TwinCheck: Evidence-Grounded Negative-Twin Verification for Stateful Tool Agents
cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-09-22
Updated: 2026-10-06
Comments: Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop Who Verifies the Agents? Toward Reliable Agent Development; Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Third Workshop on Agents in the Wild: Safety, Security, and Beyond
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
The gist: A single locally plausible tool call can derail an otherwise successful agent trajectory.
Terminology
Abstract
A single locally plausible tool call can derail an otherwise successful agent trajectory. Suspicion alone does not justify intervention, because the replacement itself can introduce the very failure verification is meant to prevent. We introduce TwinCheck, an inference-time verification policy that considers replacement only when the trace satisfies an evidence condition tied to a trace-local failure hypothesis. It constructs a trace-grounded counterfactual alternative, a negative twin, and replaces the agent's proposal only if the twin passes structural checks and the pairwise verifier prefers it in both candidate orders. For paired evaluation, exact replay holds the agent's parsed responses and actions fixed until the first accepted replacement, separating intervention effects from resampling. In the primary analysis of 159 multi-turn BFCL V4 tasks with complete exact-replay pairs, the complete policy raises task success for GPT-5.6 Sol from 45.3% to 58.5% (95% task-bootstrap CI [8.2, 18.8]), with no observed success-to-failure regressions. Together, these findings recast execution-boundary repair as a constrained comparison, making the counterfactual action itself the object of verification.
Sources
- CausalFlow: Causal Attribution and Counterfactual Repair for LLM Agent Failures
- Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?
- CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing
- AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocations
- Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet
- Let's Verify Step by Step
- DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems
- Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
- Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge
- Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
- GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning
- ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
- $\tau$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains
- Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction
Related papers
- MAVEN-T: Reinforced Heterogeneous Distillation for Real-Time Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction
- Model Discovery Agent: LLM-assisted Bayesian experiment design for data-efficient discovery of mechanistic world models
- Agents' Last Exam
- The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
- MindHelper: Closed-Loop Embodied Mental-State Reasoning for Precision Intervention
- Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems