analiza aiqbench
This survey establishes a critical framework for verifying LLM agent behavior by linking final outputs to their underlying evidence, tool usage, and memory lineage. It shifts the focus from simple answer accuracy to process-level accountability, providing a taxonomy essential for debugging, auditing, and ensuring safety in autonomous systems. For developers and researchers, this work highlights the necessity of unified trace schemas and semantic provenance to build trustworthy agent architectures.
From Agent Traces to Trust: Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents
arXiv:2606.04990v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks by interacting with external tools, retrieval systems, memory modules, environments, and other agents. These capabilities expand agent autonomy, but also make agent behavior harder to verify, debug, and audit. Final-answer accuracy alone cannot explain how an output was produced, which evidence supported each claim, whether tool calls were justified, how memory influenced later decisions, or where execution failures originated. Evidence tracing and execution provenance address this gap by modeling how retrieved evidence, tool outputs, memory items, environment observations, intermediate claims, actions, and final answers are connected throughout agent execution. This survey provides a systematic review and conceptual framework for evidence tracing and execution provenance in LLM agents. We organize related work around a unified provenance perspective that connects retrieval grounding, claim support, tool-use safety, memory lineage, observability, debugging, audit, and recovery. We introduce a taxonomy covering trace sources, evidence and execution units, provenance relations, tracing granularity and timing, representation forms, and trust functions. We review key methodological directions, including provenance representation, evidence attribution, tool-use provenance, runtime guardrails, provenance-bearing memory, trace-based observability, and failure diagnosis. We also map existing benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation metrics to provenance-related capabilities, and discuss how evaluation can move from final-answer correctness toward process-level accountability. Finally, we outline open challenges, including unified trace schemas, claim-level and semantic provenance, provenance-aware safety mechanisms, realistic execution-trace benchmarks, recovery-oriented evaluation, and privacy-aware audit infrastructure.
Abstract:Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks by interacting with external tools, retrieval systems, memory modules, environments, and other agents. These capabilities expand agent autonomy, but also make agent behavior harder to verify, debug, and audit. Final-answer accuracy alone cannot explain how an output was produced, which evidence supported each claim, whether tool calls were justified, how memory influenced later decisions, or where execution failures originated. Evidence tracing and execution provenance address this gap by modeling how retrieved evidence, tool outputs, memory items, environment observations, intermediate claims, actions, and final answers are connected throughout agent execution. This survey provides a systematic review and conceptual framework for evidence tracing and execution provenance in LLM agents. We organize related work around a unified provenance perspective that connects retrieval grounding, claim support, tool-use safety, memory lineage, observability, debugging, audit, and recovery. We introduce a taxonomy covering trace sources, evidence and execution units, provenance relations, tracing granularity and timing, representation forms, and trust functions. We review key methodological directions, including provenance representation, evidence attribution, tool-use provenance, runtime guardrails, provenance-bearing memory, trace-based observability, and failure diagnosis. We also map existing benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation metrics to provenance-related capabilities, and discuss how evaluation can move from final-answer correctness toward process-level accountability. Finally, we outline open challenges, including unified trace schemas, claim-level and semantic provenance, provenance-aware safety mechanisms, realistic execution-trace benchmarks, recovery-oriented evaluation, and privacy-aware audit infrastructure.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.04990 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2606.04990v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.04990 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 330 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents
arXiv · 16 iun. 2026
From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents
arXiv · 12 sept. 2026
From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents
arXiv · 17 iun. 2026

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · 16 sept. 2026