mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Trace Integrity for LLM Data Agents: A Vision for Auditable Structured Reasoning in Real-World Systems

arXiv 2608.26036 ↗First posted 26 Aug 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

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

  1. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
  2. 2017Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learningcited by 687
  3. 2019TabFact: A Large-scale Dataset for Table-based Fact Verificationcited by 428

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026TraceSQL: Traceable Answerability Estimation for Reference-Free Text-to-SQL Verification
  2. 2026ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance
  3. 2025Semantic Integrity Constraints: Declarative Guardrails for AI-Augmented Data Processing Systems
  4. 2026Never the Number: Structural Abstention for AI Systems Whose Answers Are Consumed as Fact
  5. 2026DBA-Bench: A Production-Fidelity Benchmark for LLM-Based Database Operations Agents
  6. 2026Business Truth, not SQL Accuracy: A Rule-Gated 7B Analytics Agent Outperforms a Direct-Prompted 32B Baseline
  7. 2026ACTS-SQL: Agentic and Critic-Oriented Tree-Structured SQL Correctness with Large Language Models
  8. 2025BAPPA: Benchmarking Agents, Plans, and Pipelines for Automated Text-to-SQL Generation