Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research proposes a cryptographic framework to ensure the integrity of tool-using agents by jointly binding AI claims, execution traces, and source citations into verifiable receipts. By separating structural validity from semantic entailment, the method effectively detects subtle attacks where components are valid individually but incorrectly associated across different runs or versions. This work advances AI safety and reliability by providing a deterministic mechanism to audit the provenance of automated reasoning outputs without relying on semantic proxies.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Actions with Receipts: Jointly Binding Claims, Evidence, and Execution for Replayable Tool-Agent Auditing

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.00327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using agents can expose citations and execution logs while leaving a critical association unaudited: whether the claim shown to a user is the claim emitted by the committed execution and supported by the cited source. A valid citation and a valid trace can therefore remain individually well formed while being transplanted across claims, actions, runs, or source versions. We introduce a claim-anchored execution contract that jointly binds the emitted claim, its exact source span, the ordered execution prefix that produced it, and the source version and access state observed by that execution. Each receipt contains an emission anchor that deterministically locates the claim inside a committed answer or claim-bearing action, together with source identifiers, offsets, hashes, quotes, and a domain-separated execution commitment. A deterministic integrity verifier reconstructs these bindings before semantic or task labels are joined. We separate this integrity plane from a pluggable support plane, so structural validity is not used as a proxy for entailment. The contract exposes seven independently testable properties: claim-emission binding, source binding, ordered-execution binding, oracle separation, persisted-object replay, execution-rerun consistency, and version/access binding. Across 1,280 cross-object attacks, the joint contract detects 1,275 substitutions (0.9961). Removing a targeted property reduces its attack-detection rate to 0.0156-0.0625. On an independently adjudicated 384-pair split, the conflict-aware support guard reaches F1 0.8865 and false acceptance 0.0729; on unseen failure families, these rates are 0.8679 and 0.0938.

Abstract:Tool-using agents can expose citations and execution logs while leaving a critical association unaudited: whether the claim shown to a user is the claim emitted by the committed execution and supported by the cited source. A valid citation and a valid trace can therefore remain individually well formed while being transplanted across claims, actions, runs, or source versions. We introduce a claim-anchored execution contract that jointly binds the emitted claim, its exact source span, the ordered execution prefix that produced it, and the source version and access state observed by that execution. Each receipt contains an emission anchor that deterministically locates the claim inside a committed answer or claim-bearing action, together with source identifiers, offsets, hashes, quotes, and a domain-separated execution commitment. A deterministic integrity verifier reconstructs these bindings before semantic or task labels are joined. We separate this integrity plane from a pluggable support plane, so structural validity is not used as a proxy for entailment. The contract exposes seven independently testable properties: claim-emission binding, source binding, ordered-execution binding, oracle separation, persisted-object replay, execution-rerun consistency, and version/access binding. Across 1,280 cross-object attacks, the joint contract detects 1,275 substitutions (0.9961). Removing a targeted property reduces its attack-detection rate to 0.0156-0.0625. On an independently adjudicated 384-pair split, the conflict-aware support guard reaches F1 0.8865 and false acceptance 0.0729; on unseen failure families, these rates are 0.8679 and 0.0938.

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.00327 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2610.00327v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00327 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 332 words

Related coverage