Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26189v1
• Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2026 09:04:59 GMT
• Title: Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents
• Abstract summary: We measure a correct-invocation rate that separates the two, under both a clean teacher-forced context and the model's own free-running context.<n>By depth 6, roughly 70% of a model's own clean-context capability is lost to its own earlier mistakes.
• Score: 0.7874708385247353
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Tool-using agents fail two ways: choosing the wrong tool, or forming wrong arguments, and an early failure of either kind can silently corrupt everything downstream. We measure a correct-invocation rate that separates the two, under both a clean teacher-forced context and the model's own free-running context, on five open-weight models over contamination-free multi-step tasks (depths 1-8). By depth 6, roughly 70% of a model's own clean-context capability is lost to its own earlier mistakes (L6 = 0.686, 0.684). Our central finding concerns the measurement itself. Under exact-match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory, a propagation model's severity and recovery parameters are not merely hard to estimate - they are fixed by the scoring rule. Severity is forced to its boundary (0 of 869 poisoned steps correct); recovery is structurally unobservable (0 of 580 poisoned steps returned on-track, against an expected 0.0058 by chance). Both follow from one mechanism: post-divergence, the gold value is generated by tool constants the model never sees, so it is information the model cannot derive. A fit run anyway returns 0.92 and 0.73 for a quantity that is exactly 1.000 - confident numbers for a parameter the scoring rule already determined. We give the mechanism and a remedy, conditional-on-state scoring, applied retrospectively to cached completions at zero additional cost, which un-pins severity to interior estimates excluding zero (+0.149, +0.316).

Related papers

• ReDraft, Don't Just Distill: Reference-Driven Revision for Continual VLLM Post-Training [66.72708893922605]
  Post-training of large multimodal models should add new capabilities while preserving those from pre-training.<n>SFT gives explicit target supervision that learns a task from near-zero accuracy, but its off-policy targets move the model far enough to cause forgetting.<n>We introduce ReDraft, which obtains both from the model's own failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T04:59:03Z)
• A Calibration Audit of Confidence in Feed-Forward 3D Reconstruction [45.496856835431885]
  3D reconstruction models emit per-pixel confidence that downstream systems read as a reliability signal.<n>We score the confidence on four properties, how well it ranks error, whether its level is right on average, whether it holds across the confidence range, and whether its intervals cover the truth.<n>The confidence ranks error well, but the predicted uncertainty is too low when it is read under conditions that are not exactly those of training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T10:21:34Z)
• Feedback That Backfires: Why Small Language Model Agents Repeat the Call They Just Watched Fail [0.0]
  Defining the corrective gain of a failure record as the change in log-probability of re-emitting the action that just failed, we find the gain is negative for every instruction-tuned model.<n>The problem is in the harness, not the model's grasp of error messages, and that predicts which remedies work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T10:19:17Z)
• Where Cognition Lives: Dissecting Emergent from Computed Function in a Minimal Complete Cognitive Architecture [0.0]
  We build a recurrent reasoner with adaptive halting, a homeostatic control field, and a value module.<n>Stopping appears to emerge too, and to be worth more than everything decidable in advance, but that appearance is instrumentation.<n> PonderNet-style halting returns a halting-weighted mixture of hidden states while forced-depth baselines return one, and the language head is trained on the mixture alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T10:27:13Z)
• RynnValue: Scaling Robotic Value Foundation Models with Temporal Distance [84.26294415726723]
  General-purpose reward models are increasingly the bottleneck for scaling robot learning.<n>We introduce RynnValue, an open-source value foundation model for robotic manipulation.<n>RynnValue scales to over 7,000 hours and roughly 3M instruction-conditioned clips without preference or progress annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T17:09:37Z)
• 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)
• Operational Proto-Introspection in Looped Language Models: Process-Quality Taps, Executable Branching, and the Readout-Control Boundary [0.0]
  Can a language model read the quality of its ongoing computation?<n>Can an external intervention turn that readout into better outcomes?<n>We test both questions in a frozen 2.6B looped transformer, Ouro-RLTT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T22:40:36Z)
• Self-Compacting Language Model Agents [44.3231488987671]
  SelfCompact is a scaffold that allows the model itself to decide when and how to compact.<n>It elicits effective adaptive compaction without any fine-tuning or external supervision.<n>Our results show that SelfCompact matches or exceeds fixed-interval summarization at a fraction of the token cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T16:08:34Z)
• CRANE: Knowledge Editing for Reasoning MLLMs [37.084419383244814]
  multimodal large language models (MLLMs) generate explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning before producing answers.<n>On reasoning MLLMs, methods that generalize (FT, LoRA) trigger format collapse, while methods without deep modification cannot generalize.<n>We propose CRANE, a retrieval-augmented framework that requires no per-edit parameter modification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T05:01:11Z)
• Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures [0.0]
  Causal Agent Replay (CAR) models an agent run as a structural causal model.<n>It applies a do-operation to a step, and re-executes a trajectory forward under the same policy.<n>CAR is open source and runs on hosted or free local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-06T17:44:23Z)
• 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)
• Tracing Uncertainty in Language Model "Reasoning" [46.61902399979181]
  Language model (LM) "reasoning", commonly described as Chain-of-Thought or test-time scaling, often improves benchmark performance.<n>We study these dynamics by treating the "reasoning" traces, the intermediate token sequences generated by LMs, as evolving model states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T14:16:37Z)
• Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench [0.0]
  We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains.<n>We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation.<n>All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T21:15:35Z)
• Probing for Knowledge Attribution in Large Language Models [45.47366023067617]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate fluent but unfounded claims, or hallucinations.<n> Proper mitigation depends on knowing whether a model's answer is based on the prompt or its internal weights.<n>We show that a probe, a simple linear classifier trained on model hidden representations, can reliably predict contributive attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T09:21:12Z)

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.