arXiv preprint ·
When Can You Trust an Agent's Own Verifier? Stress-Testing Counterfactual Rationale Verification Under Search Pressure and Oracle Access
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Published in
- arXiv
- DOI
- 10.48550/arxiv.2610.22779
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Cited by
- 0 works, as OpenAlex counts them
- Topics
Abstract
Automated agent design increasingly trusts a single score to decide whether a change is an improvement -- but a score optimized aggressively enough ceases to measure what it was meant to. When an agent also explains its design, that explanation is a second signal we can check without human labels: negate each stated claim, re-run, and observe whether performance drops. We ask whether such a verifier stays reliable once an agent optimizes against it. Our contribution is not a new verifier but a way to stress-test one: a pressure ratio $ρ$ measuring how much the verifier steers the agent's search, and four falsifiable probes covering four failure modes -- giving no signal, being too weak to matter, being gamed by stating fewer claims, and being queried before the agent commits. We apply the test to our own verifier, the Rationale Consistency Score (RCS), inside an LLM agent that designs machine-learning pipelines, with one generator model, six tasks, and three seeds. First, in our prior configuration the verifier barely affects the search objective ($ρ\ll 1$), partly because of an accuracy gate, so its robustness had not been tested; it still shapes the reported artifact through a final-selection tie-break that $ρ$ does not register. Second, a capability control shows the agent shortens its claim lists when instructed, yet search does not, even at $ρ$ over 100 times the prior level; since feedback omits claim volume and horizons are short, this null result is largely structural rather than evidence of robustness. Third, when the agent can probe the verifier before committing, it keeps claims that pass while held-out faithfulness falls -- a decline invisible to in-loop metrics, though partly confounded by how RCS scores small pipelines. We offer these as preliminary evidence and propose a reporting standard: audit a verifier with $ρ$ and these probes before trusting it.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Between Spoilers and Guesswork: Avoiding Over-Specification in Coding Benchmarks
Screening LLM Judges Without Ground Truth: A Preliminary Evaluation of an AI Dental Hygiene Coach
StoBasket: Joint Upsell and Cross-Sell Optimization for Contribution Margin
What Matters for NVFP4 Training? A Comparative Study of Low-Precision Pretraining Recipes
FlashRT-PAI: Fast Kernels Are Not Fast Pipelines for Physical AI Inference
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.