Strained Coherence: A Pre-Failure Signal in Coding Agent Execution Trajectories
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Strained Coherence: A Pre-Failure Signal in Coding Agent Execution Trajectories
Abstract:LLM-based coding agents sometimes acknowledge a problem in their own reasoning and then proceed anyway. We call this pattern strained coherence: a safety-relevant failure mode in which an agent has information that should change its behavior, states that information, and still acts against it. The pattern overlaps with verbalized reward hacking, where an agent names a tension between a task proxy and the underlying goal yet optimizes the proxy anyway. We give an operational definition, build a Claude Sonnet 4.6 judge that reads full trajectories and flags spans where the pattern occurs, and evaluate it on 44 Terminal-bench-2 trajectories using a Qwen3.5-35B-A3B backbone. Flagged trajectories fail 94% of the time versus 46% for unflagged trajectories (47-point gap, Fisher's exact p = 0.003; 46 points after excluding three prompt-embedded examples, p = 0.006). At matched selectivity, the detector reaches 94% precision versus 88% for a lexical discourse-marker baseline; the 10-trajectory intersection of the two methods has a 100% failure rate (Clopper-Pearson 95% CI [69%, 100%]). We replicate on Gemma4-31B with 43 trajectories: the overall signal is directionally consistent but not significant (20-point gap, p = 0.31), with attenuation driven largely by 13 trajectories with zero think content, where the detector has no substrate to analyze. In the high-verbosity Gemma tertile, the gap is +30 points; in the mid- and high-verbosity Qwen tertiles, it is +40 points each. The first flag appears at a median of 83-84% of elapsed trajectory time across both models, and the binary flag survives paraphrases that soften explicit conflict markers (8/8 trajectories). Unlike univariate predictors, the detector emits interpretable span-level output -- quoted acknowledgment, quoted action, and typed conflict -- showing what the agent saw and ignored.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.07889 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2606.07889v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.07889
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Offline Reinforcement Learning for Plasma Control in Nuclear Fusion: Codebase and Benchmark
Jun 9
-
MedicalRec: Medical recommender system for image classification without retraining
Jun 9
-
SPIN: Decentralized Swarm Control via Tensorized Policy Coordination
Jun 9
-
Boundary Variance Inflation Causes Acquisition Bias in Gaussian Processes
Jun 9
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.