Skip to content
Preprint

HERALD: Counterfactual Audits and Minimal Repairs for Proof-of-Retrieval Rewards

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 32 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

HERALD is introduced, an offline audit that applies exact same-question interventions, separates candidate-visible from oracle information, and enumerates detector contracts before policy optimization, and separates robust scoring, sparse learning signal, and policy transfer.

Abstract

Search-agent rewards mix answer quality, citation grounding, tool cost, and anti-hacking terms; a high score therefore need not imply that cited evidence was retrieved, and added penalties can cancel. We introduce HERALD, an offline audit that applies exact same-question interventions, separates candidate-visible from oracle information, and enumerates detector contracts before policy optimization. On four Qwen3-8B pools from HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue, $R_0$ rejects search deletion and fake IDs, but a label-free citation-laundering attack succeeds. A complete $2^3$ ablation identifies targeted strengthening of $L$---citing a corpus passage absent from the retrieved evidence---as the observed inclusion-minimal repair: $R[L]$ has zero empirical ASR with a 0.50% one-sided cluster upper bound. The gap persists across pool rules, a visible BM25 attacker, and four models; broader hardening remains vulnerable when the attack removes an oracle support-ID penalty. Under strict 5M-token matched training evaluated on 256 paired questions per benchmark, $R[L]$ meets the EM non-inferiority gate on HotpotQA and 2Wiki but not MuSiQue. Equal-suite citation precision and support recall improve by 2.02 and 1.46 points, unsupported citations fall by 1.69, and laundering attackability falls on 2Wiki and MuSiQue. Natural $L$ is not reduced, and the detector appears in only 18 of 58,368 training trajectories. HERALD thus separates robust scoring, sparse learning signal, and policy transfer.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Counterfactual Sensitivity Is Not Repairability: Auditing Replay Probes for Video Evidence

CARVE is introduced, a black-box counterfactual probe that compares answer changes under matched SHAM and DESTROY replays, and shows only a weak association with annotated temporal coverage, so CARVE is best understood as a routing signal rather than a direct grounding classifier.

Rama AlHamidi, Rasul Khanbayov, E. Serpedin et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions

A failed retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) answer can be consistent with several unseen responses to evidence repair. We introduce Pair-ID, an offline audit that holds one query, retrieval state, and reader constant, then crosses two operations, adding missing support and deleting verified nonsupport, to measure a same-failure counterfactual response vector. A complete funnel over 19,981 benchmark queries identifies 11,105 eligible Qwen failures, from which a prospectively fixed SHA-256 ordering selects 1,200 before generating any sampled response. Among 1,190 regenerated-valid failures, support addition repairs 197/600 JOINT cases (0.328, 95% CI [0.292, 0.367]), and deletion repairs 162/1,190 cases (0.136, 95% CI [0.117, 0.155]); length- and position-matched shams retain semantic contrasts of 0.223 and 0.101. The original view carries partial predictive signal for individual response cells (macro AUROC 0.678; Brier 0.152 versus 0.160 for a marginal baseline), but exact-vector accuracy, 0.637, does not exceed the 0.646 majority-vector baseline, and vector macro-F1 is 0.170. Across four readers, both marginal sensitivities recur, while pooled exact-vector agreement is 0.675-0.765 and JOINT-only agreement falls to 0.538-0.691. These results show that evidence sensitivity occurs at meaningful rates in the hash-selected eligible-failure sample, is only partially predictable from the observed failure, and is conditional on the reader. The evidence supports a frame-scoped offline response audit, not an information-theoretic impossibility result, reader-independent taxonomy, or runtime repair policy.

Wenzhang Du · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents

A benchmark that evaluates whether LLM auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures through evidence-grounded adjudication, and proposes SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures through evidence-grounded adjudication.

Zhixiang Liang, Yifei Liu, Yi-Dan Huang et al. · 0 citations
Book Open access Jul 2026

Deletion Isn't Enough: Auditing RAG for Selective Forgetting

For information access systems, it is not enough for outputs or answers to be relevant or correct; they must also be permitted. This paper highlights a research gap: non-disclosure obligations often concern propositions that must not be stated, while deployed Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems enforce restrictions through record-level handling such as document removal or access-control lists. Such systems can appear compliant while still disclosing revoked facts in generated answers. Most RAG evaluations fail to assess this important aspect of compliance. We explore the nature of this gap and introduce Forgetting-by-Design (FBD), a mechanism-agnostic audit that runs probes across paired system states before and after revocation. FBD separates compliance into two observable channels---retrieval/citation exposure and answer-level disclosure or abstention ---and reports the cost of compliance using matched lawful controls and substitution-aware utility signals. We instantiate FBD in a reproducible RAG setting and show how the resulting report card reveals failures that single metrics miss: retrieval exposure can be suppressed while answer-level leakage persists, and interventions that reduce disclosure can still degrade lawful utility or collapse citation coverage.

Leila Tavakoli, Mark Sanderson · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

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.

Pei-ke Zhu, Sidi Chang · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

What survives honest evaluation? Leakage-safe, search-aware assessment of LLM-driven trading strategy discovery

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to discover trading strategies, and much of the resulting literature shares a methodological weakness: many candidate strategies are generated, the best is reported, and neither look-ahead bias nor the intensity of the search behind the reported result is corrected for. We present a strategy-discovery system that makes both corrections structural rather than procedural. First, the agent can only act through registry-validated tools whose feature space excludes look-ahead by construction; we show that this guardrail is not redundant with statistical correction: a deliberately leaky oracle posting a Sharpe ratio of 35 survives Deflated Sharpe and probability-of-backtest-overfitting testing completely. Second, the system records every strategy evaluation its search performs and deflates all reported performance by that trial count, tracing how the best in-sample Sharpe ratio climbs with each trial while the deflation threshold, driven by the agent's own search, climbs faster. Across a 453-stock point-in-time US equity universe and a 39-ETF multi-asset universe with realistic transaction, impact, and borrow costs, honest evaluation certifies passive benchmarks (out-of-sample confidence intervals excluding zero), rejects every LLM-discovered strategy (across two frontier models, search budgets up to one hundred candidates, and five repeated runs), catching selection luck, predicted rank degradation, and out-of-sample collapse through complementary instruments, and evaluates a human trader's production rule system under identical instruments. The framework formalizes why pre-registered hypotheses earn lower evidential bars than brute search, and quantifies the sample sizes that credible certification of moderate edges actually requires.

Eray Gençay · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.