aiqbench analysis
ContractEval addresses the critical gap in evaluating LLM agents by shifting focus from superficial output correctness to verifying adherence to underlying procedural obligations and logical constraints. This framework enables auditors to detect subtle structural failures—such as skipped branches or invariant breaches—that traditional trace-aware methods often miss, ensuring that agent actions are justified rather than merely plausible.
ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance
arXiv:2609.09458v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents move from answering questions to carrying out procedures, failures can be unwarranted rather than visibly wrong: the final response looks acceptable even though the system skipped the check, branch, dependency, or invariant that made the answer justified. Output-only evaluation sees the answer, and trace-aware judging sees activity, but neither identifies which obligations were active for the query. We introduce CONTRACTEVAL, a diagnostic framework for making those active obligations explicit. It represents procedural instructions as query-active obligations and matches them against response or trace evidence, turning omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output-contract violations into distinct conformance failures. On a controlled suite of audited procedural contracts, output-only and trace-aware LLM judges miss many injected structural failures; under gold expected and observed graphs, ContractEval detects and localizes all of them. LLM-backed extraction preserves much of this signal but remains calibration-sensitive. ContractEval is therefore not a compliance guarantee; it makes procedural conformance auditable rather than implicit in final-answer quality.
Abstract:As LLM agents move from answering questions to carrying out procedures, failures can be unwarranted rather than visibly wrong: the final response looks acceptable even though the system skipped the check, branch, dependency, or invariant that made the answer justified. Output-only evaluation sees the answer, and trace-aware judging sees activity, but neither identifies which obligations were active for the query. We introduce CONTRACTEVAL, a diagnostic framework for making those active obligations explicit. It represents procedural instructions as query-active obligations and matches them against response or trace evidence, turning omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output-contract violations into distinct conformance failures. On a controlled suite of audited procedural contracts, output-only and trace-aware LLM judges miss many injected structural failures; under gold expected and observed graphs, ContractEval detects and localizes all of them. LLM-backed extraction preserves much of this signal but remains calibration-sensitive. ContractEval is therefore not a compliance guarantee; it makes procedural conformance auditable rather than implicit in final-answer quality.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.09458 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.09458v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09458 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 · 257 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · Sep 13, 2026
SkillResolve-Bench: Measuring and Resolving Same-Capability Ambiguity in Agent Skill Retrieval
arXiv · Jun 10, 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026