Local verification cannot detect non-transportability: a cohomological theory of context preservation in agentic reasoning
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic AI systems routinely transport conclusions across biological, clinical and financial contexts, and the emerging safeguard is local verification: checking at each step that the entity is representable in the chosen tool, that parameters are compatible, and that outputs cohere with the plan. We prove this class of safeguard is structurally incomplete. Modelling a covering of context space by its nerve and evidence by a real-valued 1-cochain, an agent chaining evidence performs path integration: its conclusion is path-independent if and only if the cochain is exact, and disagreement between valid reasoning paths is exactly the holonomy of a first Cech cohomology class. Hodge decomposition partitions evidence conflict into a gradient part (calibration), a curl part (local inconsistency, visible at triple overlaps) and a harmonic part. Our central result is that no family of simplex-supported consistency checks can distinguish omega from omega+h for harmonic h, which nonetheless generates non-zero disagreement between valid paths; detection requires a statistic on a cycle basis. The resulting procedure, Ksetra, estimates by coboundary projection and gates abstention on the harmonic component, which we give a mechanism: it arises from effect modification combined with overlap-specific population composition, and vanishes to machine precision when effect modification is absent. The degrees of freedom of an evidence network partition into calibration, coherence and transport, yielding an exact F-test for the existence of a global claim; we quantify its distortion under unequal precision and supply the precision-whitened form that restores exactness. Foreign exchange, where the arbitrage-free null makes the cochain exactly a coboundary, serves as a calibration bench: the test is correctly sized, fires on loop arbitrage, and ignores triangular arbitrage.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 4 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.
Builds on
4 of 21 references.
References · 4
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 799
- 2023ReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMscited by 297
- 2015External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populationscited by 75
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Verification and Self-Improvement in Agentic AI: Foundations and Limits
- 2026Evidence-Grounded Verified Agentic Reasoning: A Path Toward Eliminating LLM Hallucination in Empirical Inference via Tool-Attested Kernel Proofs
- 2026Project Ariadne: A Structural Causal Framework for Auditing Faithfulness in LLM Agents
- 2026Containment Verification: AI Safety Guarantees Independent of Alignment
- 2026Verify Before You Commit: Towards Faithful Reasoning in LLM Agents via Self-Auditing
- 2026Stored Is Not Supported: Typed Provenance and Assertion Guardrails for Persistent AI Agents
- 2025The Recursive Coherence Principle: A Formal Constraint on Scalable Intelligence, Alignment, and Reasoning Architecture
- 2026Viva La Vida: Verification and Accumulation Failures in Multi-Agent Proof Search