← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.05650 · v1
Attributing Agent Failures to Their History Needs an Executed Counterfactual: Toward a Reporting Standard
首次提交 2026-11-04 05:33
版本更新 2026-11-04 05:33
雷达观测 2026-11-05 10:08
摘要
Published explanations of why long-horizon agents fail are commonly taxonomies labeled over completed trajectories: a judge reads a transcript and names the failure. We argue that a claim attributing an agent's behavior to its history should carry intervention-verified evidence, per instance or via a validated estimator: freeze an executable mid-trajectory state, alter only the history the agent sees, and continue - executed rather than inferred from the transcript, at a state whose restoration has been measured, with a replay certificate matched to the estimand. Each of the four manipulation classes we name has a precedent, and several methods already execute interventions from checkpoints, re-executed prefixes or recorded conversation states (for example DoVer, REFLECT, Min et al., Who&When Pro, Causal Agent Replay), but none reports a measured replay certificate. Two cautionary measurements, neither applying the standard, follow: a carrier taxonomy whose "concentration" could not be separated from benchmark construction (adjusted odds ratio 1.15, interval crossing 1), and hash-identical snapshots that, restored into identically seeded processes, agreed with one another in 24 of 24 states while differing from the live continuation in 9 and 20 of 24. Restoring the captured position of a random stream made all 24 agree with the live run.
作者备注：Accepted at the IAB Workshop (Interpreting Agent Behavior) at NeurIPS 2026 (non-archival). 20 pages
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-04 05:33 · 最新观测版本
Attributing Agent Failures to Their History Needs an Executed Counterfactual: Toward a Reporting Standard
Published explanations of why long-horizon agents fail are commonly taxonomies labeled over completed trajectories: a judge reads a transcript and names the failure. We argue that a claim attributing an agent's behavior to its history should carry intervention-verified evidence, per instance or via a validated estimator: freeze an executable mid-trajectory state, alter only the history the agent sees, and continue - executed rather than inferred from the transcript, at a state whose restoration has been measured, with a replay certificate matched to the estimand. Each of the four manipulation classes we name has a precedent, and several methods already execute interventions from checkpoints, re-executed prefixes or recorded conversation states (for example DoVer, REFLECT, Min et al., Who&When Pro, Causal Agent Replay), but none reports a measured replay certificate. Two cautionary measurements, neither applying the standard, follow: a carrier taxonomy whose "concentration" could not be separated from benchmark construction (adjusted odds ratio 1.15, interval crossing 1), and hash-identical snapshots that, restored into identically seeded processes, agreed with one another in 24 of 24 states while differing from the live continuation in 9 and 20 of 24. Restoring the captured position of a random stream made all 24 agree with the live run.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗