mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SARC-DQ: Runtime Data-Quality Gating for Agentic AI: Silent Evidence Defects, the Incompetence Shield, and Downstream-Only Remediation

arXiv 2607.26313 ↗First posted 28 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.CYcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic systems act, so a defect in the evidence they retrieve becomes a wrong action with a currency cost. The most dangerous enterprise defects are metadata-borne: a stale price or a superseded record, perfectly well-formed in the payload and betrayed only by freshness, lineage, or provenance. Such a defect never enters the agent's context, and an agent cannot doubt data it cannot see. On a priced replenishment benchmark, a competent agent silently converts an injected metadata-borne defect into a costly action about 60% of the time, with zero data-quality flags and behavioral doubt markers at chance (AUC <= 0.50). Across four model tiers spanning roughly 15x in inference price, the rate stays flat: capability does not buy skepticism. A metadata-aware pre-action gate with downstream-only remediation recovers the loss fully on the signals its predicates cover and not at all on those they miss. A model-free oracle derived from the task's decision geometry tracks the measured rates with MAE 0.015 (Pearson r = 0.876, interval coverage 15/16 cells), giving the flat ladder an analytical form. Evidence integrity is a systems axis distinct from model capability; mitigation depends on enforcement placement and predicate coverage. Code, frozen results, and a deterministic analysis pipeline: https://github.com/besanson/dqSarc

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

Builds on

8 of 17 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026SARC: A Governance-by-Architecture Framework for Agentic AI Systems8 May
  2. 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar
  3. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 5

  1. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  2. 2024Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instructioncited by 38
  3. 2024Tools Fail: Detecting Silent Errors in Faulty Toolscited by 23
  4. 2015Truth Finding on the Deep Web: Is the Problem Solved?cited by 10
  5. 2026Green SARC: Predictive Cost and Carbon Governance for Agentic AI Systemscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Sanity Checks for Agentic Data Science
  2. 2026When Agents Overtrust Environmental Evidence: An Extensible Agentic Framework for Benchmarking Evidence-Grounding Defects in LLM Agents
  3. 2026Engineering Reliable Commit Gates for Agentic AI: Cost-Aware Verification Portfolios under Common-Mode Data Failures
  4. 2026Trust Is Not a Score: Runtime Assurance Contracts for High-Risk AI Agents
  5. 2026Causality Laundering: Denial-Feedback Leakage in Tool-Calling LLM Agents
  6. 2026Agentic Commerce Bench: Measuring Fraud Detection for Agents That Spend Money
  7. 2026Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
  8. 2026Teach it to stop, not just to click