arXiv subjects

Srimonti Dutta

Publications and source records attributed to Srimonti Dutta.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Trace Integrity for LLM Data Agents: A Vision for Auditable Structured Reasoning in Real-World Systems

Answer accuracy is an insufficient reliability signal for LLM data agents. In structured-data tasks, a benchmark-correct answer can be produced by an invalid trace. This paper introduces Trace Integrity, a deployment reliability criterion for evaluating whether the computation recorded behind an answer is explicit, executable, schema-valid, operator-faithful, replayable, answer-consistent, and auditable. We identify the Structure Gap as the deployment failure mode that makes Trace Integrity necessary: natural-language reasoning and free-form rationales do not reliably specify the operator-level programs required by real-world systems. We operationalize Trace Integrity with execution contracts, structured artifacts that bind user intent to schema elements, operator plans, assumptions, executable queries, verification status, and final-answer linkage. We also introduce CAIT (Correct Answer / Invalid Trace) Rate, which measures how often answer-only evaluation counts computationally unsupported outputs as successes. In an empirical demonstration on BIRD Mini-Dev, Direct SQL, Operation Summary + SQL, and Contract-First SQL achieve answer accuracies of 20%, 22%, and 24%, while their Trace Integrity Pass Rates are 39%, 43%, and 40% and their CAIT Rates remain high at 55%, 59.1%, and 45.8%, showing that answer accuracy, trace validity, and silent-failure risk are distinct evaluation signals. Real-world LLM data agents should, therefore, be evaluated not only by whether their outputs match a reference answer, but by whether those outputs are backed by auditable computation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AgentRiskBOM: A Risk-Scoping Security Bill of Materials for Agentic AI Systems

Agentic AI systems retrieve private context, invoke tools, write files, call external services, coordinate with other agents, and may act without human approval. Existing bill of materials artifacts improve transparency for dependencies, model metadata, and training provenance, but leave an agentic transparency gap: capability opacity, the absence of a structured account of what a deployed agent can access, remember, change, delegate, and prove afterward. This paper introduces AgentRiskBOM, a security BOM for risk-scoping tool-using AI agents. It is an additive layer over SBOM, AIBOM, and MLBOM artifacts, referencing them where authoritative while adding fields for runtime authority: autonomy, tool permissions, memory, credential scope, approval gates, audit signals, inter-agent communication, and external action capability. We implement AgentRiskBOM as a JSON-schema artifact with a reproducible corpus, risk scenarios, scorer, diff detector, control mapper, and reports. We evaluate AgentRiskBOM on 13 open-source agents spanning coding, RAG, and multi-agent archetypes, plus 52 risk scenarios across 14 categories. The schema validates all 13 corpus artifacts. Coverage analysis gives AgentRiskBOM a native-equivalent score of 14 across 16 capability dimensions, vs. 1 for SBOM, 1.5 for AIBOM and 2 for MLBOM. Across modeled risk categories, AgentRiskBOM exposes 100% risk-category visibility vs. 10.5% for SBOM-like and 20.9% for AIBOM-like views. To test agentic authority drift, we inject 33 structured deployment mutations; the diff detector identifies the correct change type for all mutations. A secondary penalty-based scorer yields a Spearman correlation of 0.73 with the primary scorer, supporting rank-level consistency while showing that thresholds require human calibration. The results show that agentic AI security needs a machine-readable authority-and-risk artifact before incidents occur.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Mental Health AI Safety Claims Must Preserve Temporal Evidence

The safety of mental health AI is often judged at the wrong temporal scale. Current evaluations typically score isolated responses, endpoint outcomes, or aggregate dialogue quality, while clinically consequential failures may arise from the order and accumulation of interactions themselves, including delayed escalation, repeated reinforcement, dependency formation, failed repair, and gradual deterioration across turns. This paper argues that this mismatch is not merely a limitation of evaluation coverage but a source of invalid safety conclusions. We introduce Temporal Safety Non-Identifiability, a formal account of why safety properties that depend on sequence, timing, accumulation, or recovery cannot be certified by protocols that discard those features. From this formalization, we develop SCOPE (Safety Claims Over Preserved Evidence) as a general principle for aligning safety claims with the evidence an evaluation actually retains, and instantiate it as SCOPE-MH, a mental-health instantiation of this reporting standard. We operationalize SCOPE-MH through a proof-of-concept on the AnnoMI dataset of expert-annotated motivational interviewing conversations, which reveals mechanisms of failure that per-turn behavior scoring does not represent. We propose SCOPE-MH as a diagnostic complement to existing evaluation infrastructure and argue that evaluation preserving temporal evidence is necessary, not optional, for safety-critical mental health AI deployment.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Stability vs. Manipulability: Evaluating Robustness Under Post-Decision Interaction in LLM Judges

LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators. These pipelines typically assume that judgments are stable properties of fixed inputs. We show that this assumption does not hold under interaction. We study post-decision manipulability: the extent to which an evaluation outcome can be altered through subsequent conversation with the judge after an initial decision has been made. Across controlled experiments on MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, we find that LLM judges are highly stable under repeated and neutral reevaluation, yet become substantially reversible under targeted post-decision challenge. An anti-baseline challenge protocol shows that stable judgments can be overturned through motivated interaction, while a counterbalanced target-validation protocol separates this reversibility from net target-directed steering. These reversals have practical consequences: they can degrade agreement with human preferences, shift benchmark rankings, and produce harmful evaluation changes despite high self-reported confidence. Authority framing is especially destabilizing, and revised judgments are often accompanied by low-overlap justifications, suggesting post hoc rationalization rather than reliable error correction. We introduce the Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS) to quantify interactional robustness by combining reversal susceptibility with counterbalanced directional effects. Our findings identify post-decision interaction as a distinct failure mode for LLM-as-judge evaluation and motivate evaluation protocols that measure not only static agreement, but robustness under challenge.

cs.AI↗