ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance
Updated 7 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294GK4APCN7D4SJ5JWTTCT4
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 7 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.09458
- T1 · 7 h ago
- Category
- cs.AI
- T1 · 7 h ago
Abstract
As LLM agents move from answering questions to carrying out procedures, failures can be unwarranted rather than visibly wrong: the final response looks acceptable even though the system skipped the check, branch, dependency, or invariant that made the answer justified. Output-only evaluation sees the answer, and trace-aware judging sees activity, but neither identifies which obligations were active for the query. We introduce CONTRACTEVAL, a diagnostic framework for making those active obligations explicit. It represents procedural instructions as query-active obligations and matches them against response or trace evidence, turning omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output-contract violations into distinct conformance failures. On a controlled suite of audited procedural contracts, output-only and trace-aware LLM judges miss many injected structural failures; under gold expected and observed graphs, ContractEval detects and localizes all of them. LLM-backed extraction preserves much of this signal but remains calibration-sensitive. ContractEval is therefore not a compliance guarantee; it makes procedural conformance auditable rather than implicit in final-answer quality.
Authors 4
Praphul Singh, Shanu Kumar, Akshat Agarwal, Ganesh Kumar
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.09458
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 7 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
7 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Praphul Singh, Shanu Kumar, Akshat Agarwal
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| As LLM agents move from answering questions to carrying out procedures, failures can be unwarranted rather than visibly wrong: the final response looks acceptable even though the system skipped the check, branch, dependency, or invariant that made the answer justified. Output-only evaluation sees the answer, and trace-aware judging sees activity, but neither identifies which obligations were active for the query. We introduce CONTRACTEVAL, a diagnostic framework for making those active obligations explicit. It represents procedural instructions as query-active obligations and matches them against response or trace evidence, turning omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output-contract violations into distinct conformance failures. On a controlled suite of audited procedural contracts, output-only and trace-aware LLM judges miss many injected structural failures; under gold expected and observed graphs, ContractEval detects and localizes all of them. LLM-backed extraction preserves much of this signal but remains calibration-sensitive. ContractEval is therefore not a compliance guarantee; it makes procedural conformance auditable rather than implicit in final-answer quality. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- New paperPaperContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance
New paper: ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI | feed | T1· Official | 5 h ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.