mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Only the Final Text Survives: Implicit Execution Tracing for Multi-Agent Auditing

arXiv 2603.17445 ↗First posted 18 Mar 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When a multi-agent system produces an incorrect or harmful answer, who is accountable if execution logs and agent identifiers are unavailable? In practice, generated content is often detached from its execution environment due to privacy or system boundaries, leaving the final text as the only auditable artifact. Existing attribution methods rely on full execution traces and thus become ineffective in such metadata-deprived settings. We propose Implicit Execution Tracing (IET), a provenance-by-design framework that shifts attribution from post-hoc inference to built-in instrumentation. Rather than inferring provenance after the fact, IET embeds agent-specific, key-conditioned statistical signals into the token generation process at generation time, turning the output text into a self-verifying provenance record. An offline auditor, holding a verification registry that maps each agent to its key, then recovers segment-level provenance - segment boundaries and per-segment agent attribution - from the final text alone without access to execution logs or private traces. Experiments across diverse multi-agent coordination settings demonstrate that IET achieves accurate segment-level attribution and reliable transition recovery under identity removal, boundary corruption, and privacy-preserving redaction, while maintaining generation quality. These results show that embedding provenance into generation provides a practical foundation for accountability in multi-agent language systems under metadata loss.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2026.

Builds on

16 of 49 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,739
  2. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
  3. 2023Robust Distortion-free Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 279
  4. 2023Provable Robust Watermarking for AI-Generated Textcited by 259
  5. 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 121
  6. 2023Who Wrote this Code? Watermarking for Code Generationcited by 116
  7. 2024MarkLLM: An Open-Source Toolkit for LLM Watermarkingcited by 80
  8. 2023On the Learnability of Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 72
  9. 2021CoProtector: Protect Open-Source Code against Unauthorized Training Usage with Data Poisoningcited by 39
  10. 2025Who is Introducing the Failure? Automatically Attributing Failures of Multi-Agent Systems via Spectrum Analysiscited by 33
  11. 2023CodeMark: Imperceptible Watermarking for Code Datasets against Neural Code Completion Modelscited by 28
  12. 2025RECODE-H: A Benchmark for Research Code Development with Interactive Human Feedbackcited by 24
4 more
  1. 2025GraphTracer: Graph-Guided Failure Tracing in LLM Agents for Robust Multi-Turn Deep Searchcited by 22
  2. 2025Multi-Agent Autonomous Driving Systems with Large Language Models: A Survey of Recent Advancescited by 21
  3. 2024Large Language Models Are Involuntary Truth-Tellers: Exploiting Fallacy Failure for Jailbreak Attackscited by 17
  4. 2025Deep Research with Open-Domain Evaluation and Multi-Stage Guardrails for Safetycited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.