mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

arXiv 2609.01992 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CR cs.MAcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

Builds on

10 of 21 references.

References · 10

  1. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  2. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
  3. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
  4. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
  5. 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 308
  6. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 219
  7. 2014An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environmentcited by 26
  8. 2026When Outcome Looks Right But Discipline Fails: Trace-Based Evaluation Under Hidden Competitor Statecited by 2
  9. 2026When Aggregate Alignment Misleads: Auditing Policy Repair Without Per-State Expert Actionscited by 2
  10. 2026When Guardrails Look Effective: Construct Validity Failures in LLM Agent Commerce Evaluationcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.