Trace Integrity for LLM Data Agents: A Vision for Auditable Structured Reasoning in Real-World Systems
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Answer accuracy is an insufficient reliability signal for LLM data agents. In structured-data tasks, a benchmark-correct answer can be produced by an invalid trace. This paper introduces Trace Integrity, a deployment reliability criterion for evaluating whether the computation recorded behind an answer is explicit, executable, schema-valid, operator-faithful, replayable, answer-consistent, and auditable. We identify the Structure Gap as the deployment failure mode that makes Trace Integrity necessary: natural-language reasoning and free-form rationales do not reliably specify the operator-level programs required by real-world systems. We operationalize Trace Integrity with execution contracts, structured artifacts that bind user intent to schema elements, operator plans, assumptions, executable queries, verification status, and final-answer linkage. We also introduce CAIT (Correct Answer / Invalid Trace) Rate, which measures how often answer-only evaluation counts computationally unsupported outputs as successes. In an empirical demonstration on BIRD Mini-Dev, Direct SQL, Operation Summary + SQL, and Contract-First SQL achieve answer accuracies of 20%, 22%, and 24%, while their Trace Integrity Pass Rates are 39%, 43%, and 40% and their CAIT Rates remain high at 55%, 59.1%, and 45.8%, showing that answer accuracy, trace validity, and silent-failure risk are distinct evaluation signals. Real-world LLM data agents should, therefore, be evaluated not only by whether their outputs match a reference answer, but by whether those outputs are backed by auditable computation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 3 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.
Builds on
3 of 14 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026TraceSQL: Traceable Answerability Estimation for Reference-Free Text-to-SQL Verification
- 2026ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance
- 2025Semantic Integrity Constraints: Declarative Guardrails for AI-Augmented Data Processing Systems
- 2026Never the Number: Structural Abstention for AI Systems Whose Answers Are Consumed as Fact
- 2026DBA-Bench: A Production-Fidelity Benchmark for LLM-Based Database Operations Agents
- 2026Business Truth, not SQL Accuracy: A Rule-Gated 7B Analytics Agent Outperforms a Direct-Prompted 32B Baseline
- 2026ACTS-SQL: Agentic and Critic-Oriented Tree-Structured SQL Correctness with Large Language Models
- 2025BAPPA: Benchmarking Agents, Plans, and Pipelines for Automated Text-to-SQL Generation