Calibrating Criterion Revision in LLM Agents: Failure Modes and a Trace-Anchored Protocol
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
Title:Calibrating Criterion Revision in LLM Agents: Failure Modes and a Trace-Anchored Protocol
Abstract:Language-model agents can improve after failure or carry text across episodes without revising what counts as success. We study the narrower attribution problem of criterion revision: when criterion K0 accepts an outcome violating a broader commitment B, what observations justify saying that the system formed and persistently used K1? We require five non-compensatory conditions: criterion-failure detection, a model-emitted proposal, new-episode transfer, intervention sensitivity on the claimed carrier, and preservation.
We evaluate CMB-0.1 on twelve cross-domain cases and four arms: stateless inference, append-only history, model-generated but harness-committed state, and evaluator-written oracle state. Seven mechanism fixtures yield 84 deterministic scorer trials; four local quantized artifacts yield 96 calls and 192 model-case-arm trials. No model trial satisfies all five conditions, but this zero does not establish general capability absence. Eleven calls remain invalid after one retry; several commitments disclose the target distinction; the harness performs commits; deletion reuses a stateless call; and conflict changes multiple factors. Qwen2.5-7B answers every transfer and preservation item without revision state, exposing zero-state reconstruction.
These failures make CMB-0.1 an instrument-calibration result rather than a model ranking. We derive a prospective, trace-anchored CMB-0.4 protocol requiring concealed transfer, explicit WRITE/NO-WRITE/ESCALATE actions, a separately logged policy-selected commit, matched interventions, repeated hidden items, and a frozen executable oracle. It is a successor design, not a completed confirmatory result. The paper contributes a measurement chain, an empirical diagnosis of its first implementation, and a more discriminating protocol for future tests of criterion revision.
| Comments: | 18 pages, 8 tables, 1 figure. CMB-0.1 is an instrument-calibration study; CMB-0.4 is a prospective protocol, not an empirical result |
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.20729 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2608.20729v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.20729
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bookmark
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Recipes for Steering and Scaling LLMs via Sampling
Aug 28
-
Can a Model Catch Its Own Hallucinations for Free?: Label-Free Doubt Signals Hold Their Own Against a Labelled Dataset for Abstention
Aug 28
-
FIRSTPASS: A Multi-Domain, Multi-Round Peer Review Dataset Grounded in Real Editorial Outcomes
Aug 28
-
Interpretable, Fairly Evaluated Automated L2 Speaking Assessment that Beats the Single-Human Ceiling and Why Pause Encoding Does Not Change LLM Fluency Scores
Aug 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.