Cross-View Correspondence Is a Measurement Intervention: Two-Sided Validation for Agent Evaluation and Credit Assignment

Agent evaluations and trace-based learning often compare outputs across transformed views through a post-response correspondence treated as neutral preprocessing. We show that this correspondence is a measurement intervention: omitting it can manufacture sensitivity, an over-aggressive map can manufacture invariance, and multiple optimal correspondences can leave mechanism labels and signed learning credit unidentified. We develop a validity theory and audit with three components: two-sided validation of nuisance removal and response preservation, all-optima identification of downstream conclusions, and uncertainty propagation after validity is established. We characterize the linear feasibility boundary for response-preserving nuisance removal, compute sharp ranges over exact-optimum correspondence sets, and give a distribution-free certificate that retains a credit coordinate only when all exact optima agree on its nonzero sign. Across public code and SQL pipelines, two deterministic optimal tracebacks disagree on temporal localization for 55.9% of 1,586 nonzero trajectory pairs; two frozen 800-rollout tool-use audits, including a task-and-seed-disjoint replication, expose exact-optimum reversals of intended turn-level credit, although a clean public quick-start subset shows none. A pre-registered transport gate failed on natural responses; frozen corrected and held-out controls then show that a map calibrated only on benign examples erases every retained harmful response, while two-sided validation selects response-preserving alternatives. Cross-view correspondence must therefore be declared, validated, and propagated into uncertainty before agent evaluation or credit assignment supports a point conclusion.

Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems

Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input--output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends on how decisions unfold over time and under changing environmental conditions. This survey synthesizes 257 papers spanning agent evaluation, software assurance, cyber-physical systems, runtime monitoring, and regulatory guidance in order to characterize the validation problem for agentic systems. The review is organized around a five-dimension taxonomy covering behavioral, safety, temporal, regulatory, and multi-agent concerns, and uses that taxonomy to map current approaches and expose recurrent coverage gaps. The analysis shows that behavioral evaluation is comparatively mature, while temporal validity, runtime evidence maintenance, regulatory legibility, and open-ended multi-agent systems assurance remain under-developed. Three cross-domain case studies (medical care, industrial operations, smart-mobility systems) provide operational illustrations of how the five taxonomy dimensions recur in safety-critical settings, grounded in the failure patterns documented in the reviewed literature. The paper concludes with a lifecycle-oriented research agenda centered on bounded-autonomy specifications, adversarial trajectory generation, runtime monitoring, and audit-ready evidence structures. The central claim is that trustworthy deployment of agentic AI depends on validating trajectories in context rather than assessing isolated components alone.

A Tutorial on Autonomous Fault-Tolerant Control Using Knowledge-Grounded LLM Agents

Fault recovery in process plants still relies heavily on plant operators, especially when faults fall outside predefined supervisory logic. Operators interpret alarms, procedures, P\&IDs, interlocks, and process trends, then decide how to move the plant to a safe operating mode without triggering a shutdown. This paper examines how Large Language Model (LLM) agents can support such recovery decisions. The proposed framework treats the LLM as a constrained supervisory planner. It uses plant-specific knowledge to propose recovery actions, and every proposal is checked by an external validator (symbolic or simulation-based) before actuation. The paper develops three design dimensions for applying the framework: the recovery patterns for which LLM agents are useful, the validation strategies that separate admissible from inadmissible proposals, and the deployment constraints imposed by latency, knowledge engineering, safety integration, and model lifecycle management. To make the framework directly usable, two openly available executable Python environments are provided. Both re-implement established case studies, a modular mixing module and a continuous stirred-tank reactor, extended with configurable faults and defined interfaces for custom recovery and validation methods.

Hypothesis-Driven Skill Optimization for LLM Agents

External skills can improve action-oriented LLM agents without changing model weights, but persistent skill updates are risky when they are distilled from sparse or noisy trajectories. A plausible reflection may encode a useful procedure, a spurious shortcut, or a rule that the target executor cannot reliably follow. We propose Hypothesis-Driven Skill Optimization (HDSO), a train-free framework in which both the skill curator and the agent executor are frozen inference endpoints. The curator observes executor traces, proposes a falsifiable hypothesis with an explicit validation plan, instantiates the hypothesis as a candidate skill package, validates the package through paired control/treatment executions, reviews behavior differences, and consolidates only supported candidates into an approved repository. The executor consumes approved skills through progressive disclosure, preserving the executor-only path when no skill is selected. On ALFWorld, HDSO improves executor-only baselines by +6.9 Avg. SR points for Qwen3-8B and +4.0 points for Qwen3.6-27B. Under 20% randomly flipped success/failure feedback during skill discovery and validation, HDSO preserves a +7.1-point gain for Qwen3-8B. Transfer and heterogeneous-pair diagnostics further show that validated repositories can be useful beyond the run that produced them, but cross-model curation succeeds only when curator diagnosis, executor capability, and validation evidence align. HDSO provides an auditable skill lifecycle for frozen action agents rather than an unconstrained memory accumulation procedure.

Externalizing Research Synthesis and Validation in AI Scientists through a Research Harness

AI systems can increasingly automate scientific workflows, but the reasoning that links prior evidence, generated ideas, experiments and final claims often remains implicit inside model inference. Here we introduce Xcientist, a research harness that externalizes research synthesis and experimental validation into inspectable, contract-governed processes. Xcientist organizes literature evidence, idea states, implementation plans, ablation records and repair traces as persistent research artifacts, so that generated mechanisms can be grounded, executed, tested and revised without losing their evidential basis. We identify claim drift as a failure mode of automated research, where runnable artifacts no longer support the mechanism originally claimed. Across training-free memory systems, graph-structured traffic forecasting and multi-scale physics-informed neural networks, Xcientist preserves traceable trajectories from problem formulation to mechanism design, validation and bounded revision. These results suggest that AI scientists should be evaluated not only by their final artifacts, but by whether their synthesis and validation processes remain attributable, inspectable and scientifically accountable.