TwinCheck: Evidence-Grounded Negative-Twin Verification for Stateful Tool Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Tool learning and function calling also fits: Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
A single locally plausible tool call can derail an otherwise successful agent trajectory. Suspicion alone does not justify intervention, because the replacement itself can introduce the very failure verification is meant to prevent. We introduce TwinCheck, an inference-time verification policy that considers replacement only when the trace satisfies an evidence condition tied to a trace-local failure hypothesis. It constructs a trace-grounded counterfactual alternative, a negative twin, and replaces the agent's proposal only if the twin passes structural checks and the pairwise verifier prefers it in both candidate orders. For paired evaluation, exact replay holds the agent's parsed responses and actions fixed until the first accepted replacement, separating intervention effects from resampling. In the primary analysis of 159 multi-turn BFCL V4 tasks with complete exact-replay pairs, the complete policy raises task success for GPT-5.6 Sol from 45.3% to 58.5% (95% task-bootstrap CI [8.2, 18.8]), with no observed success-to-failure regressions. Together, these findings recast execution-boundary repair as a constrained comparison, making the counterfactual action itself the object of verification.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.
Builds on
13 of 21 references.
References · 13
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2024Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Predictioncited by 465
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 249
- 2026AttriGuard: Defeating Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents via Causal Attribution of Tool Invocationscited by 33
- 2025SABER: Small Actions, Big Errors -- Safeguarding Mutating Steps in LLM Agentscited by 21
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Reinforced Agent: Inference-Time Feedback for Tool-Calling Agents
- 2026Evidence-Calibrated Runtime Reconstruction for Agent Skills Across Heterogeneous Coding Agents
- 2026Maintaining Benchmarks Against Increasingly Capable Agents: Detection and Remediation of Unearned Passes
- 2026Don't Blindly Trust It: How Unreliable Feedback Breaks Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
- 2026DNative-Twin: Decision Graphs and Digital Twins for Reconstructable Agentic Decisions
- 2026When Tools Fail: Benchmarking Dynamic Replanning and Anomaly Recovery in LLM Agents
- 2026ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents