Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.25525

StopLoss: Teaching Agents to Predict Failure and Stop Early

Jiarong Liang·Xueguang Ma·Dongfu Jiang·Yuxuan Zhang·Ping Nie·Wenhu Chen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Coding agents keep working on runs that will fail verification, and asking a frontier model to watch for this is expensive in its own right. We introduce StopLoss, a small external monitor that learns failure recognition from completed trajectories and their verifier outcomes. The name is inspired by the stop-loss order in finance: StopLoss ends a run early when the run is likely to fail, which saves resources. Final outcomes label earlier local windows, so a fine-tuned language model can score the most recent tool steps in a single forward pass, and a threshold calibrated on successful runs turns that score into an abort decision without changing the executor. Trained on GPT-family SWE-rebench trajectories and evaluated on SWE-bench Verified and a SWE-bench Pro subset with GPT and Claude executors, StopLoss is compared against six general-purpose judges reading identical windows. Outcome supervision lifts failure prediction from near chance to a useful signal at the first check, at one to two orders of magnitude lower cost per check than any tested judge. This translates into savings: relative to completing every task, StopLoss lowers cost per retained solve by 4.5\% on Verified while preserving 99\% of successful runs, and by up to 31\% on the costlier Pro subset, reaching 48\% with a Qwen3-8B backbone, and in all four settings its cost per retained solve is below that of every judge policy. Outcome-trained small monitors can make failure recognition cheap enough for early stopping to pay for itself.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiarong Liang, Xueguang Ma, Dongfu Jiang, Yuxuan Zhang, Ping Nie, Wenhu Chen. 2026-10-18. StopLoss: Teaching Agents to Predict Failure and Stop Early. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25525

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Agents-as-Peers: Bias-Controlled LLM Evaluation as Multi-Agent Peer Assessment

Large language model (LLM) evaluation commonly relies on fixed human-authored benchmarks or centralized human/model judges. Fixed benchmarks can age and enter model training corpora, while centralized judges introduce their own scoring preferences. We cast LLM evaluation as a multi-agent peer-assessment problem and introduce Agents-as-Peers, a distributed evaluation protocol in which every agent generates tasks, answers the shared task set, and judges the answers of its peers, with no privileged evaluator. Self-ratings are excluded from the ranking, and judging is repeated under controlled identity and presentation regimes so that self bias, identity effects, presentation-position sensitivity, and judge severity are measured rather than left implicit. In an instantiation with 12 LLMs and 420 agent-generated questions, Agents-as-Peers aggregates 55,440 non-self peer judgments per regime. Most agents assign their own answers higher scores than those answers receive from peer judges; visible identity changes scores for some agents; the first fixed answer slot is associated with scores 0.39 points higher than the shuffled baseline; and judges differ markedly in severity. On labeled benchmarks, peer scores align strongly with accuracy on TruthfulQA (Pearson r=0.904) and GSM8K (r=0.873). On TruthfulQA, the peer-score correlation is substantially higher than the self-score correlation (r=0.538). A benchmark-overlap screen and item-level human audit further characterize the endogenous task set. These results support Agents-as-Peers as a cohort-relative measurement protocol whose ranking is reported together with the biases and rater effects that shape it. Code and dataset: https://github.com/caura-ai/caura-PeerRank

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

From Debate to Decision: Conformal Social Choice for Safe Multi-Agent Deliberation

Multi-agent debate improves LLM reasoning, yet agreement is not evidence of correctness. When agents converge on a wrong answer through social reinforcement, consensus stopping commits that error to automated action with no recourse. We introduce Conformal Social Choice, a post-hoc layer that converts debate outputs into calibrated act-versus-escalate decisions. Verbalized probability distributions from heterogeneous agents are aggregated via a linear opinion pool and calibrated with split conformal prediction, yielding fixed-round marginal coverage: at any pre-specified round, the correct answer is included with probability ${\geq}\,1{-}α$, without assumptions on individual model calibration. A hierarchical action policy maps singletons to autonomous action and larger sets to human escalation. Across eight MMLU-Pro domains and two additional benchmarks, fixed-round coverage stays close to target. The key finding is not that debate becomes more accurate, but that the conformal layer makes its failures actionable: at the final round, 81.9\% of wrong-consensus cases are flagged by non-singleton sets at $α{=}0.05$. Separately, among cases that reach a singleton before the final round, accuracy reaches 90.0--96.8\% on MMLU-Pro (up to 22.1pp above consensus stopping): a selection effect, not a reasoning improvement. Simple probability- and entropy-threshold rules attain comparable interception; conformal's distinct value is a finite-sample fixed-round coverage guarantee together with explicit candidate sets for escalation. Adaptive first-singleton stopping is evaluated empirically and not covered by this guarantee.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Non-Stationarity Breaks Permutation Surrogates in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: Diagnosis and Remedies

Reporting guidance for information-theoretic measures is rarely tested against ground truth. We test one guardrail in two multi-agent reinforcement learning games, a social dilemma and a coordination race, where directed influence between selected agent pairs is zero by construction, over 100 seeds. Omitting one precondition, exclusion of the non-stationary training transient, gives false-positive rates of 100.00% and 99.95%: agents annealing exploration independently, in runs that never met, are flagged as influencing one another. Excluding the transient reaches 3.05% in the social dilemma but 11.8% in the coordination game, so the non-stationarity must be treated and exclusion is neither the only way nor sufficient. What we recommend instead changes the null model. Series, statistic and estimand are left untouched: permuting the source within blocks of training time reaches 5.25% and 5.50%, the only one of the three at or below the size of the test in both games. The construction is not new, being a restricted permutation local to blocks of training time; the measurement is. A third null control, four learners in the social dilemma, defeats all three, and there conditioning costs three times what ours does, 15.20 points against 4.55. Titrating injected links separates it from conditioning on identical pairs, 82.5% against 58.0%, while the ablated test reports a positive with or without a link, so its apparent sensitivity is uninformative. Five block counts spanning 16 to 256 land in the nominal region. Code and data are released.

cs.AI↗