Skip to content
Preprint

The LLM Proposes, the Executive Disposes: A Self-Verifying Agent Instrument that Dissociates Commitment Drift from Binding Drift in Long-Horizon Agents

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 8 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

An agent instrument built so that verification is structural rather than post-hoc, a verification methodology for agent development and the drift decomposition it makes measurable.

Abstract

How do you verify a long-horizon agent when its own state and self-reports are exactly what you cannot trust? We present an agent instrument built so that verification is structural rather than post-hoc. A deterministic Executive owns all belief; a language model may only file typed proposals, and a claim is admitted only when a prediction pre-registered before acting is matched against observation by code. Two properties make the instrument a verifier of its own science, not just of the agent: every run invalidates itself when per-organ write-error, render-size, or salted-canary-echo floors are breached (four of the first eight architecture runs were invalidated, each localizing a real defect); and a render-invisible shadow reference compiles the plan the full system would have committed in every ablation cell, so drift metrics are defined even where the mechanism under test has been removed. Using this instrument we report a clean, single-variable result on a failure every long-horizon agent suffers: ablating the commitment mechanism flips goal-abandonment from 0.00 to 1.00 while binding error stays flat at 0.00 (three seeds per cell, up to 394 reference beats per run, every run gated valid). The binding channel, by contrast, does not reappear as per-beat drift when its repair is ablated -- because binding is code-owned, the failure class is structurally absorbed, its only residue appearing one layer upstream as a collapse in hypothesis formation. We report these under full disclosure that task efficacy is null (zero level completions across 52 gated runs on ARC-AGI-3), pre-registered as a structural defeater. The contribution is a verification methodology for agent development and the drift decomposition it makes measurable.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

CatchBench: When Can an Agent Failure Be Caught?

CatchBench puts one auditor's question to three information states: the declared configuration before a run (PRE), a growing prefix of its trace (LIVE), and the finished trace (POST), which none scores all three under one task-method interface.

Yue Zhao, Meng-Yuan Li, Ruo-Lin Li et al. · 4 citations · ⚡1
Preprint Jul 2026

When Do Agent Loops Mistake Stagnation for Progress? Self-Evaluation Bias and Externally Grounded Verification in Long-Running Autonomous LLM Agent Loops

Long-running autonomous agents plan, act, and judge their own completion without human intervention. When an agent grades its own work, self-evaluation bias takes hold: plausible changes are accepted as progress while real-world outcomes stagnate or regress. We name this failure mode the progress mirage and show, with...

Hyun-Seok Park, Byungho Choi · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Self-Authored Verification Is Unreliable in Heuristic Self-Improving Agents

Self-improving agents accumulate capability by repeatedly rewriting procedural policies, controllers, or heuristic rules. They typically rely on self-authored tests or metrics to decide whether to accept subsequent edits. The agent controls both the optimized object and its verifier. As a result, self-assigned scores c...

Diandian Guo, Cong Cao, Fangfang Yuan et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Review Sep 2026

LLM-as-a-Judge Is Not an Oracle: Why Self-Improving Agents Need Deterministic Guardrails

ProCTOR is described, a Teacher-Student loop in which a stateful orchestrator holds all tool access, stateless subagents diagnose failures and draft mutations they cannot apply, and a Teacher grades those mutations under five deterministic guardrails: hermetic sandboxes, capability-disjoint roles, acceptance checks tha...

Vansh Wahi · 2 citations
Conference 2026

When Verification Hurts: The Cost of Overriding Abstention in Two-Stage Web Agents

This study cautions against transplanting verification into grounding pipelines and identifies calibrated abstention as a property worth preserving and proposes an abstention-aware verifier that intervenes only under sufficient candidate coverage and confidence.

Duchen Li · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.