AUDITA: certified auditing and causal attribution of adverse outcomes in autonomous multi-agent systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22160v2
• Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 00:04:25 GMT
• Title: AUDITA: certified auditing and causal attribution of adverse outcomes in autonomous multi-agent systems
• Abstract summary: AUDITA is an audit layer pairing a tamper-evident record of every inter-agent command with a graded causal-attribution engine.<n>It reduces the standard judge baseline's responsibility error roughly threefold.<n>On live language-model pipelines it reduces the standard judge baseline's responsibility error roughly threefold.
• Score: 6.628624625332095
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Physical automation is scaling toward fleets of embodied machines commanded by an AI brain. Early deployments already run factories and warehouses at production rates beyond any human line, and their adoption is accelerating. But when their joint decisions cause harm, everyone involved has reason to blame everyone else, the machine vendor, the algorithm provider, the factory operator, the insurer, and the regulator, and no method can divide the responsibility between them. Existing methods read logs whose origin they cannot verify and name a single culprit, misrepresenting outcomes that are overdetermined, preempted, or caused by an omission. We present AUDITA, an audit layer pairing a tamper-evident record of every inter-agent command with a certified, graded causal-attribution engine. We prove its verdict cannot be gamed: a rule-following agent can never be made to look guilty, an attempt to shift blame is itself caught and graded, and we establish the exact limit of what an evidence-based auditor can certify. On live language-model pipelines it reduces the standard judge baseline's responsibility error roughly threefold; on a benchmark of accident-grounded structures it recovers responsibility where single-culprit baselines fail, and stays invariant under forgery. AUDITA turns the question of who is to blame from an argument about logs into a calculation over evidence.

Related papers

• DCFA: Dual-view Causal-inspired Attribution for Failure Reasoning in LLM-based Multi-agent Systems [61.11435469308521]
  We propose DCFA, a training-free framework for failure attribution in large language model systems.<n> DCFA integrates a global module that constructs structured causal-inspired dependency graphs from system traces.<n>Experiments show that DCFA improves step-level accuracy by up to 8.27% over state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T05:29:31Z)
• HANSARD: A Reference Architecture for Forensic Readiness, Runtime Witnessing, and Graded Attribution in Autonomous Multi-Agent AI Systems [3.7015952547586832]
  An autonomous multi-agent system nowadays act in finance, software supply chains, and security operations.<n>No method can robustly establish what happened, what caused it, or who is accountable.<n>This is because provenance forensics works at the wrong abstraction, formal causality assumes the causal model, and agent auditing trusts self-recording.<n>The target failure mode is, thus, attribution laundering, spreading an act across redundant agents until none is a but-for cause.<n>This paper proposes HANSARD, a reference architecture treating accountability as a life-cycle property.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T17:18:22Z)
• The LLM Proposes, the Executive Disposes: A Self-Verifying Agent Instrument that Dissociates Commitment Drift from Binding Drift in Long-Horizon Agents [0.0]
  We present an agent instrument built so that verification is structural rather than post-hoc.<n>Every run invalidates itself when per-organ write-error, render-size, or salted-canary-echo floors are breached.<n>We report a clean, single-variable result on a failure every long-horizon agent suffers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T15:10:37Z)
• Scaling, Lock-In, and Proxy Compliance: A Political Economy of Responsible AI [1.253312107729806]
  We develop a sequential political-economy model to address accountability for AI systems.<n>We show that an AI vendor chooses auditability and substantive mitigation, a deployer monitors after adoption while switching costs, and enforcement depends on verifiable evidence.<n>The results explain why documentation and standardized evaluations can coexist with persistent post-deployment harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T11:12:13Z)
• Governed Individuation: Cryptographically Decoupling an Agent's Learning from Its Authority [7.392721604463545]
  We show that confinement can be guaranteed as an invariant of the agent's execution architecture.<n>We prove that no amount of learning, skill acquisition, or self-induced governance abstraction can widen the agent's permitted authority.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T02:42:06Z)
• LC-ERD: Mining Latent Logic for Self-Evolving Reasoning via Consistency-Regulated Reward Decomposition [55.572260012037084]
  We introduce LC-ERD (Logic-Consistent Endogenous Reward Decomposition), a framework framing self-alignment as latent structure mining.<n>We derive a Variational Logic Potential by aggregating consensus from the model's Latent Logic Expertise.<n>Experiments show LC-ERD delivers a robust self-evolution path, uncovering trade-offs between logic consistency and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T07:27:50Z)
• VerifyMAS: Hypothesis Verification for Failure Attribution in LLM Multi-Agent Systems [79.51005192758262]
  Large language model-driven multi-agent systems excel at complex tasks.<n>However, unreliable agents remain a key bottleneck to system-level reliability.<n>We propose a hypothesis verification framework for agent failure attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T14:09:35Z)
• The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime [0.5277024349608833]
  We argue that authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable.<n>We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T14:02:56Z)
• Affordance Agent Harness: Verification-Gated Skill Orchestration [45.231685718099264]
  Affordance grounding requires identifying where and how an agent should interact in open-world scenes.<n>We propose Affordance Agent Harness, a closed-loop runtime that unifies skills with an evidence store and cost control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T13:45:16Z)
• IMPACT-CYCLE: A Contract-Based Multi-Agent System for Claim-Level Supervisory Correction of Long-Video Semantic Memory [73.22944697933603]
  Existing pipelines produce opaque, end-to-end outputs that expose no intermediate state for inspection.<n>We present IMPACT-Cycle, a supervisory multi-agent system that reformulates long-video understanding as a multimodal iterative claim-level maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T03:03:33Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• VIBEPASS: Can Vibe Coders Really Pass the Vibe Check? [46.85901599242161]
  We evaluate two coupled tasks: emphFault-Triggering Test Generation (FT-Test) and emphFault-targeted Program Repair (FPR)<n>We find that fault-targeted reasoning does not scale with general coding ability.<n>Test-guided repair reveals a complementary insight: when self-generated tests successfully witness a fault, the resulting repair matches or outperforms repair guided by externally provided tests, but tests that fail to witness the fault actively degrade repair below unguided baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T21:14:28Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)

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.