies the relevant gate.<n>We evaluate an open-source implementation through mechanism tests, a powered control-policy ablation, and operated self-application evidence.
• Score: 5.796499740822509
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous coding agents increasingly execute multi-step software work, but lifecycle states such as reviewed, tested, DONE, and ready-to-merge remain claims unless supported by current evidence. We present Proof-or-Stop Lifecycle Control, a method that permits lifecycle transitions only when fresh, tracked-source-state-bound, mechanically verifiable evidence satisfies the relevant gate. The method treats agent outputs as claims rather than lifecycle state, and uses proof operationally to mean gate-admissible evidence under a stated trust model, not semantic program correctness. We evaluate an open-source implementation through mechanism tests, a powered control-policy ablation, and operated self-application evidence. The unattended-loop engine passed 10 of 10 scenarios with zero false-DONE, and local-key receipt bundles rejected 18 tamper classes with zero false accepts. In a 9,240-cell ablation, the pre-registered A4 versus A2-prime comparison reduced visible-pass/hidden-fail amplification from 31 of 1,800 injected cells under a compute-budgeted naive loop to 2 of 1,800 under the gated loop, a 1.6 percentage-point improvement in not-amplified rate with a 95 percent confidence interval of [0.8, 2.5]. A near-compute A3 versus A4 comparison, 14 of 1,800 versus 2 of 1,800, indicates that the gain is associated with enforcing review as a lifecycle gate rather than merely adding a reviewer. The self-application corpus contains 565 stories and 1,007 review findings, with 94.8 percent resolved, plus a 68-row high/critical cross-vendor exhibit. These results support Proof-or-Stop as a model-agnostic, host-neutral control layer for deciding which autonomous-agent claims a lifecycle may act on. The evaluation is limited to one model family, 24 ablation tasks, and a self-hosted corpus.

Related papers

• CropCop: An Auditable 120-Class Plant-Health Model from Benchmark Reconstruction to a Quantised Runtime Artifact [0.0]
  We present CropCop, a closed-set recognition system spanning 120 operational plant-health classes.<n>CropCop establishes strong leakage-controlled internal recognition and software-runtime fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T08:51:57Z)
• Agent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence [0.0]
  Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails.<n>Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T07:25:05Z)
• ActBench: Self-Evolving Benchmark of Behavioral Safety in Cowork Agents [23.994328225666663]
  Cowork agents may complete benign tasks while disclosing protected data, manipulating unauthorized state, invocate unauthorized API.<n>We define behavioral safety and introduce ActBench, a benchmark that evaluates such behavior risk from execution trajectories rather than final responses.<n>ActBench contains 600 cases from 213 scenarios, spanning 15 risk behaviors, six execution spaces, and 48 web-service APIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T11:45:03Z)
• Argus: A General-Purpose Agentic Reasoning Runtime for Long-Horizon Tasks [38.52523278435824]
  We present Argus, a persistent, self-evolving runtime in which Manager, Planner, Engineer, and Reviewer execute bounded missions over durable project state.<n>Argus separates stable user intent from operational objectives, constraints, and verification criteria, and admits memories, skills, procedures, verifiers, routing decisions, and rejected routes only after role-owned review and, when available, task-native verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T17:58:58Z)
• Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair [36.56438114281786]
  We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it.<n>We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T16:05:23Z)
• Stop Means Stop: Measuring and Repairing the Enforcement Gap in Agent-Framework Control Primitives [0.0]
  Production LLM-agent frameworks expose control primitives.<n>While a run is paused, cancelled, or timed out, no gated side effect executes.<n>We show this implied contract holds on none of the six widely used open-source frameworks we test.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-15T05:55:38Z)
• Evidence-Grounded Ensemble Diagnosis of 802.11 Packet Captures: A Multi-Stage Pipeline with Deterministic Reliability Scoring [1.0170129555792935]
  Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable.<n>LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures, produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test.<n>We introduce PROBE, a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T03:39:58Z)
• Hallucination as Exploit: Evidence-Carrying Multimodal Agents [10.441697487723568]
  Multimodal agents increasingly choose tool calls from screenshots, documents, and webpages, where a false perceptual claim can turn from an answer-quality error into an authorization failure.<n>We propose evidence-carrying multimodal agents (ECA), which treat free-form model text as inadmissible evidence.<n>ECA converts opaque model belief into auditable residuals at the verifier, schema, and implementation levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:40:43Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• AuditRepairBench: A Paired-Execution Trace Corpus for Evaluator-Channel Ranking Instability in Agent Repair [21.974153439592317]
  AuditBench is a paired-execution trace corpus of 576,000 registered cells (96,000 executed)<n>It operationalizes evaluator-channel-blocking ranking instability within a declared observability boundary.<n>It is supported by mechanism-anchored validation on an 80-case source-level channel-surgery subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T08:12:09Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• LatentAudit: Real-Time White-Box Faithfulness Monitoring for Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Verifiable Deployment [19.317475241300397]
  We introduce LatentAudit, a white-box auditor that pools mid-to-late residual-stream activations from an open-weight generator.<n>We show that residual-stream geometry carries a usable faithfulness signal, that this signal survives architecture changes, and that the same rule remains amenable to public verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T02:55:32Z)
• Goedel-Code-Prover: Hierarchical Proof Search for Open State-of-the-Art Code Verification [34.98335927187393]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate plausible code but offer limited guarantees of correctness.<n>We propose a hierarchical proof search framework for automated code verification in Lean4.<n>We train Goedel-Code-Prover-8B, a single unified policy for both decomposition and completion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T18:42:04Z)
• SEAL-Tag: Self-Tag Evidence Aggregation with Probabilistic Circuits for PII-Safe Retrieval-Augmented Generation [36.47163805456756]
  SEAL-Tag is a runtime environment that protects Personally Identifiable Information (PII)<n> SEAL-Tag introduces the SEAL-Probe protocol, transforming auditing into a structured tool-use operation where the model generates a verifiable PII-Evidence Table (PET) alongside its draft.<n>To overcome the privacy "Cold Start" problem, we introduce the S0--S6 Anchored Synthesis Pipeline, generating high-fidelity, provenanced RAG interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T02:40:54Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• interwhen: A Generalizable Framework for Verifiable Reasoning with Test-time Monitors [47.363850513075356]
  We present a test-time verification framework, interwhen, that ensures that the output of a reasoning model is valid wrt. a given set of verifiers.<n> Verified reasoning is an important goal in high-stakes scenarios such as deploying agents in the physical world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T08:35:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.