Agent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12895v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 07:25:05 GMT
• Title: Agent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• The Model Proposes, the Code Disposes: A Pre-Registered Ablation of a Verifier-and-Acceptance Stage in an LLM-Orchestrated Offensive-Security Agent [0.0]
  We evaluate whether a verifier-and-acceptance stage - a model verifier whose verdicts are enforced by deterministic code - changes what an LLM-driven offensive-security agent reports.<n>We report a 15-run exploratory pilot, a pre-registered 20-run confirmatory ablation, and a pre-registered 2 x 2 factorial study with 40 runs across two deliberately vulnerable lab targets.<n>The results support a narrow conclusion: the verifier changes what the system ships, while deterministic code supplies enforcement and auditability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T17:13:05Z)
• The Blending Ratio Is Not Where the Performance Is: Diagnosing Prototype Blending for Few-Shot Adaptation of Vision-Language Models [22.461983628330277]
  Many few-shot adaptation methods classify with a convex combination of the zero-shot text prototype and the mean of the K labelled image features.<n>We ask what is the right ratio, can it be estimated without validation data, and is finding it where the performance is?<n>Across 4,800 cells (ten datasets, five backbones including SigLIP, five shot counts, five seeds, four prompt tiers) this theoretically optimal ratio is a reliable estimate of the wrong quantity.<n> validation-free linear probes beat even the oracle-tuned blend: CLAP by +1.9 points and LP++ by +1.5 on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T15:02:33Z)
• Explanatory Engagement Under Rare Anomalous Failure: Asymptotic Rarity in Model Behavior (or: The Asymptotic AI) [0.0]
  We build a local, zero-cost harness on three open-weight models (qwen3:8b, llama3.1:8b, mistral:7b) running a repeated tool-call task.<n>We hypothesized a rise in engagement as failures grew rarer, then a collapse near a detectability threshold.<n>A companion guaranteed-failure run shows models differ in whether they recognize an anomaly, distinct from engagement once recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T10:25:40Z)
• Beyond Pass@k: Measuring Reliability and Security of Agentic Code Generation [2.1734195143282693]
  We propose reliability@k, the same estimator applied correctly, with n = independent rollouts and c = fully-passing rollouts per (task, agent) pair.<n>Motivated by evidence that functional correctness does not imply security safety, we additionally propose security-adjusted reliability@k.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T16:01:15Z)
• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• TelemetrySuffBench: Is Agent Telemetry Sufficient for Failure-Origin Diagnosis? [1.7077233340294056]
  We introduce TelemetrySuffBench, a benchmark that separates failure detection, fault-origin localization, and safe abstention under insufficient evidence.<n>We evaluate five frontier language models using unified protocols, explicit candidate sets, invalid-output accounting, subgroup analyses, and a frozen blind holdout.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T03:54:22Z)
• Post-Hoc Trajectory-Risk Certification for Modular LLM-Based Security Agents [1.4915002678801434]
  We show that Bonferroni allocation is distribution-free but conservative under correlated errors.<n> coarse-to-fine label selection can create near-perfect measured correlation without learned dependence.<n>A modular certificate using per-stage certificates and a pairwise overlap bound yields a positive average gain of 0.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T23:48:36Z)
• 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)
• Adversarial Test-Hardening for AI-Written Code: An Instrument Autopsy and a Pre-Registered Causal Estimate of the Critic Loop [0.0]
  We study an adversarial test-hardening loop under a mechanical oracle.<n>A Tester model writes tests, mutation testing names surviving injected defects, and a Critic model writes tests to kill exactly those.<n>We release both protocols, all receipts, and the analysis code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T02:38:07Z)
• Let the Results Speak: A Replication-First Paradigm for LLM Behavioral Benchmarking [22.825786049667602]
  We propose a replication-first paradigm to anchor validity to a single human-rater consensus.<n>We certify the instrument via four properties -- reliability across K runs, cross-instrument replication across architecturally distinct judges, historical-footprint calibration via judges from earlier training cohorts, and pre-registered prediction.<n>We test it on emotional accompaniment by letting the self-evolve data-driven across: the dimensions are not pre-stipulated and the procedure stabilizes to a 9-dimension set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:41:11Z)
• 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)
• PBT-Bench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Property-Based Testing [29.035258104995204]
  We introduce PBT-Bench, a benchmark of 100 curated property-based testing problems across 40 real Python libraries.<n>Each problem injects one or more semantic bugs (365 in total, mean 3.65 per problem) designed so that default-strategy random inputs almost never trigger them.<n>Bug recall under the PBT-guided prompt ranges from 42.1% to 83.4% across models; under the open-ended baseline, from 31.4% to 76.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T18:01:05Z)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

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.