Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research investigates the reliability of mathematical agents when their trusted computational tools are silently corrupted by plausible but incorrect data. The study demonstrates that mandatory verification policies fully restore accuracy to 100%, whereas optional checks only succeed if the model actively invokes them, highlighting a critical gap in current agent robustness. These findings provide essential guidance for building resilient AI systems that can detect and recover from silent tool failures without relying on model introspection alone.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum, LessWrong
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

When Tools Lie: Reliability of Mathematical Agents Under Corrupted Tool Feedback

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.08097v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical problem solving often requires deterministic computational steps that agents delegate to tools and implicitly trust. Yet tools can fail silently, returning plausible but incorrect results. How well can agents detect and correct corrupted tool call outputs? We study this through a controlled corruption framework where a hidden interceptor replaces tool call results with plausible incorrect information on targeted problems. We evaluate agents across 31 problems under four verification designs including no verification (baseline), mandatory same-context reflection, optional fresh-context verification, and optional structural verification. Without verification, corruption causes dramatic accuracy loss, from 100% down to 72.4%. Mandatory reflection fully recovers this performance to 100%. Optional verification improves accuracy only when models actively invoke it. Our results show that checking frequency is strongly associated with robustness differences, while unequal invocation prevents a controlled comparison of verifier quality. A supporting recovery experiment shows that full problem restart succeeds in 100% of cases after explicit detection. These findings demonstrate that verifier availability and verification policy are separate components of mathematical-agent reliability. Mandatory policies enforce verification while optional policies depend on the model's own choice to invoke it.

Abstract:Mathematical problem solving often requires deterministic computational steps that agents delegate to tools and implicitly trust. Yet tools can fail silently, returning plausible but incorrect results. How well can agents detect and correct corrupted tool call outputs? We study this through a controlled corruption framework where a hidden interceptor replaces tool call results with plausible incorrect information on targeted problems. We evaluate agents across 31 problems under four verification designs including no verification (baseline), mandatory same-context reflection, optional fresh-context verification, and optional structural verification. Without verification, corruption causes dramatic accuracy loss, from 100% down to 72.4%. Mandatory reflection fully recovers this performance to 100%. Optional verification improves accuracy only when models actively invoke it. Our results show that checking frequency is strongly associated with robustness differences, while unequal invocation prevents a controlled comparison of verifier quality. A supporting recovery experiment shows that full problem restart succeeds in 100% of cases after explicit detection. These findings demonstrate that verifier availability and verification policy are separate components of mathematical-agent reliability. Mandatory policies enforce verification while optional policies depend on the model's own choice to invoke it.

8 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables. Accepted to the 6th Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI (MathAI) at NeurIPS 2026

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

arXiv:2610.08097 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2610.08097v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.08097 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 · 305 words

Related coverage