CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 15, 2026

Grounded Continuation: A Linear-Time Runtime Verifier for LLM Conversations

arXiv AI Archived May 15, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.14175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In long conversations, an LLM can produce a next utterance that sounds plausible but rests on premises the conversation has already abandoned. Context-manipulation attacks against deployed agents now actively exploit this gap. We close it with a runtime verifier that maintains an explicit dependency graph: an LLM classifies each turn into one of 8 update operations drawn from four formalisms (dynamic epistemic logic, abductive reasoning, awareness

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 13 May 2026] Grounded Continuation: A Linear-Time Runtime Verifier for LLM Conversations Qisong He, Yi Dong, Xiaowei Huang In long conversations, an LLM can produce a next utterance that sounds plausible but rests on premises the conversation has already abandoned. Context-manipulation attacks against deployed agents now actively exploit this gap. We close it with a runtime verifier that maintains an explicit dependency graph: an LLM classifies each turn into one of 8 update operations drawn from four formalisms (dynamic epistemic logic, abductive reasoning, awareness logic, argumentation), and a symbolic engine records which claims depend on which evidence. Checking whether a continuation is supported reduces to a graph walk; retraction propagates through the same graph to flag exactly the conclusions that lose support, with linear per-turn cost and a formal conflict-free guarantee. On LongMemEval-KU oracle (n=78), the verifier reaches 89.7% accuracy vs. 88.5% for the LLM-only baseline (+1.3pp) and 87.2% for a transcript-RAG baseline matched on retrieval budget (+2.6pp); wins among disagreements are correct abstentions where the baseline confabulates. On LoCoMo's 60 official QA items the verifier is competitive with retrieval-augmented baselines. Beyond external benchmarks, we construct two multi-agent scenarios and a 50-item grounding test: on the 15-item stale-premise subset, the verifier reaches 100% accuracy vs. 93.3% (+6.7pp). These instantiate a soundness-faithfulness decomposition: the structural check is sound by construction, and per-deployment LLM extraction faithfulness is the empirical question we measure across four LLM families. The retraction check plateaus at microseconds while history-replay grows linearly with conversation length. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.14175 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.14175v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.14175 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Qisong He [view email] [v1] Wed, 13 May 2026 22:54:16 UTC (91 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 15, 2026
    Archived
    May 15, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗