A pilot implementing the acceptance- and unit-level verifier pairs is reported, comparing five configurations that share one executor, tool set, and scorer and differ only in verification, on the four-hop stratum of MuSiQue with an 8B-parameter backbone.
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) agents built on the ReAct pattern concentrate four responsibilities in one model: selecting a strategy, choosing each action, formatting it, and judging whether the result is adequate. Nothing outside the generative loop can reject its output, so an agent that cannot make progress does not report failure; it runs until an external budget stops it. We propose treating verification as an architectural layer by adapting the V-model from software engineering: specification levels descend from requirements to individual steps, each level is paired with a dedicated verifier, a deterministic controller enforces every verdict, and only verification outcomes write to memory, so a rejection localizes the level that introduced the fault and an agent halts by declining rather than by exhaustion. Each verifier separates a zero-cost deterministic \emph{gate} from an optional LLM \emph{judge}, so the contribution and cost of each can be measured independently. We report a pilot implementing the acceptance- and unit-level verifier pairs, comparing five configurations that share one executor, tool set, and scorer and differ only in verification, on the four-hop stratum of MuSiQue with an 8B-parameter backbone. Across 47 executions, the two unverified configurations answered none of ten questions, every run ending at a step cap or provider token limit; the verified configuration without a planner answered eight and abstained on the rest. Deterministic gates produced eight of the nine observed corrections at zero marginal cost, and planning degraded performance once verification was present. These results characterize termination behavior, not accuracy at scale; we outline a twelve-month plan to complete and evaluate the full architecture, including the integration-level pair the pilot omits.
An AI agent's rebuild is only as good as the process that produced it. Prior work found that once a model is strong enough, a multi-agent rebuild pipeline loses to the simplest approach: giving the model the original code and one instruction (AgentModernize). We present rebuild-dossier, an open-source tool that locks a...
Guardrails for tool-using LLM agents are usually application-specific rules, which makes multi-step, data-dependent safety policies hard to specify, audit and reuse. As a declarative alternative, we evaluate metric first-order temporal logic (MFOTL), replaying the recorded trajectories that AgentDojo, STAC and R-Judge...
Nikolaos Kekatos, Stylianos Basagiannis, Marinelio Chintri et al.· Proceedings of the 2026 8th...· 2 citations
AgentGuardUtil is presented, the authors' entry to CAR-bench Track~1, which treats the AI planer (LLM) as a fallible proposer inside a grounded verify-and-revise loop, and its core novelty is a runtime policy compiler.
R. Bouchekir, D. Safin, Tomas Bueno Momcilovic· 0 citations
LLM-based agents are entering decision-support roles in defence staff work, where the obligations they must respect are already written down and binding, and where retraining is not available as a control because models arrive as procured components. What can be placed under engineering control is the interface between...
Nikolaos Kekatos, D. Nikou, Anastasios Temperekidis et al.· 0 citations
It is argued that enforcing the tests and gates in code keeps agent-written code honest and verifiable, while its specialized roles are what make it maintainable, claims the authors frame as a pre-registered, testable hypothesis.
Self-improving LLM agents can adapt a credit pipeline to a changed rule, but an agent that rewrites itself destroys the artefact a supervisor reviews: a named change, a recorded test, an approval. We argue that self-evolution is reviewable only if it is confined to the runtime harness (instruction text, tool-call logic...
R. Akhtyamov· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
With $2.1 million funding from Google.org, the open-source Public Transit Intelligence Hub will unify public transit monitoring, operations, and passenger communication.